http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/7774383/Platini-Rules-could-change UEFA president Michel Platini has admitted the rule which saw Chelsea qualify for the UEFA Champions League in place of Tottenham could be reviewed in future. Spurs boss Harry Redknapp branded the rule "unfair" after Tottenham finished fourth in the Premier League but saw their place in the Champions League taken by Chelsea as reigning European champions. Platini said no rule change to the competition could be brought in for at least three years but that UEFA would be prepared to review the regulation. Speaking in Budapest before the FIFA Congress, Platini said: "We can always change the rules. We can always discuss the rules, but not during the competition. "We have decided not to change the rules or regulations of the competition for three years. So in three years we can change, that means we will come back if you wish. "Everything can be discussed, the rules, yellow cards, but not during the competition. Perhaps in the next executive committee we can speak about it. I can put that, but they may say no." Rules Redknapp claimed that UEFA should allow five clubs from one country into the tournament in the special circumstance of a club winning the Champions League but finishing outside of the top four in their domestic league, as happened with Chelsea. UEFA's current rule was introduced in 2005 when five English teams were allowed in to the Champions League after Liverpool won the tournament but finished fifth in the Premier League. Platini said that he personally believed there should be a limit of four per country. He added: "I think so, but it is the matter of the executive committee, a matter for discussion. If you put more in one part you have to take out more from another part and because we always play with 32 teams, with the winner it is 31, so we have to decide. "Perhaps it could be for discussion in the future about the participation of more than four but for the moment it is not possible because the regulations are for four." But he rejected suggestions that Spurs were being unfairly punished, adding: "No, they have not been punished. They know the rules, they should have been third and not fourth." we've all got our own thoughts on this, and its unfortunate that we haven't made it. But those are the rules and by moaning about it, we only seem bitter. The part Iwanted to pick up on is this: "Platini said that he personally believed there should be a limit of four per country." Personally, I think this needs reassessing. The premier League is without question the strongest and most competitive league in the world. Each week, one of our 20 managers will comment something on the lines of: "there's no easy games in this league". Now, don't get me wrong, some of the games are certainly easier than others. However, the fitness levels required due to the style of play and the overall quality across the entire league is much better than any other league in Europe. The Bundesliga also allows entry from 4 clubs, in the same way that the premier league does. 3 qualify automatically, and the 4th place club have to go through the summer qualification. However, the quality of the other clubs that finish lower in this league does not match that of those who finish lower in our premiership. The same could be applied to Italy. The premiership has seen Manchester city and spurs qualify in recent years, with Liverpool no longer in the running, and clubs like Newcastle showing that they are candidates. I would prefer that Uefa reassessed the CL placements across the European leagues and looked to alter how many clubs can qualify from a certain league. In my opinion, the balance isn't there and the premier league is suffering. This season we saw 6 clubs who were in with a chance of finishing in the top 4 and it took till the final day to decide that, followed by a CL final to throw a different spaner in the works, thus justifying how tight our league is. In addition, players from all over the world are looking to flock to our league as their priority; even if that's to a mid table club as a stepping stone. - This is due to what I have explained, as well as the money being there. Now, money shouldn't be a sole decider in this as it's not right, but it's further ammo as to why our league is so strong overall. So, do you think it's fair that other county's that aren't necessarily a priority for the modern footballer, that aren't as competitive, as well as having less of an over all quality, should be given the same amount of placements as the premiership? For me, this is the real issue that needs addressing, not the rulings that Uefa have made over 4th place not making it, should another side from that league win the CL. Any club/person that wins something in sport should have the right to defend it, IMO.
