Search results

Agreed. That's the thin end of the wedge I'm most concerned about. Real Madrid are moaning about their losses, while paying Bale 600k a week, and signing up David Alaba. WTF? They should be laughed out of the room, and fined for their part in trying to destroy football at the same time. Yet...

If the ESL fiasco hadn't happened, and no one had thought this new proposal was unfair, then I guess I've misjudged it.

But the ESL was being offered on merit - ie, you did well in the past, so you're in (obviously Spurs were just included as a joke because one of the snake won a bet). When a big team misses out, they can tweak that 5 years to 10 if necessary, and change it from 2 places to 3, then 4, then 8, to...

No, agreed, it's nothing like as bad as that. Not even close really. But it's still not ok. Are we supposed to not care purely because we were threatened with much worse?

It doesn't take away from those who have qualified, but does offer spaces to the big clubs who basically shouldn't. So... Leicester finish 5th - tough luck, you ain't in... Liverpool finish 5th - oo, it's Liverpool, in you come. It would be rigging it so that Leicester won't qualify in a...

Firstly, even if it was only 2, how is that fair? That's not how football has ever worked, and is just a lighter version than the ESL proposed. Secondly, if it is to start with 2, what about when it's pushed to 3, then 4, etc etc, to make sure the big clubs never miss out on the money that...

I posted about it on the main thread. No one seems to care: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0268-12157d69ce2d-9f011c70f6fa-1000--new-champions-league-format-explained/ "Slots three and four: awarded to the two clubs with the highest club coefficients that have not qualified...

The new CL rules are to allow clubs to enter based on the fact they've done well in the past (ie, not needing to finish top 4 etc). No one here seems to care about that. So much for outrage.