The European Leagues & Competitions Thread V2

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

Round of 16 draw

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2017/draws/round=2000794/index.html

Manchester United playing against a Russian Side FC Rostov.

[who are currently 7th out of 16th in the Russian Premier League] - http://eng.rfpl.org/tournaments/championship/tournament-table/

[communicate 2,703]

15 hours ago, Special Juan said:

I really do not rate Delli Alli at all, the media do but that's the English media for you, they still think Wayne Rooney is a genius.

He is good but not world class but if you listen to english media you think he is the next messi

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

On 22/02/2017 at 1:10 PM, Magic Lamps said:

Actually apart from the strikers they were all not so great yesterday. They were unable to break free on the counter when they were needed most. The much heralded bakayok as bullied out of the game by yaya, sidibe was their worst defender got ripped a new one by Sane time and time again. That Monaco team might be full of great players but yesterday was surely no evidence for that.

Monaco will have to attack City in the 2nd leg and that will suit them. Even tho it is crazy to go out in a CL ko tie with SIX offensive players but if they do again they will score. A 5-3 sounds great but it is actually only better than a 1-0 when you score at least 4 in the second leg so I can see them going full pep mode again and us having such a spectacle all over. Defo gonna watch it

Agree with you that the second leg is a must watch game, but a two goal margin is always better than a one goal margin, no matter what the actual score line.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

On 22/02/2017 at 10:12 PM, Magic Lamps said:

How lucky are Leicester to still have a sniff in this tie. Let's hope they somehow make it happen in the 2nd leg...

Agreed. It would be great for England's coefficient, and therefore great for Chelsea, if Leicester can somehow take advantage of that luck and get through the tie.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

On 24/02/2017 at 9:36 AM, Special Juan said:

I really do not rate Delli Alli at all, the media do but that's the English media for you, they still think Wayne Rooney is a genius.

To be fair, I think Alli makes the most of what he's got because what he's got is not all that much. Technically he is pretty ordinary, yet he manages to make important contributions.

[LAM09 6,744]

Agreed. It would be great for England's coefficient, and therefore great for Chelsea, if Leicester can somehow take advantage of that luck and get through the tie.

Coefficient doesn't mean much now - http://en.as.com/en/2016/12/09/football/1481314103_008421.html

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

2 hours ago, LAM09 said:

 

Coefficient doesn't mean much now - http://en.as.com/en/2016/12/09/football/1481314103_008421.html

 

Firstly, I had forgotten about the new arrangements so I appreciate the reminder. Thank you.

Secondly, I had also forgotten about UEFA's new president. I watched an extended interview with him while he was still a candidate for the position. I found him very impressive and a refreshing change from Michael Platini, who I always felt was simply not bright enough for the job.

Although UEFA, and especially FIFA, are well known for reinterpreting or changing their rules mid-tournament in order to get the outcomes they want, there do nevertheless have to be rules governing their competitions. The nomination of the four "leading" nations, the ones guaranteed four Champion's League clubs, is still coefficient based. This therefore suggests that maintaining the national coefficient remains important.

The change means that the number of Champions League clubs per country will be reviewed every three years rather than annually as at present. If this change to a three year cycle remains in force then that makes it more important, not less, for England to avoid falling out of the top four.

[Rmpr 8,977]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Firstly, I had forgotten about the new arrangements so I appreciate the reminder. Thank you.

Secondly, I had also forgotten about UEFA's new president. I watched an extended interview with him while he was still a candidate for the position. I found him very impressive and a refreshing change from Michael Platini, who I always felt was simply not bright enough for the job.

Although UEFA, and especially FIFA, are well known for reinterpreting or changing their rules mid-tournament in order to get the outcomes they want, there do nevertheless have to be rules governing their competitions. The nomination of the four "leading" nations, the ones guaranteed four Champion's League clubs, is still coefficient based. This therefore suggests that maintaining the national coefficient remains important.

What the change amounts to is that the side which finishes fourth in the Premier League will now automatically qualify for the group stages, instead of needing to go through a qualifying round, and that the allocation of the number of clubs per country will be reviewed every three years rather than annually as at present. 

In reality no one doubts that the real decisions in future will be based on the size of the television market in a given country. This might argue that Russia should eventually be added as a leading nation but, given that UEFA like to have some camouflage for their money driven agenda, they may struggle to pull that one off. They may not easily be able to shake off the coefficient method for deciding which countries get the four Champions League places. So...