As I've said, there is a very easy way for UEFA to allow us back into the CL - chuck out Trabzonspor. They already kicked out Fenerbahce for match-fixing in Turkey and promoted Trabzonspor from the Europa League places to fulfill Turkey's co-efficient...but Trabzonspor players and directors accepted bribes from Fener, making them just as culpable. In fact, if UEFA want to come down hard on match fixing they'd put the co-efficients to one side and only allow one Turkish side into each competition (Galatasaray into the CL, Eskisehirspor into the EL) because those were the only teams in the qualifiers for each of those tournaments not caught up in it. True, this would leave an extra place in the Europa League as well, but that could be filled by any co-efficient that is lacking a place (for the sake of argument, give the place to Everton)
More clubs from the same country means less money for them all. Less money means less top class players. Less top class players means a deminished competition which people don't watch. That means less money from tv companies as less people watch. The competition will fade and die. Congrats,your suggestion will kill off european club football. Thanks
Has European football been killed off by multiple teams from England, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Holland and Portugal at the expense of teams that actually won their leagues around the rest of Europe? If not, the suggestion would not kill European football. If anything, the CL format has killed domestic football, as it allows the rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else - which is why there's so few clubs making their Champions League debuts these days. Think about it: Should a club like, for the sake of argument, FC Copenhagen reach the group stages, the money received from that will put them in a much better financial position than anyone else in their league and that means they will be able to keep winning their own league for several seasons. Repeat this pattern across Europe, and that's what's happened.
There is only so much money to go around. More teams means less for each team. Simple. You may not like it but that is a fact. Also,why would a French broadcaster pay to show 2 French clubs and 5/6/7 English clubs? They wouldn't.
Where is your "less for each team" argument coming from? If the amount of money teams receive for participation at each stage, that won't affect the pot in the slightest. Every team gets the same amount of money for participating in the group stages, regardless of whether they win all their matches or lose all their matches. Why would a French broadcaster pay to show two French clubs? Simple, the same reason they pay to show three French clubs, despite the lack of success from French clubs since the Champions League format began. It;s not as if French TV will suddenly stop showing the tournament once their teams are knocked out. The only broadcaster I can think of who would take such an approach is ITV, who refused to screen the Euro 2008 final as England were guaranteed not to be in it.
You know that clubs having more money does not actually create footballers? That being able to pay them £200k a week rather than £50k a week does not make them four times better? what are you on about? You think that a select number of clubs having wealth actually makes footballers better at playing football? There are a load of footballers. Some of them are very, very good. They're gonna be pro footballers playing for pro clubs whatever. The total amount of money in Europe will still be the same so it's not like they're all suddenly going to decide to go and play in the USA or something. Less money does not mean less top class players. Typical new money mentality. Less money just means less money. And let's face it - on a global scale we're not even talking about much less money.
to be honest HBIC, i'm not fussed about anyone who should be thrown out because that is "clutching" as purley says. - but my OP isn't "clutching", and i said something similar in a reply to another thread, before out CL fate was decided. I've got over the fact we're not in it, it's unfortunate, but fairplay to Chelsea, they won it. and as my last sentence says in the OP: "Any club/person that wins something in sport should have the right to defend it, IMO." - so well done to chelsea and best of luck in the competition next season. But comments regarding the "killing of european football" and "less money" etc etc, i don't think are relevant. and i think you've hit the nail on the head with that HBIC, so I shall say no more. All over the world fans go wild for the premier league. Even America, who doesn't get "soccer", has die hard fans who follow clubs in the prem. It's just such a big competition. I'm not suggesting changes to a level where there's an impact on television rights (if that was to happen, which i personally don't think it will like HBIC says), but just a slight shift in placements, so the premier league gets the respect it deserves. let's put this another way. The CL is about the best clubs in Europe competing with one another. (technically, it should be the champions only, but that's an entirely different conversation). Germany is a league (for example) that doesn't have the highest level of competition. therefore, why should they get as many places as the country with the best players (in general) and most competitive league? by allowing those clubs in the Bundesliga (for example) to compete in the CL, it's actually making the competition weaker, as there are clubs in the prem that are playing at a much higher level, week in, week out. (when i say weaker clubs, I am not referring to Bayern Munich, obviously!!)
Anyway - what I really wanted to say on this thread before I felt the need to give our new Chelsea pet Bad Attention was this: WTF Platini? So you're open to saying that the rules might need looking at again? Why? What has changed? To be honest I have no real argument with the rules as they are (though they're a pain in the arse for Spurs right now). Although I could equally see that it could be fair to not automatically guarantee the participation of the holders if they finish outside the qualification places. One or the other though. And stick with it. And don't throw these rules into question every single time they actually become relevant. Just makes UEFA seem absolutely ridiculous.
