Champs League Final: Liverpool v. AC Milan

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Winning the CL is a way to qualify, but like I posted above, the UEFA screwed up by giving England 4 tickets and 5 teams to choose from. Same situation with Spain a couple of years ago. But the main problem is one that you can't compare with in the US sports playoffs scenario.

But isn't the UEFA just giving England the 4 tickets, and saying "choose however you like"? I mean, if England decided to send Crystal Palace instead of Everton or Liverpool, is that against the UEFA regulations; or does the UEFA qual rules simply go to how many slots each country gets, and what they do with them (league winners, cup winners, etc) is up to them?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Celeval

But isn't the UEFA just giving England the 4 tickets, and saying "choose however you like"? I mean, if England decided to send Crystal Palace instead of Everton or Liverpool, is that against the UEFA regulations; or does the UEFA qual rules simply go to how many slots each country gets, and what they do with them (league winners, cup winners, etc) is up to them?

The UEFA will not allow any other team in than those that met qualification standards. There is a wild card for the defending champs, but only if they did not qualify through the league and if it won't add up to 5 tickets for one FA. If the English FA would write in, say, Fulham, Manchester City and Crystal Palace together with champs Chelsea, the UEFA would simply exclude them from the draw and England would get through the competition with less representation.

Some FA's even forfait some of their tickets because they have no teams who would meet the qualification standards. Liechtenstein and San Marino are good examples as they have no league structure and thus can only write-in cup winners or second their cup tournament winners.

The Dutch FA has asked about this a couple of times because they have had plans to add playoffs at the season end for the European tickets. For the 2005/2006 season it will be tried out again as there's been some of these experiment in the early 1990's before, but back then without approval of the UEFA.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Sigh...

Winning the CL is a way to qualify, but like I posted above, the UEFA screwed up by giving England 4 tickets and 5 teams to choose from. Same situation with Spain a couple of years ago. But the main problem is one that you can't compare with in the US sports playoffs scenario.

The main reason for this being screwed is that the CL qualification tickets are set at the start of the season, so Everton and Liverpool knew from the start that 4th place would qualify to the CL under normal circumstances, as would be winning the CL (in Liverpool's case). Only after both were out of contention for 3rd place, the English FA decided to let everybody know that the 4th placed team would get the 4th ticket and the defending CL champion would settle with nothing.

It's almost like having the NFL season going on and in week 16 of the regular season tell a 7-8 division leader they have to give up their playoffs ticket to a 9-6 team in 4th place in another division. But even this is apples and oranges.

I do think UEFA will step up and refix the rules starting with the 2006-2007 CL. As for UEFA, how is the money "earned" and paid out to the teams? Does UEFA get all the TV $, then that is the prize money, and the home teams get to keep the ticket revenue, on top of the prize money?


I though the World Club championship was cancelled? How is that tournmanet set up?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

NFL (as this is the only US sport I have any degree of knowledge on) - 2006 playoffs are governed by the 2006 league positions: therefore the 2005 Superbowl winners will be able to defend their trophy by qualifying through the 2006 regular season - an entire new qualification process between winning the Superbowl and the new playoffs

IN the WC, now the previous winners do not automatically qualify, they do get the chance to qualify in the 2004/5 qualifying stages.

And in the NFL, the previous winners get a chance to qualify for the playoffs through next year's regular season. In the WC, previous winners get a chance to qualify through the qualifying stages. In UEFA, the previous winners get a chance to qualify through that year's league position (if their FA says only Top 4)

The UEFA rules state that if the CL winners finish outside the defined league positions, the nations FA can put forward this team instead of the lower placed team, which is in this case Everton. 5 years ago Real Madrid were in the same situation and Real ZAragoza were unlucky, finishing 4th and not being put forward by the Spanish FA - maybe the fault is the English FA's rather than UEFA's but the solution is simple and there has been a precedent set.

What precedent? Because Spain PICKED Real Madrid, which has always been a team favored by the government since Franco's era, to go to the CL instead of Real Zaragosa, there is a precedent that the CL winner should go in place of the 4th place team? NO! That isn't a precedent. Now if there were 10 times this happened and the same thing occured, then maybe you'd have a point.

Who did?

The team that would be forced out if England got 5 spots.

Liverpool are the UEFA Champions (as winners of the CL - that is UEFA's flagship club tournament) and will be representing UEFA in the World Club Championship - can you seriously tell me that a club who will be put forward for a tournament by UEFA not be given the chance to defend their title?

