New Champions League at 2024 and on

[bjkman1903]

Well, for me every team need to play qualifiers.

It doesn't matter if top 5 teams are too strong and would surely qualify anyway.

There's a big difference when you start your European season early in July or mid-September.

If privileges are needed, I would only consider giving direct access to domestic champions of top 6/8/10

But of course it will never happen, it's all down to the generated money in the end.

[Overgame]

99/00: no top 5 unsseded
00/01: 2 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
01/02: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
02/03: 1 top 5 unseeded, no clash
03/04: no top 5 unseeded
04/05: no top 5 unseeded
05/06: 3 top 5 unseeded, 2 clashes
06/07: 2 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
07/08: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
08/09: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash

11 unsseded, 7 clashes when the probability of a clash happening is around 30-35%. UEFA was so "unlucky".

that's interesting.
all the clashes are related to unseeded teams?
If not, curious to see the clash split between seeded and unseeded Top5 teams... to see the related % of clashes for the two groups
when I will have a bit of time, I will do it.

Top 5 unseeded: 11 times. 7/11
Against top 5, 7 times, 4/7
Against non-top 5, 4 times, 3/4

00/01: Leeds Germany - 1860 Munich, Leeds seeded won
Brondby - Hamburg, Hamburg unseeded won

01/02: Parma - Lille, Lille unseeded won

02/03: Boavista - Auxerre, Auxerre unseeded won

05/06: Betis - Monaco, Betis unseeded won
Everton - Villareal, Villareal seeded won
Sporting - Udinese, Udinese unseeded won

06/07: Hamburg - Osasuna, Hamburg seeded won
Levski - Chievo, Levski seeded won

07/08: Toulouse - Liverpool, Liverpool seeded won

08/09: Schalke 04 - Atlético, Atlético unseeded won

11 unseeded
France 3 - Parma (won) Boavista (won) Liverpool (lost) 2/3
Spain 3 - Monaco (won) Hamburg (lost) Schalke (won) 2/3
Italy 2 - Sporting (won) Levski (lost) 1/2
Germany 2 - Leeds (lost) Brondby (won) 1/2
England 1 - Villareal (won) 1/1

Countries facing an unseeded top 5
England 2 - 1860 Munich (won) Toulouse (won) 2/2
Germany 2 - Osasuna (won) Atlético (lost) 1/2
Portugal 2 - Auxerre (lost) Udinese (lost) 0/2
Spain 1 - Everton (won) 1/1
Bulgaria 1 - Chievo (won) 1/1
Italy 1 - Lille (lost) 0/1
France 1 - Betis (lost) 0/1
Denmark 1 - Hamburg (lost) 0/1

Is it what you were asking for? Sorry, I am a bit exhausted.

@bjkman1903 it will just be a pure luck shitfest.

[amirbachar]

99/00: no top 5 unsseded
00/01: 2 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
01/02: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
02/03: 1 top 5 unseeded, no clash
03/04: no top 5 unseeded
04/05: no top 5 unseeded
05/06: 3 top 5 unseeded, 2 clashes
06/07: 2 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
07/08: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash
08/09: 1 top 5 unseeded, 1 clash

11 unsseded, 7 clashes when the probability of a clash happening is around 30-35%. UEFA was so "unlucky".

that's interesting.
all the clashes are related to unseeded teams?
If not, curious to see the clash split between seeded and unseeded Top5 teams... to see the related % of clashes for the two groups
when I will have a bit of time, I will do it.

Top 5 unseeded: 11 times. 7/11
Against top 5, 7 times, 4/7
Against non-top 5, 4 times, 3/4

00/01: Leeds Germany - 1860 Munich, Leeds seeded won
Brondby - Hamburg, Hamburg unseeded won

01/02: Parma - Lille, Lille unseeded won

02/03: Boavista - Auxerre, Auxerre unseeded won

05/06: Betis - Monaco, Betis unseeded won
Everton - Villareal, Villareal seeded won
Sporting - Udinese, Udinese unseeded won

06/07: Hamburg - Osasuna, Hamburg seeded won
Levski - Chievo, Levski seeded won

07/08: Toulouse - Liverpool, Liverpool seeded won

08/09: Schalke 04 - Atlético, Atlético unseeded won

11 unseeded
France 3 - Parma (won) Boavista (won) Liverpool (lost) 2/3
Spain 3 - Monaco (won) Hamburg (lost) Schalke (won) 2/3
Italy 2 - Sporting (won) Levski (lost) 1/2
Germany 2 - Leeds (lost) Brondby (won) 1/2
England 1 - Villareal (won) 1/1

Countries facing an unseeded top 5
England 2 - 1860 Munich (won) Toulouse (won) 2/2
Germany 2 - Osasuna (won) Atlético (lost) 1/2
Portugal 2 - Auxerre (lost) Udinese (lost) 0/2
Spain 1 - Everton (won) 1/1
Bulgaria 1 - Chievo (won) 1/1
Italy 1 - Lille (lost) 0/1
France 1 - Betis (lost) 0/1
Denmark 1 - Hamburg (lost) 0/1

Is it what you were asking for? Sorry, I am a bit exhausted.

@bjkman1903 it will just be a pure luck shitfest.

Exactly, that's what people fail to understand - the more teams in qualifying (and especially the stronger ones), the more luck of the draw becomes a factor instead of abilty.

[babaluj1]

Well, for me every team need to play qualifiers.

It doesn't matter if top 5 teams are too strong and would surely qualify anyway.

There's a big difference when you start your European season early in July or mid-September.

If privileges are needed, I would only consider giving direct access to domestic champions of top 6/8/10

But of course it will never happen, it's all down to the generated money in the end.

The problem with football is that there is a lot of money involved in this sport today. In the other most popular sports in Europe, there is not even a tenth of the money as in football, therefore there is enormous corruption and a lot of privileges. Football is more and more similar to politics, what in politics are various incentives for the chosen ones, in football are various privileges for the chosen ones. Few people care about fair play when so much money is involved.
Small local clubs are also surrounded by various fraudsters in order to get their share of the cake, and how it works in larger, richer clubs, county or national associations or in FIFA and UEFA, we can often see in black chronicles. Various managers threaten coaches because their player doesn't play, parents pay coaches so that their children play, a football manager was killed in an ambush, the coach was beaten with baseball bats at the entrance to the apartment, the player was kidnapped at gunpoint and driven around in the hood all night until he finally signed the contract. numerous trials for various frauds involving finances and transfers, money laundering in off shore destinations and the like. All in all, live circus!
​

[bjkman1903]

Exactly, that's what people fail to understand - the more teams in qualifying (and especially the stronger ones), the more luck of the draw becomes a factor instead of abilty.

Yes, luck will be an important factor but that's the same situation for all teams in qualifying rounds anyway.

At least everyone will have the same treatment, start at the same time. Why is giving direct access a good thing anyway? So that weaker league teams could fight with each other for a few tickets? Or UEFA making sure to have as much top 5 league teams in its best competition ?

What I fail to understand is why should Lens start in GS just because they are French (nothing against Lens, just an example) or Union Berlin just because they are German. Or Newcastle just because they are English.
I would prefer they play qualifiers and consider them "bad draws"

[bjkman1903]

The problem with football is that there is a lot of money involved in this sport today. In the other most popular sports in Europe, there is not even a tenth of the money as in football, therefore there is enormous corruption and a lot of privileges. Football is more and more similar to politics, what in politics are various incentives for the chosen ones, in football are various privileges for the chosen ones. Few people care about fair play when so much money is involved.

I know, all that matters is money.
I was just dreaming of a fair competition with no privilege, it will obviously never happen.

[Overgame]

Exactly, that's what people fail to understand - the more teams in qualifying (and especially the stronger ones), the more luck of the draw becomes a factor instead of abilty.

Yes, luck will be an important factor but that's the same situation for all teams in qualifying rounds anyway.

At least everyone will have the same treatment, start at the same time. Why is giving direct access a good thing anyway? So that weaker league teams could fight with each other for a few tickets? Or UEFA making sure to have as much top 5 league teams in its best competition ?

What I fail to understand is why should Lens start in GS just because they are French (nothing against Lens, just an example) or Union Berlin just because they are German. Or Newcastle just because they are English.
I would prefer they play qualifiers and consider them "bad draws"

I understand the "everybody gets the same treatment" but the luck factor is just plain wrong. For an unseeded champion, having more than a 50% chance of drawing a potential quarter-finalist is just BS.

And "why Lens and Newcastle start in GS while x doesn't"? Seriously? The mere fact of finishing above teams who can pass the GS isn't enough, they should also have to possibly eliminate one more? "Congratulations Lens/Newcastle, now as a reward please try to join the GS by beating Real, Barcelona, Atlético,

What's the hardest path, finishing 4th in England/France or winning a league without any team able to pass the GS? Or let's take our domestic competition as an example, which one is harder, winning the title then win a tie against AEK Athens or finishing above Marseille, Rennes, Lille, Toulouse, Lyon, Monaco and Lyon? And I am taking the weakest top 5 league vs one of the strongest non-top 5 (in average), let's note even talk about the other 4.

