Harder to win today's reincarnated version (...up to four teams from the 5 strongest leagues. Rather than just the champions, quite often the best teams would eliminate each other and you could get Club Brugge, Austria Vienna in the semis, or Malmo say in the final.
I agree. The Champions League is a stupid name for a competition that has also rans in it. The European Cup used to be great. European nights used to be great even for us neutrals
Yep. Should be called the Money League. I still think most of the really big clubs would like to transform it into a proper European league (with no relegation) and not play domestic footy at all.
These days, like a lot of things in football, the competition is geared so that one of the biggest teams will win it. The biggest representation from the so-called strongest leagues, the less exciting league format etc... Back when it was a Cup competition there were many nights of real excitement when a smaller club could play out of their skins and maybe, just maybe, knock out an under performing bigger club. That appeals to my neutral's viewpoint. These days, in the SKY world of presentation, the underdog mentality seems to be disappearing fast. I don't know why they do it because, for a neutral, the real appeal is in the surprise, not the predictable. OK, in the European Cup, the ties were over two legs, so the stronger team would likely win out overall anyway. But there was still a real chance that an upset could occur. These days it's too loaded, and the league format is nothing like as exciting. In fact, the competition only gets going for the casual neutral once it returns to the cup format in the latter stages, in my opinion. Was it esaser or harder to win. Well, qualification was definitely harder. Maybe the competition itself was about a similar level of difficulty. I know why they use the league format. The bigger teams have time and games to overcome bad form/one-off bad matches, so will eventually rise to the top. There are more games, and so more money is generated. But there is genuinely less excitement and fewer suprises, and dare I say it, less real competition [like that's a surprise]. But don't take my word for it. Make up your own mind. I googled and actually found someone asking the question - which is/was better: https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110506073039AAodqwJ and: http://worldsoccertalk.com/2011/02/...rmat-superior-to-the-old-european-cup-scheme/
I agree. Most complaints aimed at the euro league thee days seem to be that it doesn't offer enough financial reward when really the hard look should be aimed at the CL and its endless cycle of dominance. The current system of CL football hands massive financial rewards to clubs that progress in it without taking any consideration of the leagues those clubs represent. For example last season Celtic FC received 17.5m in rewards from UEFA. Celtic are already dominant within its national league and handing it rewards for being such seems an insult to injury European wide club football is a fantastic concept and should be embraced but the current rewards scheme is ludicrous. Just an example the current UCl champion received a total of €57.4m as a reward for a being the most dominant team in world football, which seems a little skewed if you ask me. I'm all for EU wide football but handing the lions share of rewards to the clubs that need it the least is counter-productive and anti-competitive and will kill whatever competition to the powerhouse clubs was around.
I don't. Premier League teams would choose the Premier League over a European league if they had to. It is worth more money to finish bottom of the Prem than to win the Champions League plus it is worth more in commercial revenue and global viewing figures. Other league teams are probably different. I know the Barca president suggested that it should be.
Welbeck told he can leave united. We should have 100% tried for him instead of Long IMO. I think he would be great for us
I don't think you'll find many that disagree with you, but we didn't did we? Maybe we thought that we'd just never get him - like Hernandez. The wages were always going to be an issue too I guess (though from what people are saying that is also the case with Long - perhaps to a lesser degree)
Apparently London Evening Standard saying Arsenal and Tottenham after him. Doubt he would come to us. Wages would probably be an issue as well.
Just because we have signed Long doesn't mean we can't go for someone like Welbeck. He is more of a wide man in a 4-3-3 anyway other than an out and out front man. The Mirror say that he won't be sold to a club in the top 6.
I can't see the point in looking back on what might've been, the Club and Manager have made their choices and now we have to see how the new players perform for us, what they did for their previous clubs is irrelevant now. I think a lot of people are judging Long on his goalscoring record, which is roughly1 goal every 4 games (even at International level) but I think he was bought to compliment Pelle's style and the latter is expected to score the majority of the goals this season. I know this will come as an anathema to a lot of fans but how about we wait and see how it works out before pre-judging anyone at this early stage.
Welbeck will end up at either Sunderland with the other Man U has beens or Pardew will get him at Newcastle. Big Vic going nowhere for at least this season.