They had a chance. It was to finish 4th in their league standings. Simply because it was the same time period as when they won their CL is irrelevent. FA said Top 4 will go, so Liverpool loses. They aren't top 4. Their chance to 'defend' their title was in the league positions that year, even though it was before they won the title. Them's the rules and I see nothing wrong with them.

Frankly, I wish Spain had told Madrid to take a hike a few years back, but that'd never happen to Madrid.

[Galaxy]

Always been curious, what is the seeding in the tournament? How is the seeding done and what is the purpose?

[AlexB]

Real Madrid won the CL and finished 5th - the Spanish FA picked RM (5th place in the Primera League) over RZ (4th) to defend the trophy in 2000/1- therefore this is a precedent - an action taken in a given situation that has occurred before. This is what the FA should do this time with Liverpool/Everton - exact same thing. I redirect you to this point made earlier which you appear to have missed/misunderstood.

Plus as I've said in my other posts I'm suggesting Everton miss out, still leaving England with 4 spots not five. Hence the situation decribed above.

Them's the breaks: historically this is what's always happened (I'l repeat the facts as you again appear to have missed/misunderstood them - over decades of European football teams finishing in the bottom Euro qualifying slot have always missed out if the 'wrong' team wins the FA Cup or League Cup), and we're back to a precedent. A further precedent: the European champions have never before not been allowed to defend their crown.

The point you make about not finishing in the top 4 - if Liverpool had lost the final, they would have deserved to be in the UEFA cup, but they won and therefore deserve to be in the CL. It might not be how it works in the US, but it is how it has always worked in European club competition (not just in football, but rugby, golf (actually golf is worldwide on this basis - exemptions from majors, etc), snooker, etc.

I seriously think that it must just be the American way of doing things vs. the European way of doing things: given the historical precedents for European competition in general, if I were a Liverpool fan I would be absolutely incensed at missing out if that proves to be the case.

You might disagree with the principle, that is your choice and nobody can tell you otherwise, but your argument is wrong if you are basing your stance on historical precedent.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Always been curious, what is the seeding in the tournament? How is the seeding done and what is the purpose?

The seeding is a weird system.
First you have to understand the way they rank the associations (countries) based on results in te last five seasons in the European club competitions.

Second, teams are seeded and placed based on their league rankings. So te top two teams in the top leagues go into the draw of 32 for group play, but the #3 and #4 in the league will have to play in the last qualification round. The weaker teams (countries) will have to survive 3 rounds of qualifications to get into the the league ellement of the Champions' League.

Third, for seeding per round, the team rankings in the European club competitions over the last five years are used. But then there's still a flaw as teams get a bonus of half their association's points. Here, the defending champs are always 1st seeds.

I've probably missed a detail or two here, but that's the risk I'm willing to take to go from the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I do think UEFA will step up and refix the rules starting with the 2006-2007 CL. As for UEFA, how is the money "earned" and paid out to the teams? Does UEFA get all the TV $, then that is the prize money, and the home teams get to keep the ticket revenue, on top of the prize money?


I though the World Club championship was cancelled? How is that tournmanet set up?

The money earned is fucked up as well. The teams get a starting fee based on the population of their country (sort of to compensate for the # of tv viewers they bring in) and then earn more money based on results, with big boni for reaching next stages. So, in the end, the teams from the top leagues always get the most, even if teams from the smaller countries like Portugal, the Netherlands or Greece get deep into the tournament, the Spanish, Italian, German, French and Enlgish teams still get the most money.

And the World Club Championship? Is that thing still alive?
(I think every continental association is allowed to sent one representative, as well as 1 hosting nation's club and an 8th team, which by memory I don't know how they are invited.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Real Madrid won the CL and finished 5th - the Spanish FA picked RM (5th place in the Primera League) over RZ (4th) to defend the trophy in 2000/1- therefore this is a precedent - an action taken in a given situation that has occurred before. This is what the FA should do this time with Liverpool/Everton - exact same thing. I redirect you to this point made earlier which you appear to have missed/misunderstood.

That isn't a precedent. That's a one time affair done by the Spanish FA, which has no binding authority on the English FA. There is no reason for the English FA to follow it.

I'l repeat the facts as you again appear to have missed/misunderstood them - over decades of European football teams finishing in the bottom Euro qualifying slot have always missed out if the 'wrong' team wins the FA Cup or League Cup)

The UEFA Cup is entirely different. Especially since the FA Cup or League Cup winner aren't 'defending their title' when they go into the UEFA Cup. They are competing for an entirely different one.

A further precedent: the European champions have never before not been allowed to defend their crown.