If I am not mistaken, here are the 32 highest coefficients in the CL (qualifiers + GS)

Code: Select all

Manchester City          Eng 145.000
Bayern München           Ger 136.000 
Real Madrid              Esp 121.000
Paris Saint-Germain      Fra 112.000
Manchester United        Eng 104.000
Internazionale           Ita  96.000             
Sevilla                  Esp  91.000             
FC Barcelona             Esp  98.000

Borussia Dortmund        Ger  86.000            
Napoli                   Ita  81.000
Atlético Madrid          Esp  85.000 
RB Leipzig               Ger  84.000
Benfica                  Por  82.000
FC Porto                 Por  81.000            
Arsenal                  Eng  76.000
Shakhtar Donetsk         Ukr  63.000                                   
                        
FC Salzburg              Aut  59.000
Dinamo Zagreb            Cro  55.000 
Glasgow Rangers          Sco  54.000        
AC Milan                 Ita  50.000
Feyenoord                Ned  51.000 
Sporting Braga           Por  44.000            
PSV Eindhoven            Ned  43.000             
Lazio                    Ita  42.000
             
Red Star Belgrade        Srb  42.000             
FC København             Den  40.500
Young Boys               Sui  34.500           
Real Sociedad            Esp  33.000
Olympique Marseille      Fra  33.000
Galatasaray              Tur  31.500
Celtic                   Sco  31.000
Ferencváros              Hun  27.000

Basically a luck shitfest. Half of the teams are unplayable, 25% are really though: you basically hope to get one of the remaining 25%. And don't start with "just get seeded DUH". To get seeded you need to score points. To score points, you need to play the GS. To play the GS you need to pass the qualifiers. To even play the qualifiers you need to qualify in your league. For Antwerp, it means finishing above decent teams three or four times in five years, for Newcastle it means kicking at least one potential EL/ECL winner out of Europe. Three or four times. Or twice and goind deep. Or win the Cup.

Yeah, the direct spot is so unfair, isn't it?

[krdel]

Exactly, that's what people fail to understand - the more teams in qualifying (and especially the stronger ones), the more luck of the draw becomes a factor instead of abilty.

Yes, luck will be an important factor but that's the same situation for all teams in qualifying rounds anyway.

At least everyone will have the same treatment, start at the same time. Why is giving direct access a good thing anyway? So that weaker league teams could fight with each other for a few tickets? Or UEFA making sure to have as much top 5 league teams in its best competition ?

What I fail to understand is why should Lens start in GS just because they are French (nothing against Lens, just an example) or Union Berlin just because they are German. Or Newcastle just because they are English.
I would prefer they play qualifiers and consider them "bad draws"

Exactly.

Earn it on the pitch.

[babaluj1]

Even the strongest clubs can suffer in the qualifications, the truth is that they will be eliminated once in every 10 participations, at least that is clear to everyone. True, they will turn out less often than weaker clubs, but they are not invincible.
The fairest thing would be all the clubs that qualified for Europe in the joint qualifiers using the Swiss system, let's say 120 strongest clubs 4 games with different opponents, then 36 best in CL, those up to 72nd place in EL, or 108 in ECL, the rest are eliminated.
But realistically, we can't expect that from UEFA, some of the Top 5 leagues would suffer badly, and UEFA doesn't want to allow that.
​

[bjkman1903]

I understand the "everybody gets the same treatment" but the luck factor is just plain wrong. For an unseeded champion, having more than a 50% chance of drawing a potential quarter-finalist is just BS.

And "why Lens and Newcastle start in GS while x doesn't"? Seriously? The mere fact of finishing above teams who can pass the GS isn't enough, they should also have to possibly eliminate one more? "Congratulations Lens/Newcastle, now as a reward please try to join the GS by beating Real, Barcelona, Atlético,

What's the hardest path, finishing 4th in England/France or winning a league without any team able to pass the GS? Or let's take our domestic competition as an example, which one is harder, winning the title then win a tie against AEK Athens or finishing above Marseille, Rennes, Lille, Toulouse, Lyon, Monaco and Lyon? And I am taking the weakest top 5 league vs one of the strongest non-top 5 (in average), let's note even talk about the other 4.

Basically a luck shitfest. Half of the teams are unplayable, 25% are really though: you basically hope to get one of the remaining 25%. And don't start with "just get seeded DUH". To get seeded you need to score points. To score points, you need to play the GS. To play the GS you need to pass the qualifiers. To even play the qualifiers you need to qualify in your league. For Antwerp, it means finishing above decent teams three or four times in five years, for Newcastle it means kicking at least one potential EL/ECL winner out of Europe. Three or four times. Or twice and goind deep. Or win the Cup.

Yeah, the direct spot is so unfair, isn't it?

@Overgame , we see things differently.

For you, direct spots "protect" non-top 10 league champions, for me, it "protects" top 5 league teams from an accident happening (even if it happens once every 10 years)

I agree that the 4th team of England is probably stronger than any champion in the current champions path, this is not the issue.
I want that all teams deserve their places on the pitch and not get direct access because their league is strong.

If you are unlucky ? That's not the end of the road, there is still EL and then ECL. Build your coefficient there and get seeded for the next times.

[fabiomh]

...for me, it "protects" top 5 league teams from an accident happening (even if it happens once every 10 years)...

we can also say that it "protects" top 4 league teams, since there is a gap between 4th (4 secured spot) and 5th place (2 + 1);
or it protects top 4 league teams + PSG

[bjkman1903]

...for me, it "protects" top 5 league teams from an accident happening (even if it happens once every 10 years)...

we can also say that it "protects" top 4 league teams, since there is a gap between 4th (4 secured spot) and 5th place (2 + 1);
or it protects top 4 league teams + PSG

I added 5th place because from next year on 3 French teams will have direct access to CLGS

[Overgame]

I understand the "everybody gets the same treatment" but the luck factor is just plain wrong. For an unseeded champion, having more than a 50% chance of drawing a potential quarter-finalist is just BS.

And "why Lens and Newcastle start in GS while x doesn't"? Seriously? The mere fact of finishing above teams who can pass the GS isn't enough, they should also have to possibly eliminate one more? "Congratulations Lens/Newcastle, now as a reward please try to join the GS by beating Real, Barcelona, Atlético,

What's the hardest path, finishing 4th in England/France or winning a league without any team able to pass the GS? Or let's take our domestic competition as an example, which one is harder, winning the title then win a tie against AEK Athens or finishing above Marseille, Rennes, Lille, Toulouse, Lyon, Monaco and Lyon? And I am taking the weakest top 5 league vs one of the strongest non-top 5 (in average), let's note even talk about the other 4.

Basically a luck shitfest. Half of the teams are unplayable, 25% are really though: you basically hope to get one of the remaining 25%. And don't start with "just get seeded DUH". To get seeded you need to score points. To score points, you need to play the GS. To play the GS you need to pass the qualifiers. To even play the qualifiers you need to qualify in your league. For Antwerp, it means finishing above decent teams three or four times in five years, for Newcastle it means kicking at least one potential EL/ECL winner out of Europe. Three or four times. Or twice and goind deep. Or win the Cup.

Yeah, the direct spot is so unfair, isn't it?

@Overgame , we see things differently.

For you, direct spots "protect" non-top 10 league champions, for me, it "protects" top 5 league teams from an accident happening (even if it happens once every 10 years)

I agree that the 4th team of England is probably stronger than any champion in the current champions path, this is not the issue.
I want that all teams deserve their places on the pitch and not get direct access because their league is strong.

If you are unlucky ? That's not the end of the road, there is still EL and then ECL. Build your coefficient there and get seeded for the next times.

And as usual the gEt SeEdEd excuse. Yeah, build your coefficient, it only a few years of not getting smacked by an unlucky draw.
And tHiS iS nOt ThE iSsUe, aka "I don't have an argument so I'll dismiss this".
dEseRvE tHeIr PlAcE oN tHe PiTcH. I guess Lens or Newcastle didn't play against Liverpool, City, Arsenal, PSG, Marseille, etc.

[Lorric]

Well, for me every team need to play qualifiers.

It doesn't matter if top 5 teams are too strong and would surely qualify anyway.

There's a big difference when you start your European season early in July or mid-September.

If privileges are needed, I would only consider giving direct access to domestic champions of top 6/8/10

But of course it will never happen, it's all down to the generated money in the end.

If you're going to do this, it should be a group stage that starts at where Q2 should be with groups of 4. That way you can get rid of the bad luck factor by using Q1 to weed out enough teams to have 18 groups. Oh it'll still suck if you get Real Madrid, but now you (probably) don't need to knock them out just to qualify, your real fight is with the other two teams in your group.

[babaluj1]

The real question is whether the last placed GS CL clubs deserved and justified their places in the CL this year? We are talking about Manchester United, Sevilla, Union Berlin, Salzburg, Celtic, Newcastle, Crvena Zvezda and Antwerp. I would say that none of them deserved and justified a place in the CL, the only exception being Newcastle, who won 5 points and were eliminated in a really difficult group.
Antwerp was the only one to qualify for the CL, eliminating only the weak AEK, which was eliminated in the EL. All other last-placed clubs got direct places in the CL thanks to UEFA privileges.
Realistically, those clubs with the games they showed wouldn't even pass the groups in EL. This shows all the pointlessness of direct places in the CL, as well as the qualification system where weak Antwerp goes into the CL with one elimination of AEK.