The Premier League’s so-called ‘Big Six’ could become part of a new-look Champions League.

[Pliskin]

Do Forest qualify due to co-efficiency? 

[Hoopla10]

11 hours ago, reynard said:

I would 100% like to see these teams kicked out of all domestic competitions but doubt any domestic organisation would have the courage to do this.

This already has it's own problems. Part of it is basically the death of the league cup but if you also throw in the FA cup it doesn't just really hurt those "big 6 teams" but it does devalue the cup and with it the money. Both cups are hugely important for the funding of lower league teams. So it's a little cutting off our nose to spite our face. Ultimately it needs fans of these clubs (all clubs really but particularly these) to take an actual stand. Refuse to go to games. Bombard their clubs with protests. And I genuinely think most core fans of the "big six" also hate this idea as much as the rest of us. 

[Basildon Fox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56350964

 

Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish says the proposed Champions League reforms would have "a devastating effect" on English football.

Uefa's proposal would see 100 more matches and four extra dates created for European fixtures before Christmas.

Parish has voiced his disapproval over the plans, which will inevitably threaten the status of the EFL Cup.

"It feels like we're expected to accept these proposals because they are not as bad as they could have been," he said.

"This would have a devastating effect on domestic competitions in England. The League Cup is the largest financial contributor to the Football League and this will either be the end of that cup in its entirety or reduce it to a youth competition.

"For clubs like us, it's very difficult to understand where you have a voice in these conversations. We feel very remote from the decision-making."

Parish was speaking at the European Leagues meeting that was held on Wednesday morning. Despite invites being sent to all Europe's major clubs, none of them took the opportunity to speak.

English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry, who also spoke at the meeting, said the loss of the EFL Cup would strip away a third of his organisation's revenue and present "a very real threat" to the existence of some clubs.

Earlier this week, European Club Association (ECA) chairman Andrea Agnelli said he expects agreement over a 36-team competition to be reached within a fortnight.

Instead of eight groups of four playing six games each as is currently the case, all teams would play 10 matches against opponents of varying strengths and decided on each club's Uefa ranking, with those results then forming one overall table.

Discussions are continuing over the precise structure of the competition, particularly the allocation of the four additional places.

The proposals are expected to put an end to discussion over a European Super League, but issues still remain.

Although they accept there is merit in the system, the European Leagues will continue to argue against the exclusivity of Uefa dates and also the plan to allocate two of the additional four places from the current 32-team group stage on the basis of historical co-efficient instead of where they finish in the league table.

In a scenario discussed today, of the three English clubs currently qualifying for European competition, West Ham or Everton would miss out on the additional Champions League place to Tottenham, due to their superior historical co-efficient, even though they are below them in the Premier League table.

"Sporting merit should be the guiding principle and we should not qualify teams on co-efficient," said European Leagues president Lars-Christer Olsen.

[Mike Oxlong]

Just shows that all the richest clubs care about is making even more money than the ludicrous amounts that their executives and players already make. Shame on them. 

[Strokes]

Defund UEFA.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Fans want to watch the best teams play each other, not teams that used to be the best.

[foxinsocks]

this is crazy and just about ensuring that their revenues are secure.

[Chrysalis]

Its amusing the chairman of the EFL is moaning about how the league cup games would be lost, yet the same guy backed the plan from the English elite last year to scrap the competition.

[Dahnsouff]

21 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Fans want to watch the best teams play each other, not teams that used to be the best.

..and football tourists? Those that pay enough and have little loyalty, they probably even follow players as much as teams, those who’s choices are as much about fashion as club specificity. Cynical but it is a thing globally, and local markets will always be dwarfed by this global audience (regrettably).

[davieG]

6 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Its amusing the chairman of the EFL is moaning about how the league cup games would be lost, yet the same guy backed the plan from the English elite last year to scrap the competition.

There's probably no seat on the board for this option.

[Dahnsouff]

[davieG]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

The Super League idea was just a decoy ploy so that UEFA would accept this new alternative with a sigh of relief when it's just a watered down version of it that will eventually still become a Super League by stealth.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

The Super League idea was just a decoy ploy so that UEFA would accept this new alternative with a sigh of relief when it's just a watered down version of it that will eventually still become a Super League by stealth.

Oh for sure, the bit from Agnelli is quite disgusting, but the major European leagues have been unhappy with the EPL money train for a long time now

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh for sure, the bit from Agnelli is quite disgusting, but the major European leagues have been unhappy with the EPL money train for a long time now

Olsson should be focussing on the qualification criteria for the CL Merit v History and should be saying anyone suggesting doing away with any aspect of merit should be thrown out.