Because they've always finished in the top positions of their league, or the Spanish picked them over the 4th position.

To use a North American example, it'd be like saying the Stanley Cup winner has never not qualified for the playoffs the next year, so when the Devils finished outside of the Top 8 in the East in 1995, they should have taken the 8th spot because of the winning last year.

Sorry, this situation has occured only TWICE. Spain decided to go one way. English is not bound and should not be bound by their decision.

Furthermore, as stated the European Championship (you know, between countries) has always had the holders have to qualify for the next tourney. France was champion in Euro 2000, but still had to go through a qualification group in Euro 2004.

So I don't see any precedent at all. Just that CL winners all qualified for next year's competition through league play, except one time, where the Spanish allowed them to go through regardless.

It also seems UEFA doesn't seem to buy a precedent here either.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It also seems UEFA doesn't seem to buy a precedent here either.

Actually, I think the UEFA is right on the precedent - it's not their problem, it's the country's. That's what they did for Spain, that's what they're doing for England. Not their call to make.

England does not have a precedent set, Spain does, the UEFA does.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Actually, I think the UEFA is right on the precedent - it's not their problem, it's the country's. That's what they did for Spain, that's what they're doing for England. Not their call to make.

England does not have a precedent set, Spain does, the UEFA does.

True. I never thought of it in that way. I don't remember UEFA back when Real Madrid won the CL and finished 5th making any noises about allowing both Madrid and Zaragosa in. I believe Spain waited to make their decision known as well.

Then again, it's only happened once, so perhaps not enough for a precedent to establish. Though if UEFA changes the rules for England, there will be a howl from Spain, I'm sure.

[AlexB]

The previous winners have not always qualified, going back over the years when there was only one or two qualifiers for the Champions League/European Cup, it regualrly happened (Forest & Villa spring immediately to mind - this is the 50th European Cup you realise?: the Champions League is just it's current format),
the analogy of the Stanley Cup playoffs is IMO totally irrelevant (I've already discussed why)
I began to doubt myself so looked up the definition of precedent to confirm, I've pasted a definition below:

'an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time'

I am not saying the Spanish situation is a legal precedent, but it is a precedent nonetheless.

The EC has historically not allowed winners to automatically qualify - different tournament, different rules. Occurs every four years as opposed to annually, so a national team's make up will be very different from tournament to tournament - different situaiton altogether.

Tbh I'm bored - you believe Liverpool shoudn't be in the CL next, I believe they should.
I'm trying to explain why I believe this using relevant comparisons and similar or same situations that have occurred in the past in the same tournament, your examples are situations that are not related from different tournaments.

Those point where you do relate to the same tournament, you ignore where I'm coming from: at no point have I said that I think England should get 5 places at the expense of another country (although it would be nice for English football, I don;t think this is right - edit: since reading another article on the situation I'm coming round to the idea that there should be a place available for Liverpool without affecting anybody else - see below)

The only tournament that is linked is the UEFA Cup, as the qualification procedures are linked - there has always been a bump down the list if other teams win cup tournaments but don't finish high enough in the league to qualify this way.

Your point is arguable on one black and white fact: they didn;t finish in the top 4. However the rest of your evidence does not take into account extenuating circumstances of European club football or historically similar or same situations.

This is why I keep rising to the bait and responding: not to your point itself, but your arguments in defense of the point

[Katon]

But the thing is, a precedent is only useful if it's the same body acting in both cases. Why is the English FA obliged to follow the Spanish FA's precedent?

As to which competition is the best comparison, the UEFA Cup and previous years' versions of the CL aren't actually comparable. The thing is, if someone won the old European Cup who hadn't qualified for the next season's competition via the league then UEFA just let them in. Someone would be bumped back a qualifying round and everything would be fine. If that meant England having more countries than would otherwise be possible, then so be it. This is what we probably ought to be doing now - just reword the relevant rule to say no more than four teams can quailify via the league from any given country - but it isn't, and so for this season we're stuck with the current rule.

The point is, neither the UEFA Cup nor the CL/European Cup (under previous rules) have ever had a hard-and-fast limit on the number of teams like the one that's causing the current difficulty. The only competitions which have ever had to deal with a problem like this are the European Championships and the World Cup; they are therefore the only competitions to which a real comparison can be made.

[AlexB]

Katon, not sure I agree with you on the first point they're not obliged to follow the Spanish FAs precedent: I was just pointing out that sombody had been the exact same situation and they took the course of action of putting in Madrid ahead of Zaragoza - therefore the FA IMO should look to what another organisaiton did in the same circumstance, if UEFA stick with their current position.

