Nah, they've had a bit of luck (not complaining, just saying) and that's ok but come the end of the season when they're lower the so-called sports 'journalists' will be asking "how did it all go wrong". Its not uncommon for an unexpected team to be up there at this stage of the season, there's a long way to go.
An excellent point, SF The answer to PNP and LIDL is that the CL teams have already qualified for a higher level competition than the Europa ones. Just because they didn't get through to the top 16 doesn't mean that they've failed in comparison to Europa league entrants. Teams drop down to the Europa league at other stages of qualification too, don't they.
Teams have the opportunity to either enter the Champions League or the Europa League via the qualification games. Once the competitions have actually started, that should be it. Failing to get through to the last 16 does show that they've failed, especially when you're comparing them to teams that have gone through the exact same group system and succeeded. Every win in the group stages of the CL is worth €800k and every draw is worth €400k, so the suggestion that the smaller teams would give up is without merit, in my opinion.
And home games are worth more than a draw to teams so the longer they're in European competition the better but I take your point though, it's not the most watertight reasoning.
Personally Luke, I think that a CL place for the WINNERS would make many clubs take the competition more seriously. Any more than that, I'd have to think about.
At the moment, only The WINNERS of the Amlin Cup are guaranteed a place in The Heineken Cup. I would advocate a similar rule in European Football.
The problem with this rule is the winners of the FA Cup/Copa Del Rey/Copa Italia etc tend to be in the Champion's League places anyway, which makes the incentive meaningless.
That's why I think the two highest finishers in the EL, that haven't qualified for the CL domestically, should get CL spots. That would be a big incentive as the chances are even a semi-finalist would get a CL spot.
Sorry, I don't see the comparison. We are talking about the winners of the Europa League being given an automatic place in the C.L. This year, from England alone, there are Spurs, Fulham, Birmingham, all of whom would be very happy to win a place in next season's CL. None of those teams are in any way sure of qualification automatically.
Whoops, misread the comparison - sugar deficiency and all that. There are teams that have gone from winning the UEFA Cup or Cup Winner's Cup one season to playing the Champion's League the next - Juventus and Porto won them back-to-back - so, again, sometimes it isn't the incentive it would appear to be. A Champion's League drop out winning it would also be bad PR - but, then again, nobody seems to complain about teams finishing second or third in their domestic league winning the Champion's League.
NSIS- as we have seen frequently in cup comps a huge slice of luck for a lesser team can result in unexpected progress. This means a team that is not particularly good in their league can end up winning the EL,and if we go down the path of automatic entry into the CL, that team should have to go through 1 or 2 of the qualifying. the EL winner shouldn't have automatic entry into the group stages.
This is correct. I think if this rule is implemented the EL winners should have to go through two rounds of qualifying (third round + play off round) and if they lose in either of these rounds they go automatically to the EL group stages. A good example of why EL should never go straight into the CL groups would have been Fulham a couple of years ago - had they beat Atletico they would have been absolutely battered in the CL group stages.
I've got to disagree. First of all, of course, nobody can legislate for luck. Sometimes you have it, sometimes not. The whole point, IMO is to make teams take the competition more seriously than some do now (Spurs included) If you were assured of a lucrative C.L. place for winning the E.L. Ithink that would happen.
Spurs used to be more of a Cup team than a league team, 15 of our 17 major trophies have been Cups, for example. But with even European Cups called lges these days, plus the decline of the domestic cups, I guess we have to become more of a 'league team'. I still think 2 or 4 teams going into the CL from the EL, would be more of a realistic incentive than just winning it, because this 'League' takes an awful lot of winning, particularly for English teams, who have the more lucrative Prem to consider first.
I would agree with your point about the C.L. drop-outs, which is why many people on here, myself included, would support the ending of that practice - possibly, as a quid pro quo for awarding a C.L. place to the winners of the EL. The whole point, for me, is to get more clubs to take the competition seriously. At the moment, many just treat it as an inconvenience. Harry himself called it a "nuiscance" before he retracted.
I was watching Press Pass on ESPN the other night and they were discussing the merits of having the lesser European clubs in the EL. The consensus was that while it is they're moment in the sun- as it were- it detracts from the competition as a whole.having the extra clubs obviously means a lower quality of play and I'm sure any decent club would rather have a good quality to play against.
I would have to think more about going further than just the winners. I think you have to consider also, that whilst the Prem is lucrative, the C.L. can be even more lucrative. Most Prem teams in the E.L. would fancy their chances of winning it (we're still favourites) So, if you look at it purely on a mercenary basis, it would make it much more attractive to EPL teams, if that rule were adopted.
Hi NSS, fair comments. AFAIK the CL is not more lucrative than the Prem, per game maybe for some teams, but definitely not per season, for any of the top teams. There's considerably more money in the Prem, that's why English club prioritise the lge so much more over any other domestic competition (remember when players were rested in lge games for Cup games and the EL. I just don't think the adoption of an EL winner to the CL would be enough incentive for English clubs, compared to the riches on offer in the Prem. It would be better than nothing without doubt, but give 2 or 4 places to the highest (non CL) winners, then it becomes a realistic goal to aim at. And none of those teams would dilute the CL, as they would go in at an early qualifying round and be better than most of the other teams at that stage.
It would only make a difference to those teams who have a chance to finish in a CL place, anyway. Playing in the CL raises the profile of a club throughout Europe, makes it easier to attract top talent etc. If you are unsure of qualification by finishing in the top 4 (as we are) then a guaranteed CL place for winning the EL would still look attractive. Most of the riches in the Prem come from just being there. The real additional riches come from being in the CL, I agree, however, with HBIC's comment about a failed CL team coming down a peg, and then pinching the EL, instead. That's not what it should be about, IMO.
I always thought the "nuisance" comment was taken out of context - something football journalists do out of habit (see also: Tevez's quote about never returning to Manchester) - given we had a spate of injuries at the time. On the other hand, did Juventus set out to draw all their EL games last season, or was it just a coincidence?