[twister]

44 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh for sure, the bit from Agnelli is quite disgusting, but the major European leagues have been unhappy with the EPL money train for a long time now

You can see in the developing english domination in euroupe their fears

 

The epl can play higher wages than anybody else,players would rather coast in mid table at wolves than play in the champions league

 

That is where we are at, but this coefficiant idea is a disgrace and the game will be finished if goes ahead

[Muzzy_Larsson]

5 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

..and football tourists? Those that pay enough and have little loyalty, they probably even follow players as much as teams, those who’s choices are as much about fashion as club specificity. Cynical but it is a thing globally, and local markets will always be dwarfed by this global audience (regrettably).

Unfortunately very true.

[Scotch]

Let's be real here, the whole coefficient crap has been screwing teams over for years. We are only concerned about it now because it could potentially affect us. 

 

Its never sat well with me that teams that finish 3rd and 4th in their league get automatic places in the group stage whilst teams who won their league still have to qualify, sometimes even a fair few rounds too. 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Let's be real here, the whole coefficient crap has been screwing teams over for years. We are only concerned about it now because it could potentially affect us. 

 

Its never sat well with me that teams that finish 3rd and 4th in their league get automatic places in the group stage whilst teams who won their league still have to qualify, sometimes even a fair few rounds too. 

Obviously I have an obvious bias but given it's the "Champions League" I don't get why a team that wins their league needs to play 8 games to qualify for the competition proper yet another who finishes fourth in their league goes straight in.

 

I'd probably object less if they had the balls to stop kidding everyone on and call it something other than the "Champions League".

[KrefelderFox666]

7 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Obviously I have an obvious bias but given it's the "Champions League" I don't get why a team that wins their league needs to play 8 games to qualify for the competition proper yet another who finishes fourth in their league goes straight in.

 

I'd probably object less if they had the balls to stop kidding everyone on and call it something other than the "Champions League".

Probably because the Romanian champions are as good as the Championship winners in England.

 

They could almost go back to a League Winners Cup and Cup Winners Cup and then have a third competition for best of the rest (Europa League or whatever you wanna call it). However, not sure how incentivising that may be for teams in leagues knowing if they don't win something, they'll be in a pointless European competition. Finishing Top 4 has something about it right now.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

39 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Probably because the Romanian champions are as good as the Championship winners in England.

 

They could almost go back to a League Winners Cup and Cup Winners Cup and then have a third competition for best of the rest (Europa League or whatever you wanna call it). However, not sure how incentivising that may be for teams in leagues knowing if they don't win something, they'll be in a pointless European competition. Finishing Top 4 has something about it right now.

That train of thought is part of the problem nowadays isn't it, it's all down to money so let's just include the teams who are the most financially strong and forget about the rest

 

It's also a bit short sighted and lacking in self-awareness as if that's how you think then the same addage would apply with the elite clubs in Europe and Leicester. Why bother letting little old Leicester rub shoulders with Europe's elite. I don't for a minute think that by the way I'm just using it as an example to highlight the hypocrisy of your post.

 

Let's ignore teams like the champions of Romania, who ironically have provided a winner of the European cup/Champions League in the past.

 

If it was truly champions only the huge disparity in finances between the top 5 leagues and the rest may not be as bad.

 

FYI there is already a third competition and it'll start next season, the UEFA Europa conference league.

Edited 12 March 2021 by Muzzy_Larsson

[davieG]

32 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Probably because the Romanian champions are as good as the Championship winners in England.

 

They could almost go back to a League Winners Cup and Cup Winners Cup and then have a third competition for best of the rest (Europa League or whatever you wanna call it). However, not sure how incentivising that may be for teams in leagues knowing if they don't win something, they'll be in a pointless European competition. Finishing Top 4 has something about it right now.

Competitions are only pointless if the media aren't chucking money at it. There wouldn't be enough games in the Cup winners /League Winners Comps to satisfy the media plus there would inevitably be some big teams in the 'pointless European Comp' so I'm sure the media would be happy to chuck money at that as well especially as there's more media companies trying to get a foothold into football's money tree (fans).

[KrefelderFox666]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Competitions are only pointless if the media aren't chucking money at it. There wouldn't be enough games in the Cup winners /League Winners Comps to satisfy the media plus there would inevitably be some big teams in the 'pointless European Comp' so I'm sure the media would be happy to chuck money at that as well especially as there's more media companies trying to get a foothold into football's money tree (fans).

Exactly. The European competitions have constantly evolved to "be with the time". We had Intertoto Cup, now the Conference League starting up. Champions League was created early 90s.

 

Maybe to even out a little bit they should throw more teams into the CL? Make it a 64 team tournament similar to EL. THat way they can throw in league champions of the Top 32 leagues and let the rest play out some playoffs of varying degree which would include teams finishing 2nd/3rd in bigger leagues such as PL/Bundesliga etc.

 

However, media companies will be scared to lose the attraction of big matches with so many "lesser" teams in the competition.

 

Money talks and therefore expect to see what the big boys and the media want.

[KrefelderFox666]

11 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

That train of thought is part of the problem nowadays isn't it, it's all down to money so let's just include the teams who are the most financially strong and forget about the rest

 

It's also a bit short sighted and lacking in self-awareness as if that's how you think then the same addage would apply with the elite clubs in Europe and Leicester. Why bother letting little old Leicester rub shoulders with Europe's elite. I don't for a minute think that by the way I'm just using it as an example to highlight the hypocrisy of your post.

 

Let's ignore teams like the champions of Romania, who ironically have provided a winner of the European cup/Champions League in the past.

 

If it was truly champions only the huge disparity in finances between the top 5 leagues and the rest may not be as bad.

I don't really mind what format the competitions(s) are in but it is obvious (as the couple of posts above show) that money and what the media want coverage of is the driver these days.

 

I personally wouldn't mind having different tiers of competitions, league winners, cup winners etc. Just can't see any of the big clubs or media buying into it. As I said above, maybe expand the tournament allowing more teams to compete, reshuffle the way playoffs/qualifiers work, reshuffle how knockouts/group stages work. Have all league winners as the seeded teams in the draw (e.g. 32 of the 64 teams are league winners). THere are many ways to make the competition interesting enough but also involving lower tier nations/clubs more. Reward teams for winning their league even if they play in Romania or Poland or wherever.

 

Not down to me to come up with these suggestions but just some rough ideas I would have. Keep the media happy but involve more of the lower ranked nations/clubs. I am sure it would be great for the fans too.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

1 minute ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I don't really mind what format the competitions(s) are in but it is obvious (as the couple of posts above show) that money and what the media want coverage of is the driver these days.

 

I personally wouldn't mind having different tiers of competitions, league winners, cup winners etc. Just can't see any of the big clubs or media buying into it. As I said above, maybe expand the tournament allowing more teams to compete, reshuffle the way playoffs/qualifiers work, reshuffle how knockouts/group stages work. Have all league winners as the seeded teams in the draw (e.g. 32 of the 64 teams are league winners). THere are many ways to make the competition interesting enough but also involving lower tier nations/clubs more. Reward teams for winning their league even if they play in Romania or Poland or wherever.

 

Not down to me to come up with these suggestions but just some rough ideas I would have. Keep the media happy but involve more of the lower ranked nations/clubs. I am sure it would be great for the fans too.

I think it's taken as read that money/tv revenues drive the format and inclusion policy at the minute, that's not up for debate and not the point I made.

 

My point was disparagingly dismissing the champions of Romania or wherever else and justifying the notion that they shouldn't be included due to the strength of the league or whatever. Using the winners of the championship, probably one of the top 10 most lucrative league's in Europe, as an example.

 

Like I said that sort of thinking is the major issue in why we are where we are, why the elite clubs are so greedy and self-serving and why football is at real risk of eating itself. Why it's being commercialised to the point it's losing some of it's authenticiy.

 

Like I said, calling the competition the "Champions" league has become somewhat ironic. Most of the teams in it haven't been champions of anything in years and years.

[Chrysalis]

Muzzy in principle you are right.

 

The problem the elite have with your idea is imagine if e.g. athetico madrid win la liga, juventus wins serie A, but juventus doesnt get to play real madrid or barcelona, or liverpool, or psg, or manchester united because all these teams are in europa instead.  Suddenly the bigger competition is the second one.  Sadly its all about the money and even more so now trying to keep that money in the established elite's hands.  This is why the champions league is how it is now, and now there is risk of the established clubs not qualifying more than on rare occasions we have this silly coefficient system playing a bigger and bigger part on every reform, it already is a joke someone like juventus could lose every group game, get knocked out but get more money than if someone like ourselves got to the final.

 

They also need to stop shoving CL rejects in late stage of europa as well.  That is on principle just plain wrong.  It might be ok if 3rd place CL group teams qualified for the next season europa but not the current season.