Something else I just found that tbh I was unaware of, from Teamtalk (which I know is not always the most reliable source):

'Meanwhile, the FA's chairman Geoff Thompson, who is also a Uefa vice-president, has continued lobbying for there to be five English clubs in the Champions League so Liverpool can defend their crown.

His main argument is that nearly all the 52 Uefa member countries would be given an extra place in the Champions League in similar circumstances - apart from England, Spain and Italy because they are already allowed four teams in the competition.

The FA believe that is an inconsistency in the regulations and that even if Uefa are not convinced on this occasion they should change the rules for the future.

Thompson said: "We are working extremely hard to try to secure the extra place for Liverpool.

"Our basic concern is to ensure that all 52 countries have the same opportunity. There is an additional place guaranteed should the champions come from 49 countries in Europe but not for the other three - England, Italy and Spain.

"We are saying that there should be a level playing field and that every country should have the same opportunity."


If this is true it would be unfair for Everton to miss out and do indeed support Liverpool getting an 'extra' spot. But whatever the situation, Liverpool have to be in the CL next season.

[Marc Vaughan]

Katon, not sure I agree with you on the first point they're not obliged to follow the Spanish FAs precedent: I was just pointing out that sombody had been the exact same situation and they took the course of action of putting in Madrid ahead of Zaragoza - therefore the FA IMO should look to what another organisaiton did in the same circumstance, if UEFA stick with their current position.

The spanish situation was very different though in that Madrid are a huge club with great political (both in football and external to it) clout and Zaragoza simply weren't.

In England it was a very touchy situation with Liverpool and Everton being rival clubs from the same city and both having illustrious histories and large supporter bases.

The FA imho chose to back Everton for two reasons, (1) they thought Liverpool wouldn't win it so it wouldn't matter in the long run and the decision would have set a 'precedent' for future occurances, (2) it promotes the league (and hence the FA) over the Champions League so they're protecting their own interests.

That being said I'm hoping they sneak Liverpool into the comp somehow.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The FA imho chose to back Everton for two reasons, (1) they thought Liverpool wouldn't win it so it wouldn't matter in the long run and the decision would have set a 'precedent' for future occurances, (2) it promotes the league (and hence the FA) over the Champions League so they're protecting their own interests.

That being said I'm hoping they sneak Liverpool into the comp somehow.

Totally right: I think when all these 'what will happen if Liverpool win and finih 5th' questions were being asked, it was seen as the most pointless conversation ever. Now its landed right back on them...

[Galaxy]

Everton really is hitting the transfer market though. Seems like they are zeroing on three players already to bring in.

[AlexB]

I like the players they're linked with so far - Simon Davies is a very good player, Scott Parker is solid: players who should definitely improve the squad but won't bring the prima donna attitude, as Everton is a team heavily dependent on teamwork and effort this is as important to them as ability.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Isiddiqui - I've just gone to your profile and seen you're a law student - therefore I can only assume that your obvious knowledge of American law is not allowing you to understand that things work differently in Europe.

I understand perfectly how things work in Europe. However, you are offering justifications that do not conform to it.

There are so many holes in your argument: the previous winners have not always qualified, going back over the years when there was only one or two qualifiers for the Champions League/European Cup, it regualrly happened (Forest & Villa spring immediately to mind - this is the 50th European Cup you realise?: the Champions League is just it's current format)

It is disingenous to refer to the Champions League and European Cup as the same thing since there were massive changes made to the structure of the competition from a playoff of champions to a league of the top teams in the leagues of Europe. It's like saying the Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup are the same exact things.

your worrying lack of the knowlede of the definition of precedent - for your reference and to help your study, I've pasted a definition below:

an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time

That is NOT what you are arguing. If you were simply using it as a prior example to explain this occurance, you wouldn't be this adamant.

You are arguing on behalf of the definition of precedent that says:

Convention or custom arising from long practice

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The FA imho chose to back Everton for two reasons, (1) they thought Liverpool wouldn't win it so it wouldn't matter in the long run and the decision would have set a 'precedent' for future occurances, (2) it promotes the league (and hence the FA) over the Champions League so they're protecting their own interests.

May I add a third, more practical reason. It was a 'make-up' for Everton missing out on the CL in the late 80s due to Heysel, where Everton won the Premier League twice. Liverpool won it twice, but since their fans were responsible, no real guilt there. Arsenal won it once as well, but they had great success in the late 90s. Everton haven't really been close to that good since the late 80s.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That is NOT what you are arguing. If you were simply using it as a prior example to explain this occurance, you wouldn't be this adamant.

