Manchester City

[Bredbury Blue]

You basically get seeded by qualifying for UEFA competition and consistently winning games.

It is what is is.

And what it is, is clearly a badly designed seeding as witnessed by "UEFA is close to changing the seeding system for the group stages of the Champions League...".

[Bredbury Blue]

And shouldn't a team like City, who have been 1st, 2nd and 1st the past 3 seasons, be seeded higher than a team like Arsenal who haven't been in the top 2 places for some years (since 2005). I think they should, how about you Chicog?

Certainly not. Win your games in Europe to improve your European coefficient.

It isn't rocket science.

If you look at the top 20 by the way, you'll see how many G18 teams aren't in it, which hardly backs your idea that it protects them.

And anyway, the G14/G18 doesn't even exist any more.

I think all of us on here are aware that the G14/G18 officially don't exist any more, it was a convenient way for me to refer to the european top-table teams who are favoured (protected) by the set-up.

[Chicog]

And shouldn't a team like City, who have been 1st, 2nd and 1st the past 3 seasons, be seeded higher than a team like Arsenal who haven't been in the top 2 places for some years (since 2005). I think they should, how about you Chicog?

Certainly not. Win your games in Europe to improve your European coefficient.

It isn't rocket science.

If you look at the top 20 by the way, you'll see how many G18 teams aren't in it, which hardly backs your idea that it protects them.

And anyway, the G14/G18 doesn't even exist any more.

I think all of us on here are aware that the G14/G18 officially don't exist any more, it was a convenient way for me to refer to the european top-table teams who are favoured (protected) by the set-up.

I didn't think they were.

However the new system they are proposing effectively guarantees they will always be seeded. If that isn't "favoured (protected)" I don't know what is.

[Chicog]

I'm probably not as rigid as you are in my ability to negotiate and reach a compromise that suits the majority. Personally, I would like it to be a simple "all names in the hat" type of draw but I'm not naive and understand that it's a money machine. Therefore, for reasons that JellyDog mentioned above, they won't make it that simple and we will have to accept some sort of ranking system. It's still not what I would really like but the system proposed in your post above at least seems an acceptable compromise where the current Champions are in Pot 1 of the Champions League.

Perhaps you didn't read it properly.

The current champions of SEVEN leagues chosen by UEFA.

Yep, I read it properly which is why I mentioned the above in Red. Perhaps you didn't read my compromise properly

There is already a ranking system.

It's based on your performances in Europe.

That's why you object to it.

[Bredbury Blue]

And shouldn't a team like City, who have been 1st, 2nd and 1st the past 3 seasons, be seeded higher than a team like Arsenal who haven't been in the top 2 places for some years (since 2005). I think they should, how about you Chicog?

Certainly not. Win your games in Europe to improve your European coefficient.

It isn't rocket science.

If you look at the top 20 by the way, you'll see how many G18 teams aren't in it, which hardly backs your idea that it protects them.

And anyway, the G14/G18 doesn't even exist any more.

I think all of us on here are aware that the G14/G18 officially don't exist any more, it was a convenient way for me to refer to the european top-table teams who are favoured (protected) by the set-up.

I didn't think they were.

However the new system they are proposing effectively guarantees they will always be seeded. If that isn't "favoured (protected)" I don't know what is.

Next you'll be telling us the Big 5 didn't instigate the Premier League for their own good.

The new system they are proposing will correctly recognise that the CHAMPION of a country will be ranked higher than the non-champions of a country in a tournament that is called the CHAMPIONS League...and that is how it should be.

[mrbojangles]

I'm probably not as rigid as you are in my ability to negotiate and reach a compromise that suits the majority. Personally, I would like it to be a simple "all names in the hat" type of draw but I'm not naive and understand that it's a money machine. Therefore, for reasons that JellyDog mentioned above, they won't make it that simple and we will have to accept some sort of ranking system. It's still not what I would really like but the system proposed in your post above at least seems an acceptable compromise where the current Champions are in Pot 1 of the Champions League.

Perhaps you didn't read it properly.

The current champions of SEVEN leagues chosen by UEFA.

Yep, I read it properly which is why I mentioned the above in Red. Perhaps you didn't read my compromise properly

There is already a ranking system.

It's based on your performances in Europe.

That's why you object to it.