What nonsense! Firstly, the scenario where a fifth club would be admitted would only come if there was a repeat of this year where the winners did not finish in one of the automatic qualifying places in their domestic league. That doesn't happen very often. Secondly, it does not mean less top class players. It may mean that those players are more fairly distributed, instead of all being bought by a wealthy dictatorship, like Chelsea, or City. So, I can see why you would be against it!
Just a quick one on this HBIC - Did you know that the TV money allocation is split in half - one half of it is split evenly according to the clubs' respective progress? The other half, though, is split unequally depending on the clubs' finishing position in the Prem the season before. Champions get 40% of this pot, 2nd place team get 30%, 3rd get 20%, 4th get 10%. So another great way (along with seeding and other arbitrary rules) to ensure that the elite clubs stay elite and the status quo remains. From the excellent Swiss ramble blog: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Tottenham Hotspur "This is because of the methodology used to allocate this element, which is as follows: (a) Half depends on the position that the club finished in the previous seasonâs Premier League with the team coming first receiving 40%, second 30%, third 20% and fourth 10%. As Spurs came fourth in the 2009/10 Premier League, they receive much less than the others. (b) Half depends on the progress in the current seasonâs Champions League, which is based on the number of games played. So Spurs received more than Arsenal, as they got a round further, but less than Manchester United who reached the final."
CL is being shown as anything but 'champions' if a team that could only finish 6th in their country's league wins and is then able to play in it the next season. It's just a cash cow now. Also I might have missed something by quick reading the main post but why would it take 3 years to change the rule when they changed the rule the same year Liverpool won? It's more that they won't change it and hope no one brings it up in 3 years...
I don't actually think that there's anything wrong with the rule at the moment, to be honest. It'd be typical of us to be the only team to ever fall foul of it, though! A blanket ban on Turkish teams in Europe might help them to get their bloody house in order, though. Crowd violence, racism, corruption... anyone would think they were in Italy...
Uefa won't change the rules. They did not change the rules for Everton in the 2004-05 season. So why should they for Spurs? You are clutching straws. Spurs just face it you are in Europa League.
Are you aware that this is how UEFA allocate cash to each CL participant? Playoffs: €2,100,000 Group stage: €3,900,000 For each match in group stage: €550,000 Group match victory: €800,000 Group match draw: €400,000 Round of 16: €3,000,000 Quarter-finals: €3,300,000 Semi-finals: €4,200,000 Losing finalist: €5,600,000 Winning the Final: €9,000,000 Hence my mention of destabilising domestic leagues - a team from a league where money isn't exactly sloshing around can use the money made from losing every single one of their group stage matches to dominate their league for several seasons afterwards. You'd end up with an Old Firm situation all over Europe, with one team helping themselves to the lion's share of players from the rest of the league because they're in a financial position to do so (indeed, in several leagues this is exactly what happens) Several leagues are already destabilised to such a degree that Champions League places go to the same clubs every year, and I'm not just talking about leagues such as Scotland, Croatia, Turkey or the Ukraine - I'm also talking about Holland, Portugal, England and Spain. France, Germany and Italy are the few leagues where there seems to be a certain amount of genuine competition for CL places at the moment. Right city, wrong club - they changed the rules for (paid-up member for the G14) Liverpool. In 2005-6, the teams finishing third and fourth - Manchester United and Everton - both had to play qualifying matches. Everton weren't dumped from the competition, they merely failed to qualify for it.
i dont think any Spurs fan made the article up.......however 5 should be allowed...because i dont see it happening often..so should be allowed...maybe make 3rd and 4th play in the qualifiers instead of just 4th.
Are you trying to get as many things wrong in one post as possible? The article's about a possible change in three years time, so it's clearly not relevant to the current situation at Spurs, is it? UEFA did change the rules in 2004-05, though not for Everton. They changed them for Liverpool, who didn't actually merit reentry into the CL, despite winning it. UEFA let them in, anyway.