You are arguing on behalf of the definition of precedent that says:

Convention or custom arising from long practice

How arrogant are you to tell me what I am and am not arguing? And once again you are wrong - I am arguing the former. The reason I was so adamant is because you told me that this was not a precedent: it is a precedent byut not a legal one - maybe semantics but true.

However I am not going to go on because unfortunately you repied to my pre-edited version which was a little too thoughtlessly worded.

Your point about Everton following Heysel is an interesting one, probably not entered anybody's mindset or decision making, but it would kind of even it out I guess.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I like the players they're linked with so far - Simon Davies is a very good player, Scott Parker is solid: players who should definitely improve the squad but won't bring the prima donna attitude, as Everton is a team heavily dependent on teamwork and effort this is as important to them as ability.

And the other player they are "looking hard" at is Chelsea keeper Carlo Cudicini.

[AlexB]

good keeper: depends how much he wants 1st team football as to whether he leaves Chelsea or not. Hadn;t heard this rumour, but also would be a good signing.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

good keeper: depends how much he wants 1st team football as to whether he leaves Chelsea or not. Hadn;t heard this rumour, but also would be a good signing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...on/4590397.stm

[AlexB]

Sounds like they're trying to buy Chelsea's reserve side - although from the quality of some of them there are worse policies!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Sounds like they're trying to buy Chelsea's reserve side - although from the quality of some of them there are worse policies!

I rate Moyes as a manager pretty highly and think he's going about strengthening the team intelligently, he's after quality players who are still 'hungry' to prove themselves, 'chelsea reserves' will be desperate to get one over on their previous team and very motivated to succeed ... not to mention that Parker is imho an amazing talent and could form a crucial link in the midfield for an Everton team still missing Gravesen ...

[Marc Vaughan]

PS> As far as keepers go - I'm surprised they haven't been linked with Caroll(sp?) now he's been released by Man Utd .. he's a pretty solid keeper, bar a few gaffes this season (which imho wasn't helped by the pressure which Ferguson puts his keepers under, one of Man Utd's weaknesses in recent years has been the turnover and lack of faith put in keepers subsequent to Schmeichal(sp?).

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I rate Moyes as a manager pretty highly and think he's going about strengthening the team intelligently, he's after quality players who are still 'hungry' to prove themselves, 'chelsea reserves' will be desperate to get one over on their previous team and very motivated to succeed ... not to mention that Parker is imho an amazing talent and could form a crucial link in the midfield for an Everton team still missing Gravesen ...

What's interesting about Moyes and Everton is he's had two very good years and one poor one: I like the fact he's not getting carried away with last season's position, and looking to improve the squad not necesarily slowly but surely, but not trying to buy in world superstars at exorbitant prices: I think these deals would represent excellent value for money.

The counter argument is that Everton massively overachieved last year and can three or four very good players raise what is on paper a fairly ordinary squad and enable them to challenge at a similar level next season, given their drop in form two years ago.

It will be very interesting to see how they do: I hope he does well as he comes across as a decent bloke with his head well and truly screwed on.

[Galaxy]

I love the European soccer and "free agency" and team building. It's amazing to get wrapped up in FM 2005, and teams can get a windfall of money from being successful/overachieving (Liverpool) and turn it around.

What is Liverpool's plan of action now? Are they in debt? Will this win allow them to get back into the financial ballpark of the "Big 3", and return to that level year in and year out? They are planning a new stadium as well, correct? I'm sure that will really give them a revenue stream.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

What's interesting about Moyes and Everton is he's had two very good years and one poor one: I like the fact he's not getting carried away with last season's position, and looking to improve the squad not necesarily slowly but surely, but not trying to buy in world superstars at exorbitant prices: I think these deals would represent excellent value for money.

The counter argument is that Everton massively overachieved last year and can three or four very good players raise what is on paper a fairly ordinary squad and enable them to challenge at a similar level next season, given their drop in form two years ago.

It will be very interesting to see how they do: I hope he does well as he comes across as a decent bloke with his head well and truly screwed on.

Or like Bill Parcell's once said, "you are what your record says you are." I don't buy the overachievement argument about Everton (not saying you're making it). 38 games is more than enough time to shake out the fakers. What they proved is that hard work and dedication to the team concept can beat superior talent that is less disciplined or less organized.

My main concern if I were an Everton fan would be that they build the team with solid team players that won't disrupt the chemistry that was so vital to their success. Talent is definitely important, but Everton won't be competing solely on that basis for some time to come.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

How arrogant are you to tell me what I am and am not arguing?