Yes, there is already a ranking system and even those in charge have realised it's a stupid one and are therefore gonna change it.

It's not only me who objects to it, or do you believe Platini comes in here and reports back on what I object to!! You object to any changes because at the moment it suits you to get a decent ranking in Europe even though domestically your dog average and have been for years. Well, now you've been found out and you won't get such an easy ride into the play off stages, that you have been enjoying. Get over it, times are a changing.

[Chicog]

The new system they are proposing will correctly recognise that the CHAMPION of a country will be ranked higher than the non-champions of a country in a tournament that is called the CHAMPIONS League...and that is how it should be.

Er no. The champions of a certain seven countries. Which is exactly the sort of protectionism of which you were complaining.

[Chicog]

Yes, there is already a ranking system and even those in charge have realised it's a stupid one and are therefore gonna change it.

It's not only me who objects to it, or do you believe Platini comes in here and reports back on what I object to!! You object to any changes because at the moment it suits you to get a decent ranking in Europe even though domestically your dog average and have been for years. Well, now you've been found out and you won't get such an easy ride into the play off stages, that you have been enjoying. Get over it, times are a changing.

Believe it or not I favour extending playoffs to 3rd and 4th places to give other leagues a chance (except the tims obviously).

I certainly don't favour making it even easier.

All this is is yet another step towards a European Super League.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Chicog

[Bredbury Blue]

The new system they are proposing will correctly recognise that the CHAMPION of a country will be ranked higher than the non-champions of a country in a tournament that is called the CHAMPIONS League...and that is how it should be.

Er no. The champions of a certain seven countries. Which is exactly the sort of protectionism of which you were complaining.

Er no. We're saying - don't think anybody is really complaining -that the current seeding system is wrong/inappropriate. If you're going to have a seeding system it should seed country champions over non-champions. And if you're going to seed country champions, then obviously champions of say Germany should be seeded/ranked higher than champions of say Sweden.

[Bredbury Blue]

Just heard on CTH that most Premier headed goals = Shearer = 46 goals. Impressive.

[Chicog]

The new system they are proposing will correctly recognise that the CHAMPION of a country will be ranked higher than the non-champions of a country in a tournament that is called the CHAMPIONS League...and that is how it should be.

Er no. The champions of a certain seven countries. Which is exactly the sort of protectionism of which you were complaining.

Er no. We're saying - don't think anybody is really complaining -that the current seeding system is wrong/inappropriate. If you're going to have a seeding system it should seed country champions over non-champions. And if you're going to seed country champions, then obviously champions of say Germany should be seeded/ranked higher than champions of say Sweden.

Because they have more money.

Because they're already in the Champions League.

Which gives them more money.

And now they're effectively almost guaranteed even more money.

You can see how it ends up if you keep doing the big boys favours, surely?

[P45Mustang]

On me 'ead.

Seeding system needed for Championes League for various reasons.

Need seeding system to be fair.

Who judges what is a fair seeding system is a little bit tricky innit.

But they seem to manage in Tennis and Golf.

[Bredbury Blue]

A good point for plucky little Man Utd.

Di Maria looks very useful: prediction fou you, he'll be their player of the season.

Rooney looks lost at the moment; missing Moyes?

Still a lot of work for LVG to do, Utd look very flat.

[Bredbury Blue]

The new system they are proposing will correctly recognise that the CHAMPION of a country will be ranked higher than the non-champions of a country in a tournament that is called the CHAMPIONS League...and that is how it should be.

Er no. The champions of a certain seven countries. Which is exactly the sort of protectionism of which you were complaining.

Er no. We're saying - don't think anybody is really complaining -that the current seeding system is wrong/inappropriate. If you're going to have a seeding system it should seed country champions over non-champions. And if you're going to seed country champions, then obviously champions of say Germany should be seeded/ranked higher than champions of say Sweden.

Because they have more money.

Because they're already in the Champions League.

Which gives them more money.

And now they're effectively almost guaranteed even more money.

You can see how it ends up if you keep doing the big boys favours, surely?

Thanks what we're all saying. Doh!

[P45Mustang]

C'mon Stoke.

[Bredbury Blue]

C'mon Stoke.

Aw, that's not nice.

[P45Mustang]

C'mon Stoke.

Aw, that's not nice.

Special One will be watching Charming One closely too.

