So what do you expect? I personally dont know.

I just hope qualification for UEFA Euro competitions is more sensible instead of pitting David vs Golliath every time that it becomes a farce. as for Champions League, I agree with Platini's format about all knockout rounds but disagree that England and Spain and Italy should have 3 representitives. they are too big a league to have 3 if i am being honest.

Me too disagree that he want to reduce the slot for this 3 countries. Soon, we can watch in the final UCL team like Levski Sofia vs FK Varder Skopje. Who want to see this final?

I think, he just want the vote from the smaller country to become the president of UEFA.



This post has been edited by slacx: Jan 27 2007, 06:05 AM

i thought he would go for only 1 or 2 and give the French clubs more slots in CL. but agree that would compromise the quality of the CL itself. 3 teams from each league mentioned are still ok but not less than that.

I personally think 3 is fine as well. Having 4 has always been the "farce" so to speak since u're talking about the "Champions" League after all. Allowing representation from more European countries is a better move for the long term. Otherwise u would see the gap growing even larger between the G14 clubs and the rest which isn't good for UEFA.

The format will stay as it is. The money involved will see to that. And to suggest that reducing the 3 top leagues' participants to 3 will reduce the quality of football is abit moot since the big clubs almost always feature in the latter stages anyway.

increase the number of teams then....make the Champions get a bye in first few rounds (since platini is making it a KO tournament through and through) whereas the rest will get to grind it out. I think we have to accept the fact that certain leagues are bigger than others. Not seeing a Liverpool or a Arsenal next season will be farcical. not seeing Sevilla or Valencia will be equally farcical. its not about QUALITY and QUANTITY.

i doubt we should sacrifice one for another.

The format won't be changed to a Cup KO competition like the old European cups. Platini has already said that there was no way that was happening.

And increase the number of teams to what? 32 is already a large number. We already have qulification stages that involve alot of teams as well. And despite your claims that not having Arsenal, Liverpool, Valencia in the competition is farcical...i beg to differ. They aren't the champions of their respective leagues and the original idea of having a European competition in the 1st place is to have the champions squaring off against each other. Having 3 teams to represent a country is more than enough. Quality won't be sacrificed anyway because u still have the top 3 teams from the top leagues and most of them if not all will still end up in the latter stages.
Besides won't this improve the quality of the UEFA Cup a notch as well?

even with the FC Basels, the Copenhagens and the other "champions" facing off, they will never win the Champions League.. and I still do believe that Platini is slowly wanting a change in format of the Champions League. If I remembered correctly, Platini was not a fan of the "league" format and wanted to be "Cup". and as for not having valencia and liverpool there is ok, i cannot agree. we want to see the best in Europe. and not the "best of the rest". And yes 32 is a big number but give "byes" to the Champions of the respective leagues? and still mantain the number of 32 by giving places to teams from "other leagues" I am no planner for UEFA and I guess that teams will disagree as a lost of revenue but less matches =more chances to win the Champions League for me .

EDIT: the quality of UEFA Cup will still be OKAY if/when the third team in each group goes down to the UEFA Cup. so we could still have big teams down there.

This post has been edited by kobe8byrant: Jan 27 2007, 12:41 PM

Platini isn't a fan of the league format but he has since said that he won't make any drastic changes as there would be huge opposition to that format as it generates less revenue.

We want to see the best in Europe and we will still see the best in Europe. We are not giving free candies to associations with weaker leagues. They all still have to go through the qualifying round. They just have a better chance of making it through to the first round. And we all know that the 1st rd and the KO rounds will filter all the weaker teams out leaving only the best teams to fight it out; which is what we want in the first place.

The only reason why there is opposition against Platini's suggestions is because of money. And that shouldn't be appluaded in any way. The G-14 clubs hold alot of power as it is. Driving them towards creating their own super league is a no-no to me. It's not like changing it to 3 teams that we will suddenly see Copenhagen winning the CL. It's just giving a chance for the smaller clubs to represent their country in the limelight even if for a short period. They all are after all part of UEFA.

dat ought to heat up the game in england where the big 4 would have to slug it out for only 3 spots. wasnt suprised at all about platini's victory

We can see this big team win by 5-0 or 7-0 for every match against champion in the smaller country. Still the club in the smaller country is not match against club in England, ITaly and Spain IMHO.

possibly true.but i also agree with theripper, to add slots for French club

I always want to see the best football; so definitely no to just having 3 teams from each country in the CL.

In the end money will call the shots and I doubt Platini will be able to implement any changes in club football. He'll be doing a great job by just keeping everything together and eliminating racism.

I think Platini will try to tighten up football laws against EU labour laws. Putting 5-7 homegrown players in a team is really a faulty and poor idea. I just hope football players are not allowed to choose which national team they want to play for. Since when do you choose your nationality?

as for homegrown, i am with it. sorry. although homegrown players have inflated fees (most prominent in england but its a lie to say spain or italy dont suffer as well), we want to see the best english players in england and not in other countries. besides for some clubs, the players are good enough but the team doesnt field them because they are not star enough or they rather BUY talent than groom one. so yes to homegrown. its only faulty when a team doesnt groom players properly.

as for 3 teams. i say stick with 4 but give the champions a bye. that way, the "not so good" teams can play in the league round and get a chance. thats what i think

EDIT: choosing nationality is under FIFA, no?

This post has been edited by kobe8byrant: Jan 29 2007, 05:55 PM

Champions League should be for the champions of each UEFA country... i.e. one team from each country...
Quality will drop, yes i think having 4th placed teams in there is lame

So would you want to see the champions of say Montenegro every year?

The champions of Montenegro wouldn't be able to qualify for the group stage regardless whether the top 3 leagues have 3 or 4 teams. Stop assuming that just because 3 teams won't be able to participate that they will be replaced by very awful ones.

ya, they probably wouldn't be able to make it through the group stages but teams like Tottenham, Bolton, Sevilla, Valencia, Roma and Palermo have obviously more quality than many other 'champions'.

This is again about national pride. Spain, Italy and England deserve their successes and riches because they had visionaries who pioneered commercializing football. They have a right to monopolize the Champions League money because they are the best leagues and it's up to the rest to play catch up.

To be honest i think u are overrating teams like Bolton and Palermo. They are probably on the same level as Copenhagen for instance. And it is impossible for the others to catch up if most of the money goes to the top 3 leagues. It's a catch-22 situation. Spain, Italy and England do deserve their success (and having 3 teams is a good enough recognition of their success) but the Champions League should be better represented. It is after all a European competition. If we wanted a best only competition then the G-14 clubs should go create one themselves which is exactly what UEFA are against in the 1st place.

A G-14 Cup would not work but a G-14 league might. Surely people will rejoice watching top top teams playing on a regular basis. But all things should be done in moderation as money corrupts so I think the present CL is a very well done job by UEFA. Don't fix something that ain't broken.

YES. It is called the 'Champions' League after all. Otherwise, rename it European League or something.

Nobody wanted to watch the Greeks in Euro 2004. We all know what happened.

By having only league champions involved, the tournament will look like the World Club championship where champions are selected from each continent. While the English, German, Italian, French, Dutch and perhaps Portuguese leagues boast known teams, the other leagues are someways behind. We also have to bear in mind that it is not down to just the football now. You have to consider the revenue involved. Why doesn't the World Club Championship draw that much attention? Because there are a whole lot of unknown or unfancied teams playing. By having on the champion from each nation play, you are limiting the amount of people who will watch it on tv.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 30 2007, 03:16 PM

It's for the sake of involving the whole of Europe, but there is a risk of the bigger clubs end up buying players/people from the smaller clubs that (was lucky enough to) go to CL. If this persists, the ones losing in the long run might even be the ones Platini wanted to give benefit to.

For example, look at Porto and Mourinho.

But that is already happening. Clubs already have scouts that scour the planet for existing talent and they also setup academies in other countries to look for youth.

That is true, but having this actually makes this process faster imo.

Also, will the smaller clubs be able to handle the pressure, or not?

Why not? By playing well supported team, they stand to earn millions in revenue generated from television viewership. In fact smaller teams often prefer to meet the big boys because of this.

I do agree that this is the case in England, but we'll never know about elsewhere until we see it for ourselves.

I don't even know what the television networks think of this...

It is the same anywhere in the world actually. When a match is aired live, both clubs earn a cut from the television revenue generated. If crappy team like Derry City met a premiership giant, chances of the game being aired live increases and thus they are in for a windfall.

If only 3 teams are allowed only 3 teams will get rich. Which makes the elite even more elite.

And what about France and other countries, losing a pot for them will mean only 2 available slots. That isn't beneficial at all.

Even Sheeby Singh said on Football Focus today, don't fix something which ain't broken.

1. implement Salary Cap for each club. i think it is FIFA's job but Platini can propose it to Sepp Blatter. but no trade players between club like NBA & MLS.

2. video technology, please.

3. mid-season all-star game like NBA all-star weekend. best player from every league play against other league. maybe continent or else.

1. Salary caps are extremely hard to impose. There are numerous ways to pay a player indirectly.

2. Video technology slows the game down and has many other flaws.

3. It will never happen due to rivalry, disinterest from football players and strong opposition from clubs.

IIRC Blatter is a hardcore opponent against video technology, because to him 'it takes away the human element of football'.

Thing is, his proposals may be good AND bad for European football, but in it all depends on the others.

This post has been edited by kct-86: Jan 31 2007, 08:41 AM

Its just the matter of time football will use video technology like rugby or cricket...

I have no problem with 3 teams from each country or even fewer. It's just a format although it may compromise the quality or other related matter. No matter how it will be decided, we will have a brand "new" Champions League with a new identity.

I'm more concerned on stuffs involved directly to the football itself, eg video technology and diving or acting issues.

Video technology CAN be implemented. Maybe not to use it directly but to assist refereeing. I do not have a concrete suggestion on how to implement it but I'm sure it is possible. If video technology fails, more referees on the pitch is another option to be considered. Let's face it, basketball with smaller size of playing area requires 2 referees but compared to a bigger one in football, there's only one referee. Who's the busiest in the pitch? Referee or other players?

Next, the act of diving or acting or time-delaying in the name of injury. For diving or acting, video technology maybe the way to go but no matter what will be used, we all know how bad these have been happening to the so-called professional football. Somehow, we become more and more numb of it and start to accept it's a part of football, which it is always not the pure football. I do not know, but sending an official physio to double check for fake injury follows with punishment may be a good idea.

There are more to be considered but for the time being, these are what concern me the most.

This post has been edited by kimhoong: Jan 31 2007, 09:14 AM

Shebby likes to talk from his ass so i suggest that u take what he says with a grain of salt. And the points u r making don't make sense. Making the elite more elite is exactly what is happening now. Steve Mcmahon hit the nail on the head yesterday that the gap will grow wider if it continues. And who said countries like France should lose a slot? Platini is just limiting the maximum number of participants from a single country.

In my view it could be done this way:
England/Italy/Spain: 3 automatic slots into the CL grp stage (instead of 2 direct + 2 into qualy stage)
France/Germany: 2 + 1
Holland/Portugal: 2
and etc.

I am against messing around with the format which would be as u say "fixing something which isn't broken". However i am for changing the way teams qualify for the competition.

If you only take aways 3 places from Italy, Spain and England there are only 3 slots available to weaker European nations which isn't enough. Some other countries have to sacrifice as well.

What I meant by the elite getting more elite is that there are now the Big 4 in in England as an example. With the new Cl there will only be a Big 3 qualifying for the CL every year. Is it better to have 4 big teams or just 3?

Most importantly people (like me) don't wish to see Madrid play again some Eastern European club on a regular basis.

Why would other countries need to sacrifice? Unless i m mistaken i believe every European country currently has a slot but not an automatic one. Alot of the weaker countries have their champions go directly into the qualifying phase. Nothing has changed. The only difference is they won't have to face a 4th place team from the top 3 leagues. Will it make it easier for them to get through the qualifying phase? Sure...but not as easy as some of u skeptics are implying. There are still alot of good teams outside the top 3 leagues.

This post has been edited by verx: Jan 31 2007, 02:24 PM

Platini wants to give these countries an automatic qualification spot. If not, they'll end up getting slaughtered anyway in the qualifying rounds and the real beneficiaries will be leagues such as the French, Dutch and Portuguese.

I don't think he plans to give weaker countries an automatic spot. There are only 32 teams in the group stages. He's not that stupid. He has stated pretty clearly that he just wants to limit the maximum to 3. And yes the immediate beneficiaries will be those leagues that u mention. But i don't think the top 3 will stand to lose too much if they get 3 automatic places instead of the current 2.

Yup, if it's 3 automatic spots the top leagues wouldn't lose much and the bigger clubs should be agreeable.