You need to be told. You are backtracking so fast, I'm afraid, your ass will be quite sore when you fall upon it.

You even said it again a few posts above:

"historically this is what's always happened"

And once again you are wrong - I am arguing the former. The reason I was so adamant is because you told me that this was not a precedent: it is a precedent byut not a legal one - maybe semantics but true.

If you are using that definition of precedent, then your argument has got nothing behind it at all. All that definition means is a similar situation happened before, but has no standing behind it. You said there has been a precedent, like we are required to follow it. That definition doesn't make that assumption at all.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Or like Bill Parcell's once said, "you are what your record says you are." I don't buy the overachievement argument about Everton (not saying you're making it). 38 games is more than enough time to shake out the fakers. What they proved is that hard work and dedication to the team concept can beat superior talent that is less disciplined or less organized.

My main concern if I were an Everton fan would be that they build the team with solid team players that won't disrupt the chemistry that was so vital to their success. Talent is definitely important, but Everton won't be competing solely on that basis for some time to come.

While I agree with that to a large extent - the biggest thing Moyes has to look out for imho is players getting 'cocky' ... the reason they did so well this season as much as anything is the 'underdog factor', they started the season as favourites to go down and the players drew a lot of determination and bloody mindedness from that which kept their work-rate and motivaton high.

Having had a season in the sun (so to speak) he'll have to ensure that they don't allow this work-rate to drop, most likely by playing on the fact that people think its a 'fluke' and they 'over-achieved' and asking the players to prove it otherwise.

Bringing in failed players from big clubs is sensible also in two ways imho, (1) They're hungry and will keep the everton players hungry, (2) most of them came from 'everton-type' clubs moved to bigger clubs and failed to make an impact ... having them around reminds Everton players that going to a big club isn't always to their good.

[bhlloy]

I'm with the camp that says Everton should be in, I think it would be an absolute disaster for the Premiership if they got screwed.

2 main reasons:

1) The rules for qualification are clearly set out at the start of the season. Get in the top four, and qualify for Champions League. Given the huge financial implications for Everton if they don't get in, and the smaller but still significant financial implications for whoever missed out on the UEFA to let Everton in that competition I could see a very messy and protracted legal battle over this one. I cannot believe Zaragoza just laid down and let Madrid in over them, but we all know the godlike status Real have in Spain so who knows what was going on there.

2) The English Premiership is run by the English FA, and when it comes to choosing the English FA representatives in the CL, they should go on the placing in their league. Liverpool won a competition run by UEFA, so if they get any perks in the competition next year it should be provided and administered by UEFA. By passing the buck back to the English FA, UEFA is just dodging the bullet and screwing one of it's members over. Either let the champs defend the title, or require them to qualify period.

I strongly feel that Liverpool should be in the tournament, but not at the expense of Everton (or whoever is the fourth placed team) Not in a million years. I don't like this new trend of tournament winners not getting an automatic place in the tournament. How hard would it be really to add a play-in game to the qualifying round or something?

Incidentally, did anyone see the Welsh champs TNS wanted to play Liverpool for a place in the qualifying rounds? The reasoning behind that being that they would get a bigger crowd for Liverpool than some random team from Georgia that they were going to lose to anyway, and it would be an extra good British team in the tournament. The Welsh FA shot it down and probably quite rightly so, but still a nice thought...

[Marc Vaughan]

Incidentally, did anyone see the Welsh champs TNS wanted to play Liverpool for a place in the qualifying rounds? The reasoning behind that being that they would get a bigger crowd for Liverpool than some random team from Georgia that they were going to lose to anyway, and it would be an extra good British team in the tournament. The Welsh FA shot it down and probably quite rightly so, but still a nice thought...

I like that idea personally - although its got to be something thats sanctioned and a 'one-off' otherwise most small qualifying clubs would simply auction their qualifying round places to big clubs who had a poor season ..

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You need to be told. You are backtracking so fast, I'm afraid, your ass will be quite sore when you fall upon it.

You even said it again a few posts above:

"historically this is what's always happened"


If you are using that definition of precedent, then your argument has got nothing behind it at all. All that definition means is a similar situation happened before, but has no standing behind it. You said there has been a precedent, like we are required to follow it. That definition doesn't make that assumption at all.

How am I backtracking? Liverpool should be in the CL - until I read the article I pasted above I was under the impression from UEFA's statements that they could not create a space in the tournament for the winners, now it seems it's purely because they don;t want more than 4 teams from one country in.