Come on Leicester!

You are correct UEFA base their decisions on increasing revenue and television appeal but where you are completely wrong is that the source of those interests come outside of Europe. There is no agenda to make Russia a top league or anything because UEFA simply doenst care about the European market. UCL isnt big because europeans watch it. It is big because all other countries do and the biggest overseas revenue from UEFA comes from Asia and South America. Actually, only 35% of all tv quotas UEFA receives are from European countries, the rest come from all sorts of different places.

So, for those markets, the size of the clubs participating in a match directly influences the tv ratings, no matter if such clubs are going through a good phase or not. Clubs like ManUtd, Milan, Inter and Chelsea (all out of UCL atm) bring way more public interest than the likes of Atletico Madrid, Borussia, Monaco, etc. Even if those clubs currently have the better teams/players. AND THATS WHATS THE FOCUS OF THIS NEW POLICY. UEFA is trying to appeal to more people by giving more seeds to the popular clubs.

For instance, right now a match between PSG and BVB would be much better to watch than ManUtd vs Milan. However I can guarantee you the majority of overseas fans would prefer the latter because they dont know better. They dont follow European Leagues that closely to know those clubs are way past their prime so the historic background and past legends counts a lot. The ratings would easily be twice as high.

[communicate 2,703]

23 minutes ago, Rmpr said:

 

They dont follow European Leagues that closely to know those clubs are way past their prime so the historic background and past legends counts a lot. The ratings would easily be twice as high.

I disagree especially in asian market where you have to wake up like 2/3 am in the morning to watch UCL games, the one who watched the game has to be hardcore fans so they must follow European league closely, but the rating is definitely twice as high simply because MU is the most popular team in the world. I am not so sure that is true if we have milan vs inter (both currently are poor team but very popular in the past ) in UCL.

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

48 minutes ago, Rmpr said:

You are correct UEFA base their decisions on increasing revenue and television appeal but where you are completely wrong is that the source of those interests come outside of Europe. There is no agenda to make Russia a top league or anything because UEFA simply doenst care about the European market. UCL isnt big because europeans watch it. It is big because all other countries do and the biggest overseas revenue from UEFA comes from Asia and South America. Actually, only 35% of all tv quotas UEFA receives are from European countries, the rest come from all sorts of different places.

So, for those markets, the size of the clubs participating in a match directly influences the tv ratings, no matter if such clubs are going through a good phase or not. Clubs like ManUtd, Milan, Inter and Chelsea (all out of UCL atm) bring way more public interest than the likes of Atletico Madrid, Borussia, Monaco, etc. Even if those clubs currently have the better teams/players. AND THATS WHATS THE FOCUS OF THIS NEW POLICY. UEFA is trying to appeal to more people by giving more seeds to the popular clubs.

For instance, right now a match between PSG and BVB would be much better to watch than ManUtd vs Milan. However I can guarantee you the majority of overseas fans would prefer the latter because they dont know better. They dont follow European Leagues that closely to know those clubs are way past their prime so the historic background and past legends counts a lot. The ratings would easily be twice as high.

You make a good point that it is the attractiveness of the teams to the audience as a whole, rather than simply to the audience in any individual region, that counts most. Nevertheless, the individual television contracts from the leading European nations still rank at the top of the list and those broadcasters definitely do care about having domestic teams to show to their domestic audiences.

Of the total €2.35 billion UEFA generate annually in broadcasting rights from around the world for their club competitions, 15% comes from just one company for broadcasting rights in just one country; BT in England. Other European broadcasters also contribute large slices of the TV pie. UEFA recognises the importance of these markets and these revenues. Be in no doubt that this recognition plays a part in their thinking. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

30 minutes ago, communicate said:

I disagree especially in asian market where you have to wake up like 2/3 am in the morning to watch UCL games, the one who watched the game has to be hardcore fans so they must follow European league closely, but the rating is definitely twice as high simply because MU is the most popular team in the world. I am not so sure that is true if we have milan vs inter (both currently are poor team but very popular in the past ) in UCL.

 

We might debate which clubs are the most popular, in which markets, but I think the point @Rmpr makes remains correct in principle.