Only one team (or two) wins the Prem and the Championes League.

[Chicog]

So let me get this straight then. When you said " i think the way the old-boys club (G14 / G18) are protected by the current seeding process could do with looking at.", what you meant was that they should give the "top" leagues automatic seeding, virtually guaranteeing most of them progression.

And yet when I said it's bad for football and increases the likelihood of a European "Premier" League, you say:

Thanks what we're all saying. Doh!

Yeah right.

[P45Mustang]

Anyway, before you all get your knickers in a twist about injustice, I'm watching City-Stoke live, and at half time it's nil nil.

C'mon Stoke.

[Chicog]

Looks like Lee Mason is in the "let's do Citeh a favour" club as well. Could not have been a more obvious penalty.

[Bredbury Blue]

Anyway, before you all get your knickers in a twist about injustice, I'm watching City-Stoke live, and at half time it's nil nil.

C'mon Stoke.

..and its not looking good. Somebody needs to find the keys to move Stoke's parked bus before give us a sucker punch (which looks on the cards). Not good.

[P45Mustang]

Yeh. Right.

City 0 Stoke 1.

30 mins to go.

[smokie36]

You basically get seeded by qualifying for UEFA competition and consistently winning games.

It is what is is.

The rules are simple, you don't get an easy ride just because you qualify for Europe once in a blue moon.

Every team that qualifies should get the same chance.....just like it used to be.

This "arrangement" is all about ensuring as many of the big clubs as possible reap the rewards in the latter stages.

Not mentioned among this debate is that if minnows are allowed to play minnows the TV ratings and $ will be adversely effected to a great degree and the competitive nature of the games would suffer. Not that I'm worried about the suits losing money, but I wouldn't be interested in watching a Little Mother's of the Poor kick off against Lepers United and not many fans would. Getting rid of the seedings seems an idea worth considering to some but I wouldn't be in favor of it. Do you want to have the possibility of four woebegone clubs in one group and four titans in another ? Then the reality of a titan facing off against a club with absolutely zero chance in the knock out stage ? And if you want to argue that the minnow would have a shot, how ? By parking the bus and playing shit football ? I think many fans would change their minds about wanting a change after viewing (or not viewing) such a bad joke.

Most sports have seedings of one type or another for a well established reason.

Nice post that takes out the "only thinking of themselves element "

I disagree with his post....if the playing field was level we would see less of this galactico effect with all of the best players gravitating to half a dozen teams......and less of the huge and ridiculous wages involded perhaps as well.

Its not as if we didn't watch football before seedings came about is it?.....and frankly some of the so called best teams in the world have thrown up the worst games.

I would rather see a decent Burnley than a crap Man Utd for sure!

[P45Mustang]

^

The world is not fair Smokie.

Ask Levy. Abramovich is Jewish also.

Oy Vey.

Stoke have a very good goalie though.

[Chicog]

Anyway, before you all get your knickers in a twist about injustice, I'm watching City-Stoke live, and at half time it's nil nil.

C'mon Stoke.

..and its not looking good. Somebody needs to find the keys to move Stoke's parked bus before give us a sucker punch (which looks on the cards). Not good.

Methinks you tempted fate there.

[Bredbury Blue]

Congats to Stoke...played really well.so many teams come and park the bus and lose...first time in 3 seasons any team has pulled it off. City were poor though.

[kurtramsbottom]

Bloody mary !! I'll have a double.ye just can't predict what happens in the prem...Swansea 9 points wdf?

[P45Mustang]

Congats to Stoke...played really well.so many teams come and park the bus and lose...first time in 3 seasons any team has pulled it off. City were poor though.

Pardon? Chelsea beat you home and away last season.

Tactical Masterclass.

You seem to have a short memory Blue.

[Bredbury Blue]

Anyway, before you all get your knickers in a twist about injustice, I'm watching City-Stoke live, and at half time it's nil nil.

C'mon Stoke.

..and its not looking good. Somebody needs to find the keys to move Stoke's parked bus before give us a sucker punch (which looks on the cards). Not good.

Methinks you tempted fate there.

Me thinks you didn't watch the game or don't know football if you couldn't see that being on the cards

[Bredbury Blue]

So Lee Mason obviously doesn't like City chicog judging by the Yaya penalty not being awarded