If they stick to this 'no more than 4' then Everton should miss out: however 'in light of new evidence' (i.e. the article from Teamtalk) I think there should easily be a way in which Liverpool can be included without cost to anyone.

At no point have I said that the FA should be legally bound by what the Spanish FA's actions - I have used this an example of the only time in the current European Cup structure where the situation occurred, and the fact that this matched the philosophy behind qualification to the tournament in the past.

Therefore the precedent (not legal precedent, just precedent) is that that the CL winners get in: whether the FA decide to follow this is their choice but I believe that they should. At no point have I used the term 'legal precedent' other than in explaining the difference between a legal precedent and the use of the single word 'precedent' in everyday English.

As I have said, you have one point on which you can argue your case from (if indeed you do have an argument, as now you've reverted to just abusing me) - this does not mean I agree with your case, it's just that I can see that somebody might have a point of view based on one fact, and it's not completely ridiculous.

Acknowledgement that an argument is not ridiculous is not backtracking! You, my friend, are a fuckwit, and I am not going to dignify your garbage posts with any more responses

[Edit: and this is not because you don't agree with me (you are perfectly entitled to your opinion) but the nature of your posts and arguments]

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

How am I backtracking?

Very simply because you were using the definition of precedent that "Convention of custom arising from long practice". Then, when we hammered you, you changed it to say, you were using the defintion that said "An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances."

You changed from saying this is how it has always been (implying that is basically what is required because of history) into saying you were just using it as an example of how to deal with this situation.

(Notice I didn't mention 'legal precedent' once).

That is backtracking.

[MIJB#19]

I heard nobody about the essensce on how the tickets are divided.

The 4th place has turned into a CL ticket because English clubs earned a lot of points from 1999/2000 through 2003/2004. Guess what teams contributed the most to that? Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. Liverpool brought in a lot of points with their UEFA Cup title in 2000/2001, reaching the elite eight in the CL in 2001/2002, and the elite eight of the UEFA Cup in 2002/2003, making the 10th most succesful club of Europe in the period that determines which league positions will result in European football.

And what did Everton do to make the 4th place even worth a CL ticket? Absolutely nothing, they didn't even qualify for the European cups to make that 4th place worth anything.

Having done the math research, it shows that Liverpool's success eventually wasn't even necessery to make England move into the 4-CL tickets countries group for 2005/2006. Liverpool accounted for over 10 of 62 points, but even with 52 points the 4th placed team in England would still go into the CL draw in stead of the UEFA Cup draw.


Given all that, it's a freaky thought that a team can waste their own CL victory prestige as being worth a CL ticket by having had too much success in the previous five seasons, while a team that didn't contribute to the country's success can steal their ticket.

I've also doing the research on Real Madrid's influence on their own luck of being too good to make their CL victory worth a CL ticket. Real Madrid earned almost 11 points in 1996-2001, Real Zaragoza less than a quarter of a point. Again, the points total of Real Madrid wasn't necessery to make the 4th place in the league be worth a CL ticket.

[bhlloy]

[quote=MIJB#19]

Given all that, it's a freaky thought that a team can waste their own CL victory prestige as being worth a CL ticket by having had too much success in the previous five seasons, while a team that didn't contribute to the country's success can steal their ticket.
QUOTE]

There is no fricking stealing... the English FA says that the 4th placed team in the league gets in and Everton were the fourth placed team! Liverpool should be in the tournament but they got in by winning a UEFA sanctioned tournament and their place should be provided by UEFA. Everton outperformed Liverpool in the English league this year and deserve to get the English ticket... geez

Or should we just let the teams that "earned" the tickets play in the tournament every year? Screw the domestic leagues and earning a place in the tournament, screw the excitement of the race for European places, let's just have the same qualifiers every year

[Galaxy]

Just curious,
What is happening with Inter after the problem in the Milan-Inter series. Do they "Qualify" for the CL? If so, what happens with that ticket?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

There is no fricking stealing... the English FA says that the 4th placed team in the league gets in and Everton were the fourth placed team! Liverpool should be in the tournament but they got in by winning a UEFA sanctioned tournament and their place should be provided by UEFA. Everton outperformed Liverpool in the English league this year and deserve to get the English ticket... geez

Or should we just let the teams that "earned" the tickets play in the tournament every year? Screw the domestic leagues and earning a place in the tournament, screw the excitement of the race for European places, let's just have the same qualifiers every year

Everton as much earned that fourth ticket as Liverpool did, both met UEFA qualification demands. The UEFA gives England 4 tickets and will only allow Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and either Liverpool or Everton. The whole discussion that's going on is whether L. or E. should get the ticket. The FA decided to give it to Everton, but their timing was bad and both the UEFA and FA should learn from this situation.

