test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Jason

Champions League thread

Started by Jason,

4,212 posts in this topic
1 hour ago, The Chels said:
Interestingly, in the new CL format being proposed we would have taken City's place this year despite finishing 10th. http://futbol.as.com/futbol/2016/08/25/champions/1472081081_320295.html

 

The new format of the ''top'' teams always play is rubbish. I mean I know people like to watch Real-Chelsea more than Real- Legia, but the only magic that is still present in football is when smaller clubs surprise.

If big clubs had guarantee to play CL every year, while smaller would have 1% chance, it would ruin fun for everyone. Just more dominance from same clubs and less competition. But I guess sooner or later UEFA will go with it, because it will bring them more money. Chelsea in CL brings more money than Legia and thats the only reason greedy cunts want this super league.

manpe and MefiX19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

The new format of the ''top'' teams always play is rubbish. I mean I know people like to watch Real-Chelsea more than Real- Legia, but the only magic that is still present in football is when smaller clubs surprise.

If big clubs had guarantee to play CL every year, while smaller would have 1% chance, it would ruin fun for everyone. Just more dominance from same clubs and less competition. But I guess sooner or later UEFA will go with it, because it will bring them more money. Chelsea in CL brings more money than Legia and thats the only reason greedy cunts want this super league.

It's not just about money. It's great to see a small team beat a big team, but at the same time, those games are the ones that draw the smallest audience. People love to hear about Legia beating Real, but more people will actually watch Chelsea play Real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

It's not just about money. It's great to see a small team beat a big team, but at the same time, those games are the ones that draw the smallest audience. People love to hear about Legia beating Real, but more people will actually watch Chelsea play Real.

Trust me in few years of watching same clubs every year, people would get bored. First time barca was champion everyone was happy, then few years later of their dominance and everyone got tired of their game, bar their fans. This super league would be same thing but on bigger scale.

And I get your point people like to watch chelsea real more than chelsea legia, but from uefa perspective, they dont care about that IMO. Its all about money. Bigger audience on tv, bigger stadium, more talk, more clicks, promotion=more money. 

It would divide elite from rest even further and I doubt thats good idea for football in general. If you are good you will play, if not you wont. 

We for example played absolutely rubbish and hence we are not in CL. If we got there at expense of lets say porto or monaco, just because we are bigger, I think only we would be happy with it. Not to mention that without CL, the club will improve our team so that we get there next year. If we had guaranteed place, team could stay the same, as long the money goes through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

The new format of the ''top'' teams always play is rubbish. I mean I know people like to watch Real-Chelsea more than Real- Legia, but the only magic that is still present in football is when smaller clubs surprise.

If big clubs had guarantee to play CL every year, while smaller would have 1% chance, it would ruin fun for everyone. Just more dominance from same clubs and less competition. But I guess sooner or later UEFA will go with it, because it will bring them more money. Chelsea in CL brings more money than Legia and thats the only reason greedy cunts want this super league.

I think if we are to truly enjoy the occasion of smaller teams taking on the bigger ones and beating them, the competition format probably needs to be changed to a knockout stage or even a 3-game group stage. While it's nice to see Legia take on Real Madrid, for instance, possibly even beating them, it's unlikely that fans will feel that excitement, shock, unforgettable feelings because it won't impact Real's chances of progressing from the group stage. They will likely still win the other 5 group games. Need the format to be 1 game or 3 because then the consequences of losing or even drawing can be pretty damaging. There's a reason after all why we enjoyed Euro 2016 and cup competitions like FA Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

The new format of the ''top'' teams always play is rubbish. I mean I know people like to watch Real-Chelsea more than Real- Legia, but the only magic that is still present in football is when smaller clubs surprise.

If big clubs had guarantee to play CL every year, while smaller would have 1% chance, it would ruin fun for everyone. Just more dominance from same clubs and less competition. But I guess sooner or later UEFA will go with it, because it will bring them more money. Chelsea in CL brings more money than Legia and thats the only reason greedy cunts want this super league.

The proposed changes don't seem too bad to me. According to the article the top 4 leagues (England, Spain, Germany, Italy) would be guaranteed 4 teams in the group stages. Of these, 3 will be those that finished in the top 3 of the respective leagues and the 4th will be the team with the highest UEFA coefficient ranking. For England then, since our ranking is greater than fourth-placed City's we'd have been replacing them this year.

In the graphic below, green shows teams in the top 50 that qualified for the group stages this year under current rules and blue shows missing teams who would've qualified under the new rules (obviously at the expense of other teams like us with City).

1472081081_320295_1472083384_sumario_nor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Chels said:

The proposed changes don't seem that bad to me. According to the article the top 4 leagues (England, Spain, Germany, Italy) would be guaranteed 4 teams in the group stages. Of these, 3 will be those that qualified in the top 3 of the respective leagues and the 4th will be the team with the highest UEFA coefficient ranking. For England then, since our ranking is greater than fourth-placed City's we'd have been replacing them this year.

In the graphic below, green shows teams that qualified for the group stages this year under current rules and blue shows missing teams who would've qualified under new rules (at the expense of certain 'green' teams like us with City).

1472081081_320295_1472083384_sumario_nor

Well I think its not fair to play because of history. If lets say Leicester finishes 4th and us 10th and then we go in CL because of numbers from past, while Leicester would play well all year, then I just cant agree with that. I know we would have Chelsea almost guaranteed in CL every year, but it ruins the fun. 

If you have shit season, consequences must follow. If you have good one, get the reward.

The promotion to CL must be earned, not given. 

manpe, The Skipper and MefiX19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

Well I think its not fair to play because of history. If lets say Leicester finishes 4th and us 10th and then we go in CL because of numbers from past, while Leicester would play well all year, then I just cant agree with that. I know we would have Chelsea almost guaranteed in CL every year, but it ruins the fun. 

If you have shit season, consequences must follow. If you have good one, get the reward.

The promotion to CL must be earned, not given. 

Yeah that's true and fair enough. I'm thinking of it from a selfish (Chelsea) point of view.

Fernando likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

Trust me in few years of watching same clubs every year, people would get bored. First time barca was champion everyone was happy, then few years later of their dominance and everyone got tired of their game, bar their fans. This super league would be same thing but on bigger scale.

And I get your point people like to watch chelsea real more than chelsea legia, but from uefa perspective, they dont care about that IMO. Its all about money. Bigger audience on tv, bigger stadium, more talk, more clicks, promotion=more money. 

It would divide elite from rest even further and I doubt thats good idea for football in general. If you are good you will play, if not you wont. 

We for example played absolutely rubbish and hence we are not in CL. If we got there at expense of lets say porto or monaco, just because we are bigger, I think only we would be happy with it. Not to mention that without CL, the club will improve our team so that we get there next year. If we had guaranteed place, team could stay the same, as long the money goes through. 

I don't think one team being dominant is the same as the same big clubs being in the Champions League every season. There will still be great matches and since the same number of teams would stay, I don't think you'd get the same matchups over and over. I haven't gotten tired of the Champions League and I never bother watching the smaller teams play, unless it's the last 15 minutes of an upset.

Money will come with added interest, which is what I think this would provide. You get more tickets and more TV sets from big matchups. People will not tire of big matches.

I do agree that it should be based on merit, but I would honestly watch more champions league games if more of the group stage matches weren't Grasshopper v. Basel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain the whole 4th spot historical details?

And then the money distribution I also heard is based on coefficients. Any good explanation on this?

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanna say that Gundogan and deBruyne gave ManCity a victory over Barca today with their goals. Two players we probably should've had on our side IMO, although Gundo was debatable due to back injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.