Is there a question to be asked about the honesty of the CL?

Sergio

strawberryb0y wrote: »

And it's not as if they were the ugliest team on the pitch.
The biggest disgrace last night were Mourinho's post match comments. A long touchline ban is in order.

And what about the disgraceful antics of the barca team during the game rolling around in the grass trying to get players yellow carded or sent off.Dani Alves was a bloody disgrace too IMHO!!!!
Ive bad taste in my mouth since the arsenal v barca 2nd leg at the nou camp a few months ago when there players were trying to contantly get players sent off!!!

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

Well, there's no way of knowing until someone gives it a go. Don't forget, the up-side for traditional fans is a more competitive domestic league and UEFA cup.

I could write a much longer argument as to why your idea is terrible. It is probably obvious to many why it is terrible. But there is no way that the domestic leagues would carry on blissfully. Look at what happened the AIL League in rugby when Leinster, Munster and Ulster started competing in the European Cup and Celtic League. The AIL is a relic, a dying relic. The same thing would happen domestic leagues in your example.

Franchises would not work. They sound like an idea dreamt up by an American marketing executive who has not one notion of what existing teams mean to their fans.

I could go on, but your idea just simply wouldn't work. No promotion or relegation? Nonsense.

Tinfoil hat thread

parker kent

rarnes1 wrote: »

Tinfoil hat thread

And it is exactly what Jose wants us talking about today, instead of how his team lay down and died in the home semi final against Barcelona.

cm2000

Whatever about last night, never a red card and all that. I think there's a question to answer over the '09 semi final between Chelsea and Barce. The refereeing in that game was as one sided as it could possibly have been. I'm convinced that UEFA did not want an all English final two years in a row (particularly a repeat one) as there was a lot of anti-English football rhetoric going around UEFA at the time.

And I definitely wouldn't put it past UEFA or FIFA to try and fix a game. Slimy bastards.

ColeTrain

Neil3030 wrote: »

Guys, if they only let champions into the tournament, it would be shit!

This year, for example, you wouldn't have had Man Utd, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Spurs, Roma, Milan, Lyon or Schalke.

There's no consipiracy on this front, just common sense!!

Common sense? Spurs were seeded in the qualifying round and only had to play one tie despite never playing in the Champions league before and finishing fourth in their league. That makes it out to be a bit of a farce for me.
Whatever about having runners up in it, to make things that easy is unfair to the other leagues to say the least.

dfx-

Colinboy wrote: »

And what about the disgraceful antics of the barca team during the game rolling around in the grass trying to get players yellow carded or sent off.Dani Alves was a bloody disgrace too IMHO!!!!

As a Barca follower, I've had enough of Barca doing the opposite against Madrid and them getting away with it. The game in 2008 and their co-ordinated plan of kicking Messi individually was enough to lose any wish of staying up and letting them away with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAOZDdGj6rI

pickarooney

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No it isn't. Its a terrible idea. Clubs rise and fall all the time. Look at Juve. Look at Chelsea. One of the worlds biggest sides who fell very far and are in the process of rebuilding. A mid sized London club who are now a force. Its not in any way static.

This is what happens when you get relegated or miss out on the CL. A superleague would negate that.

Who daydreams about this? Do you think Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham, Fulham, QPR, Millwall, Palace, Charlton, Brentford, Orient, Daggers etc fans will jack it in and follow the London Beefeaters? Will they fcuk. Celtic and Rangers following the Glasgow Haggis's? Milan and Inter the Milan Mafia?

It's already happening. Kids who in previous generations would have followed Oldham and Charlton are now going round in Man City and Chelsea and even Real Madrid shirts. Their parents haven't the time or the inclination to blood them as proper fans so they're raised on fast-food football.

There is a reason no franchises have happened in football. Look at Dublin City and Fingal. Fans don't attach to new entities like that. Forget about Irish bandwagon jumpers, they aren't reflective. To make this work people would have to abandon their current sides and start following these franchises and it won't happen.

Those sow's ear efforts don't illustrate anything. The last 15 years have seen a major shift in the kind of fans filling seats in new stadiums with no tradition behind them. Put on a nice show for them and they'll pick Barstoolona or Unreal Madrid over a leaky Ewood Park.

But thats quite a shít deal. Lose the best players and CL footie for that? No thanks.

These teams have already no chance of the best players or CL footie; they would have a chance at winning something and offering something for the fans to cheer for beyond 7th place and a UEFA fair play spot or a scoreless draw against Arsenal.

Well the billion odd people who tuned in last night would beg to differ.

Exactly. Billions want to watch the glamour games. Give them a full season of matches like that over the tedious, rigged group stages, the Borisovs and the Clujes and they'll lap it up.

parker kent wrote: »

I could write a much longer argument as to why your idea is terrible. It is probably obvious to many why it is terrible. But there is no way that the domestic leagues would carry on blissfully. Look at what happened the AIL League in rugby when Leinster, Munster and Ulster started competing in the European Cup and Celtic League. The AIL is a relic, a dying relic. The same thing would happen domestic leagues in your example.

There's only so much rugby people will watch. If people stop watching Sunderland and Wolves because there's a Superleague match on it says a lot for what kind of supporters they are.

Franchises would not work. They sound like an idea dreamt up by an American marketing executive who has not one notion of what existing teams mean to their fans.

Or someone who sees the way the tide is turning and how old-fashioned loyalty is going the way of boot-shining and standing in the terrace.

I could go on, but your idea just simply wouldn't work. No promotion or relegation? Nonsense.

It's not that far-out an idea. The MLS doesn't have it, nor the A-League but most people believe America and Australia will never amount to anything. Argentina doesn't have direct relegation but uses some crazy (or visionary) three-season average.

fryup

Another thing that really irks me is - the fact that teams that finish third in the group stages automatically get into the uefa cup after xmas.......which i think is totally unfair on teams that started the uefa cup from scratch.

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

There's only so much rugby people will watch. If people stop watching Sunderland and Wolves because there's a Superleague match on it says a lot for what kind of supporters they are.

You missed my point. The top players don't play in the AIL any more. Nor would they in your fantasy league. No top players mean less money involved. Having all the best players with all the money would destroy the other teams. What sort of TV deal would the leagues left behind get? Who'd sponsor their jerseys?

You just don't seem to get it.

Bohrio

gosplan wrote: »

... vrs Barcelona

Motta's red for Inter last year and Pepe's red last night - both fairly soft.

Chelsea's many denied penalties two years ago and RVP's second yellow this year - both close to inexplicable.

I fully expect pics of tin foil hats posted in response to this but I'd rather someone posted a booking similar to Van Persie's or a match in which a team was denied as many obvious penalties as Chelsea were.

If there is a question to be answered then as I see it the answer must be ...

Ref's are weak and unfairly favour the 'good' team

or

Barcelona are Adidas (who kind of control football), Platini and Blatter were/are Adidas ... you get the message but in case you don't read this.

or

Barcelona bought the refs

And what about last year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ7p0OqT7bU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ7p0OqT7bU&feature=player_embedded

didnt see Mou complaining back then...

parker kent

People that seriously believe there is a conspiracy for United or Barcelona need their heads examined.

pickarooney

parker kent wrote: »

You missed my point. The top players don't play in the AIL any more. Nor would they in your fantasy league. No top players mean less money involved. Having all the best players with all the money would destroy the other teams. What sort of TV deal would the leagues left behind get? Who'd sponsor their jerseys?

You just don't seem to get it.

It's not a parallel comparison. In rugby players used to line out for a club team, a provincial team, a national team and maybe the Lions, while holding down a full-time job. As professional sportsmen, modern players don't have the freedom to play in all these competitions.

In soccer, as I think I've mentioned a couple of times already, the best players are already all on the books of the big teams. Them playing in a separate league wouldn't change this. The second tier players would be with the other clubs.

Now, here you get to the crux of the issue - the dishonesty of football fans who pretend that they love their clubs no matter how they're faring or who plays for them. So there'd be a bit less money knocking about in the domestic leagues - big ****ing deal, it's high time the average clogger was paid a wage commensurate with his skill level. Mediocre players on ridiculous salaries are a curse on modern football. The élite in any sphere are the ones on the inflated coin, as it should be.

So on one hand we have the assertion that football fans are so loyal they would never entertain the notion of supporting another, more glamorous side and on the other the idea that if their players were paid less they'd lose interest. Which is it? Personally I think there's no clear-cut answer - a certain percentage of supporters will follow their team no matter what's written on their jerseys while the rest will only watch football if there are stars playing in big stadiums for huge cash prizes.

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

So on one hand we have the assertion that football fans are so loyal they would never entertain the notion of supporting another, more glamorous side and on the other the idea that if their players were paid less they'd lose interest. Which is it? Personally I think there's no clear-cut answer - a certain percentage of supporters will follow their team no matter what's written on their jerseys while the rest will only watch football if there are stars playing in big stadiums for huge cash prizes.

But you are missing out on how your system would mean the end of those glamorous teams. Manchester United are iconic because of their history. You are in Old Trafford watching the inheritors of the Busby Babes jerseys. Real Madrid are iconic because of the memories associated with De Stefano, Puskas etc. The Madridistas or whatever you want to create will not have that appeal. This response on this thread is indicative of what would happen were anybody idiotic enough to attempt such an idea.

You are also doing away basic competition. No relegation means nothing to play for for the teams outside the top few teams. Why would people pay to watch a meaningless match between 2 franchises which have zero history? Where would the money come from? How could they co-exist with existing teams? People would want to see the best team from your Gimmick League play actual proper teams.

I could write 10,000 words on why your idea is wrong. It ignores everything that people hold dear in football. It ignores footballing history and the role teams play in their areas. People want to watch Madrid v Barcelona, United v City, Spurs v Arsenal etc. That is part of the core appeal of football, local rivalry. Two franchise teams will not replicate that.

The only way there could be a pan-European league is if smaller countries joined together, a bit like Rugby's Celtic League.

gosplan

Good thread. I've actually been well educated in the course of this one.

As I see it now ...

1: There isn't a UEFA agenda to get Barca through tough matches. Ref's are just bad - and generally equally bad for both teams.

2: Barca are an amazing team to watch but in the very tough games their tactic is to pass the ball around till Messi does something while constantly pressuring the ref into giving them favourable decisions.



I think they're quickly losing the moral high ground they had gained through their beautiful playing style. Particularly through the off-the-ball dives the other night - which is really a new venture in football.

One of the lads from newstalk had a GB Shaw quote the other day

'Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig will like it.'

Admittedly he was talking about Guardolia finally rising to Mourhino's banter but it equally applies to Barca's on field tactics.

pickarooney

parker kent wrote: »

But you are missing out on how your system would mean the end of those glamorous teams. Manchester United are iconic because of their history. You are in Old Trafford watching the inheritors of the Busby Babes jerseys. Real Madrid are iconic because of the memories associated with De Stefano, Puskas etc. The Madridistas or whatever you want to create will not have that appeal. This response on this thread is indicative of what would happen were anybody idiotic enough to attempt such an idea.

You are also doing away basic competition. No relegation means nothing to play for for the teams outside the top few teams. Why would people pay to watch a meaningless match between 2 franchises which have zero history? Where would the money come from? How could they co-exist with existing teams? People would want to see the best team from your Gimmick League play actual proper teams.

I could write 10,000 words on why your idea is wrong. It ignores everything that people hold dear in football. It ignores footballing history and the role teams play in their areas. People want to watch Madrid v Barcelona, United v City, Spurs v Arsenal etc. That is part of the core appeal of football, local rivalry. Two franchise teams will not replicate that.

The only way there could be a pan-European league is if smaller countries joined together, a bit like Rugby's Celtic League.

I think you're concentrating too much on one aspect of it - the team names. The likes of Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United are franchises as it is - they're all a far cry from the teams of old where it was all about proper local rivalries. Whether the teams are called Newton Heath, Man United or Lancashire Hotpants is neither here nor there. If the idea of changing a team name is that abhorrent to you (and it's started happening, get used to it), ignore that for the time being. A name is nothing - ask kids in 10 years what Highbury or Anfield mean. Ask them now who Puskas or Charlton were and they already don't give a toss.

If you'd told fans 30 years ago that there would be sides lining out for their teams none of whom had been born in the country, let alone the club's catchment area, they'd have been appalled at the idea. Nowadays it's expected. The clubs' remit has for a long time changed from catering for their existing fans to attracting new ones from all over the world. Foreign tours, glitzy signings, half-baked international tournaments - it all only points in one direction.

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

I think you're concentrating too much on one aspect of it - the team names. The likes of Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United are franchises as it is - they're all a far cry from the teams of old where it was all about proper local rivalries. Whether the teams are called Newton Heath, Man United or Lancashire Hotpants is neither here nor there. If the idea of changing a team name is that abhorrent to you (and it's started happening, get used to it), ignore that for the time being. A name is nothing - ask kids in 10 years what Highbury or Anfield mean. Ask them now who Puskas or Charlton were and they already don't give a toss.

If you'd told fans 30 years ago that there would be sides lining out for their teams none of whom had been born in the country, let alone the club's catchment area, they'd have been appalled at the idea. Nowadays it's expected. The clubs' remit has for a long time changed from catering for their existing fans to attracting new ones from all over the world. Foreign tours, glitzy signings, half-baked international tournaments - it all only points in one direction.

Given large parts of my post are about things other than team names, I don't think I am. For example, you didn't answer the question about why you think people will pay to watch games between the bottom teams in a league where there is no relegation?

I know teams have changed names in the past. Woolwich Arsenal are an example. But the vast majority of name changes happened in the first 50 years of football. No traditions had been set at that stage.

Your 30 years ago line is just wrong. The Busby Babes consisted of the best young players from the British Isles, they were not from the Manchester area. The same trends carried across all other teams. Manchester City had a German Goalkeeper at the same time. There are other examples.

From the minute football turned professional, the best players moved around. The best players began moving about in the 19th Century, let alone 30 years ago in 1981. It is ironic you say 30 years ago, as 30 years ago the most famous FA Cup Final goal was scored by an Argentinian, Ricky Villa. So people would have been far from shocked at players moving around 30 years ago.

Foreign tours? Manchester United went on tours of the USA in the 50s and 60s. Worldwide fan bases began with worldwide TV broadcasting. Glitzy foreign tournaments? The European Cup is the original glitzy foreign tournament in club football.

Charlton doesn't matter? Why was there a biography of him on prime time British TV last night? Tradition matters. Bobby Charlton leading up the United team in 2008 mattered.

Your idea and other comments betray a lack of knowledge of football history and culture.

pickarooney

parker kent wrote: »

Given large parts of my post are about things other than team names, I don't think I am. For example, you didn't answer the question about why you think people will pay to watch games between the bottom teams in a league where there is no relegation?

You have these pointless matches in the CL all the time. Arguably the entire first round is pointless. Half teh games in the Premiership are futile adventures ("will we finish eighth or ninth, the suspense!"). The entire Scottish premier season is pretty much pointless outwith the Old Firm. Spain isn't too far off that in terms of competitiveness but people still like to watch Barcelona muller Getafe. They'll enjoy them putting 8 past Juventus in an end of season warm-down. American sports have no big problem with their teams having nothing to play for at the arse end of the year.

Bottom line - people (not all people, granted, there is still a core group of masochists) pay to be entertained.

I know teams have changed names in the past. Woolwich Arsenal are an example. But the vast majority of name changes happened in the first 50 years of football. No traditions had been set at that stage.

There was one last week, was there not? I don't think you're really looking at the future, to be honest. That's understandable when you're happy with the way things are; it's human nature to resist changes to the things you love.

Your 30 years ago line is just wrong. The Busby Babes consisted of the best young players from the British Isles, they were not from the Manchester area. The same trends carried across all other teams. Manchester City had a German Goalkeeper at the same time. There are other examples.

Fair enough, there have been non-local players around since the year dot but there was still an emphasis on the home-grown talent even up to a few years ago at the bigger British clubs. I think we've seen the last of the Scholes and Gerrard line.

From the minute football turned professional, the best players moved around. The best players began moving about in the 19th Century, let alone 30 years ago in 1981. It is ironic you say 30 years ago, as 30 years ago the most famous FA Cup Final goal was scored by an Argentinian, Ricky Villa. So people would have been far from shocked at players moving around 30 years ago.

Not really what I was saying, but Villa and his ilk were still the exotic exception. Until relatively recently it was rare for top-level European and South American players to go to England. Now it's expected that your team will have Brazilians, Koreans, Spaniards in the line-up and on the bench. The move towards homogenisation is visible if you follow the trends of player movement. You'll find there is not so much of a British or Spanish or German style of football these days as there is a top-tier, mid-tier, relegation-battler style of play. Teams are formed in the image of one another, no longer in the style of their country of origin.

Foreign tours? