Champions League - Discuss!

[Foxholer]

Totally blinkered view.

Celtic are a bigger Club than Chelsea without a shadow of a doubt the fact that they are split by an uneven distribution of wealth is neither here nor there. Celtic averaged over 46k per home game which is down on last year Chelsea averaged 41 per home game. Given the gulf in standard of the teams that Celtic fans watch that also tells a story.

I'm not saying Celtic are better than Chelsea I'm saying they ARE a bigger club.

Now take this back to the Champions League if Celtic were given the same chances and opportunities as the closed shop teams of the CL Celtic would thrive.

From a BUSINESS point of view, size is more likely to be measured on £turnover than number of customers. Actually, more by total value which is difficult to find but likely to be even more skewed against Celtic.

In that regard, Celtic is a relative minnow!

Admittedly, Business and Football can sometimes be worlds apart, but UEFA is operating as a Business so should not be criticised for that. Whether it's good for Football in general is arguable.

I do believe that Celtic will make more cash by playing in the qualifying rounds though, so not all bad news.

UEFA seems to have a similar attitude to the relative merit of the SPL compared to other European leagues as I do.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Typical English response. Globally Celtic are every bit as big if not bigger than Chelsea. Chelsea have ridden the Sky cash cow along with an open chequebook from the sugar daddy owner. Scottish football doesn't have the finance to compete. Its stretching nothing that is fact.

I'm not talking about reputations, fanbases, shirt sales or attendances, I'm talking about football. Years ago Celtic probably were bigger than Chelsea in football terms. That, in my opinion, is not the case any more. Simple 2 questions should sort it; how many players from the Celtic squad would make the Chelsea first team? And how many Chelsea players would walk into the Celtic team ahead of their current opposite number? We are talking about qualification for the "Champions" League. Are you seriously suggesting that Celtic's first place in a one-horse league is a better footballing qualification to direct entry to the group stages of the competition than Chelsea's 3rd place in the EPL, winning the old UEFA cup (which is shortly to be an direct entry in itself) and a proven history in the competition?

 

[thecraw]

I'm not talking about reputations, fanbases, shirt sales or attendances, I'm talking about football. Years ago Celtic probably were bigger than Chelsea in football terms. That, in my opinion, is not the case any more. Simple 2 questions should sort it; how many players from the Celtic squad would make the Chelsea first team? And how many Chelsea players would walk into the Celtic team ahead of their current opposite number? We are talking about qualification for the "Champions" League. Are you seriously suggesting that Celtic's first place in a one-horse league is a better footballing qualification to direct entry to the group stages of the competition than Chelsea's 3rd place in the EPL, winning the old UEFA cup (which is shortly to be an direct entry in itself) and a proven history in the competition?

Your trying to measure the unmeasurable. Chelsea due to finance can obviously attract a better class of player. And yes I am saying 100% that Celtic deserve to go into the CL ahead of Chelsea. If they fail to get out of the group stages then fair enough but they at least get a crack at earning some big money which allows them to invest. This in turn benefits the whlle of the Scottish game.

The fact that Chelsea were knocked out of the CL and parachuted straight into another tournament to give then another bite of the cherry as were Benfica sums up the closed shop attitude of UEFA.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

As champions you deserve to get straight in not have to play qualifying rounds. Really sad how its carved up.

If all the league winners were automatically given their places in the CL group stages the competition would become a lot weaker with less quality sides in the competition.

Its also UEFA's coefficients table points that decide who qualifies etc.

Rubbish I know but that's how it is.

 

[FairwayDodger]

If all the league winners were automatically given their places in the CL group stages the competition would become a lot weaker with less quality sides in the competition.

Its also UEFA's coefficients table points that decide who qualifies etc.

Rubbish I know but that's how it is.

It is fixed, though, points are awarded for wins, draws and bonuses for reaching the various later stages. Not adjusted by the number of teams a country has in the competition. So the more teams you have in the more coefficient points you stand to gain. The whole system is rigged to benefit the big countries.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

It is fixed, though, points are awarded for wins, draws and bonuses for reaching the various later stages. Not adjusted by the number of teams a country has in the competition. So the more teams you have in the more coefficient points you stand to gain. The whole system is rigged to benefit the big countries.

You're correct and I'm not disagreeing with you.

Do you think Ford Sony Heineken etc would throw millions and millions sponsorship year on year to potentially see FC Copenhagen v Rubin Kazan in the final?

It's the closest thing to a European league and unfortunately it won't change.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

You're correct and I'm not disagreeing with you.

Do you think Ford Sony Heineken etc would throw millions and millions sponsorship year on year to potentially see FC Copenhagen v Rubin Kazan in the final?

It's the closest thing to a European league and unfortunately it won't change.

Surely that depends on the quality of football that Copenhagen and Rubin Kazan play.

From a purely business point of view am I the only one who thinks that EPL teams are big under achievers considering the wealth they are given [not generated].
They seem to perform slightly above the SPL standard at about 1000% the additional cost.

 

[stevie_r]

Surely that depends on the quality of football that Copenhagen and Rubin Kazan play.

From a purely business point of view am I the only one who thinks that EPL teams are big under achievers considering the wealth they are given [not generated].
They seem to perform slightly above the SPL standard at about 1000% the additional cost.

Slightly above SPL standard?

In the last 10 years:

3 different English clubs winning it.
4 different English clubs appearing in the final - that's 20% of the EPL
8 of the 20 finalists English
An all English final in a year where 3 of the 4 semi finalists were English and 4 of the last 8 were English

slightly you say :rofl:

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Check out the scores of recent SPL v E{&W]PL European Matches.
Apart from a 5-0 drubbing of Hearts at Tynecastle they have all been quite close.
Mind you Hearts, for some strange reason, decided to 'have a go' at what was then, most attack minded team in Europe.
The return resulted in the only team that season to win a point at WHL. So a bit of pride restored.
[Please don't tell me Spurs played the 4th X1 because the did not.]

 

[Foxholer]

From a purely business point of view am I the only one who thinks that EPL teams are big under achievers considering the wealth they are given [not generated].
They seem to perform slightly above the SPL standard at about 1000% the additional cost.

Slightly above SPL standard?

In the last 10 years:

3 different English clubs winning it.
4 different English clubs appearing in the final - that's 20% of the EPL
8 of the 20 finalists English
An all English final in a year where 3 of the 4 semi finalists were English and 4 of the last 8 were English

slightly you say :rofl:

I guess that's a 'Yes' then!

Laws of Diminishing Return (on investment) come into play too.

And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate! It's certainly not 1000% additional cost (save for those in the SPL with no aspirations other than SPL)

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I see Hearts have just signed a former £1,500,000 Liverpool player for nothing.

Caroll was a £30,000 000 player who seems to be only worth £15,000,000.00 a couple of years on.

£30,000,000 is equal to a salary of £30,000 a year for 10 workers for 100 years.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I see Hearts have just signed a former £1,500,000 Liverpool player for nothing.

Caroll was a £30,000 000 player who seems to be only worth £15,000,000.00 a couple of years on.

£30,000,000 is equal to a salary of £30,000 a year for 10 workers for 100 years.

..........or 50% of the parachute payment Palace will get at the end of next year.
.........or reduce the debt of Manchester United from £525,000,000 to £495,000,000.

 

[AuburnWarrior]

Platini wants to rectify this but he fears that the 'big' clubs will break away and form a G12 super league.

I think it's wrong. Only those that win their domestic leagues should be in the CL.

Either that or they rename it as Champions League is rather misleading.

 

[Blue in Munich]

It is fixed, though, points are awarded for wins, draws and bonuses for reaching the various later stages. Not adjusted by the number of teams a country has in the competition. So the more teams you have in the more coefficient points you stand to gain. The whole system is rigged to benefit the big countries.

Really?

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/country/index.html


Coefficient calculation
The coefficient is calculated by working out an average score: dividing the number of points obtained, by the total number of clubs representing an association in that season’s two club competitions. The resulting figure is then tallied with the results of the previous four seasons to calculate the coefficient. Where two associations have the same coefficient, the association with the higher coefficient in the most recent season is placed first.

 

[stevie_r]

I see Hearts have just signed a former £1,500,000 Liverpool player for nothing.

A 3 year contract with Hearts? I admire the optimism

 

[Blue in Munich]

Your trying to measure the unmeasurable. Chelsea due to finance can obviously attract a better class of player. And yes I am saying 100% that Celtic deserve to go into the CL ahead of Chelsea. If they fail to get out of the group stages then fair enough but they at least get a crack at earning some big money which allows them to invest. This in turn benefits the whlle of the Scottish game.

The fact that Chelsea were knocked out of the CL and parachuted straight into another tournament to give then another bite of the cherry as were Benfica sums up the closed shop attitude of UEFA.

Have a look at the coefficients; if it is purely down to finance, then how come Scotland languish in 24th place, 12 places behind the insolvent Greeks? You as a nation also trail behind Israel, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, Turkey & Austria. Whilst Turkish clubs have started splashing the cash this year, I'm not sure that applies to all the others. If a player like Kris Commons, whose previous experience was with Stoke, Nottingham Forest and Derby County in the second tier of English football, is one of the star performers in the SPL, doesn't that indicate the lower standard of the SPL and hence UEFA's decision to make them qualify?

The fact that Chelsea were parachuted out of the CL into the EL says more about the respective rules of the competition than a closed shop.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Really?

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/country/index.html


Coefficient calculation
The coefficient is calculated by working out an average score: dividing the number of points obtained, by the total number of clubs representing an association in that season’s two club competitions. The resulting figure is then tallied with the results of the previous four seasons to calculate the coefficient. Where two associations have the same coefficient, the association with the higher coefficient in the most recent season is placed first.

I stand corrected!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

A 3 year contract with Hearts? I admire the optimism

Yes,that made me smile.
We are treading a bit of a thin line at the moment.
Daft to think that you could buy Hearts for less than Andy Caroll.

 

[Val]

I'm not talking about reputations, fanbases, shirt sales or attendances, I'm talking about football. Years ago Celtic probably were bigger than Chelsea in football terms. That, in my opinion, is not the case any more. Simple 2 questions should sort it; how many players from the Celtic squad would make the Chelsea first team? And how many Chelsea players would walk into the Celtic team ahead of their current opposite number? We are talking about qualification for the "Champions" League. Are you seriously suggesting that Celtic's first place in a one-horse league is a better footballing qualification to direct entry to the group stages of the competition than Chelsea's 3rd place in the EPL, winning the old UEFA cup (which is shortly to be an direct entry in itself) and a proven history in the competition?

In a word yes, Chelsea shouldn't even have the chance to play in the CL at all this season.

 

[Val]

Have a look at the coefficients; if it is purely down to finance, then how come Scotland languish in 24th place, 12 places behind the insolvent Greeks? You as a nation also trail behind Israel, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, Turkey & Austria. Whilst Turkish clubs have started splashing the cash this year, I'm not sure that applies to all the others. If a player like Kris Commons, whose previous experience was with Stoke, Nottingham Forest and Derby County in the second tier of English football, is one of the star performers in the SPL, doesn't that indicate the lower standard of the SPL and hence UEFA's decision to make them qualify?

The fact that Chelsea were parachuted out of the CL into the EL says more about the respective rules of the competition than a closed shop.

UEFA pander to the larger leagues, that's why 3rd place in the CL get parachuted in, to enable under performing so called better teams help prop up a poor European competition.