As for what you say, I have some personal experience. I will always follow NFL games which kickoff before about 9:20 PM UK time but, apart from the Super Bowl, I will only follow later kick-offs if they involve Washington. 

[communicate 2,703]

4 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

We might debate which clubs are the most popular, in which markets, but I think the point @Rmpr makes remains correct in principle.

As for what you say, I have some personal experience. I will always follow NFL games which kickoff before about 9:20 PM UK time but, apart from the Super Bowl, I will only follow later kick-offs if they involve Washington. 

I agree with most of his opinion just not the fact that most of the audience that watch UCL especially in asia is casual fans, it is actually the other way around. They follow European league closely. But the popular will have more fans andnd like you said you only watch the late NFL game if redskins play, it is the same for ucl. People will only try to wake up early only if their team is playing or maybe a big game. 

[LAM09 6,744]

Firstly, I had forgotten about the new arrangements so I appreciate the reminder. Thank you.

Secondly, I had also forgotten about UEFA's new president. I watched an extended interview with him while he was still a candidate for the position. I found him very impressive and a refreshing change from Michael Platini, who I always felt was simply not bright enough for the job.

Although UEFA, and especially FIFA, are well known for reinterpreting or changing their rules mid-tournament in order to get the outcomes they want, there do nevertheless have to be rules governing their competitions. The nomination of the four "leading" nations, the ones guaranteed four Champion's League clubs, is still coefficient based. This therefore suggests that maintaining the national coefficient remains important.

The change means that the number of Champions League clubs per country will be reviewed every three years rather than annually as at present. If this change to a three year cycle remains in force then that makes it more important, not less, for England to avoid falling out of the top four.

I meant in the meantime. England's current position in the top four (currently 4, only a bit behind Germany) should see us save for quite a while, but a noteable performance from the NT at some point soon wouldn't harm.

[Rmpr 8,977]

16 hours ago, communicate said:

I agree with most of his opinion just not the fact that most of the audience that watch UCL especially in asia is casual fans, it is actually the other way around. They follow European league closely. But the popular will have more fans andnd like you said you only watch the late NFL game if redskins play, it is the same for ucl. People will only try to wake up early only if their team is playing or maybe a big game. 

It has nothing to do with being casuals or not. It is about the will to stay up late to watch it or not (like Greavsise explained with the NFL).

Take Porto vs Juventus for example. If you are in Asia and doesnt root for either teams, do you think the majority of the football fanbase stayed up late on a week day? Or if you are in the USA where its in the middle of the work hours, do you think many people watched it?

However, if we had more clashes between big traditional clubs more people worldwide would go out of their way to watch it and that is what UEFA is trying to do. They are not trying to create to the hardcore fans who are already tuning in every round because no matter who is playing they will watch it anyways...

Just to be clear, I am not defending the changes. Only trying to explain the thought process behind it.

[Rmpr 8,977]

21 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

You make a good point that it is the attractiveness of the teams to the audience as a whole, rather than simply to the audience in any individual region, that counts most. Nevertheless, the individual television contracts from the leading European nations still rank at the top of the list and those broadcasters definitely do care about having domestic teams to show to their domestic audiences.

Of the total €2.35 billion UEFA generate annually in broadcasting rights from around the world for their club competitions, 15% comes from just one company for broadcasting rights in just one country; BT in England. Other European broadcasters also contribute large slices of the TV pie. UEFA recognises the importance of these markets and these revenues. Be in no doubt that this recognition plays a part in their thinking. 

Its all true and I completely agree UEFA does give importance to the European market in general. However, in those specific changes, Europe isnt their focus at all.

The main reason is that no matter what format, teams or kick-off times, you guys will continue to watch it. So, none of those changes will affect UEFA's bottom line. 

On the other hand, if a kick off 2 hours earlier or a match between more traditional clubs make Asia ratings go up by 10%, thats a huge gain. Which is what I believe UEFA is betting on.

[BoyBlue96 990]

Is Arsenal going to do what we did to Napoli?

 

They're 1-0 up...

[Laylabelle 9,351]

Urgh bloody hope not be unbearable..

[BoyBlue96 990]

1 minute ago, Laylabelle said:

Urgh bloody hope not be unbearable..

Carlo may as well end his career as a manager if he loses to this lot