Again, I'm agreeing that the UEFA fucked up and shouldn't make this the FA's problem. I figured it was worth figuring out whether there was any irony in the whole situation with Liverpool's own success costing them a ticket. FWIW, if the same thing happens next season, Liverpool's success in Europe will have cost them their own CL ticket.

[Galaxy]

Didn't UEFA just annouce that they think Liverpool should be allowed to defend the title?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't UEFA just annouce that they think Liverpool should be allowed to defend the title?

The UEFA president Lennart Johannsson (spelling?) supports this, as do the major European teams, as do many high standing UEFA personnel such as Franz Beckenbauer.

THe UEFA spokesman William Gaillert (spelling?) is the main 'no' man, but he does appear to have a thing against English teams: he basically called Chelsea and Jose Mourinho liars over the Barca episode, and I don;t recall him making an apology over that...

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/4590899.stm

[MIJB#19]

But Chelsea and Mourinho are liars, tough to argue about that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by robbgmaier

If the refs don't have the balls to order a rekick on milan's second attempt, and if they are too lazy to spot the ball themselves, rather than let dudec run out there with it, then they just need to give up

At risk of repeating something that someone else has posted in the six or seven pages I haven't read yet...

I have it on good authority from the referee forum at BigSoccer that international-level referees are expected to give the keeper one to two meters of leeway, which means that there was still one (I think) kick that should have been retaken.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Katon

On the other hand, if the World Cup or European Championship winners botch their qualifying groups then they're toast. They don't get to defend their trophy.

Which is a new development as of the 2006 World Cup -- in previous tournaments the defending champion had automatically received a spot in the finals.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

But Chelsea and Mourinho are liars, tough to argue about that.

You're right, it is generally very tough to argue about that, but this was the one occasion where they were actually telling the truth in that Rikjaard did go through the first door to the refs room, (but not the second). Anders Frisk (eventually) backed them up...

[moriarty]

Haven't seen this posted yet, but Liverpool are in the Champions League (along with Everton and the others). They're going to have to start at the bottom though going through full qualifying (6games) prior to the group stage.

As predicted, the 'future' rules have been modified such that if it happens again, the 4th place team (or 3rd etc. if you only get 3 teams in) would automatically be dropped.

No doubt it came down to $$ in the end.

[MIJB#19]

I have a feeling the big clubs have pressured the UEFA to either let Liverpool enter or they would all stay away. The G14 (the 14 biggest clubs and some financial over the top former top clubs) had a meeting on Thursday, coincidentally a day before the final decission was made.

[moriarty]

Slightly off topic -

Being a Liverpool fan, I was caught up in the excitement of their Champions League victory and I thought ... man, I've got to get a 'Liverpool champions of Europe T-shirt'. You would think I could just order from one of a hundred of sites online ... but to my suprise I couldn't find an 'offical' winners t-shirt anywhere (although they did have 'finalist' ones). Well after looking around, I read where someone said they wont' be available until June 15th or something. I was really suprised by this ... and seems like UEFA or someone is missing out on a big marekting opportunity.

If the Spurs win the NBA title this year, fans around the world will be able to buy champions t-shirts/hats/etc... the day after the final game (if not sooner). Seems weird that UEFA/Reebok or whomever controls this would miss out on the Euporia by not having a gadzillion shirts ready to go. Maybe they're all over Europe ... just not online yet?

[FrogMan]

being a Pats fan and with the last 4 years having been very good to us I can tell you that they usually don't have a gadzillions shirts ready. Only enough for the players and people around the team, but you usually can order them right after the game, or even pre-order before the game is even played, with your order automatically getting cancelled if your team doesn't win. And when you order/preorder, they tell you when the shirts are supposed to ship. Kinda weird that you can't even order a shirt with a future delivery date...

FM

[Critch]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Well after looking around, I read where someone said they wont' be available until June 15th or something. I was really suprised by this ... and seems like UEFA or someone is missing out on a big marekting opportunity.

Maybe they had them all ready to go, but chucked the lot in the trash at half time? Back to square one.

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by Critch

Maybe they had them all ready to go, but chucked the lot in the trash at half time? Back to square one.

just like the NFL chucked the whole lot of "ST LOUIS RAMS, NFL CHAMPIONS, BACK-TO-BACK" shirts in the trash when Vinatieri kicked it through the uprights with time running out

FM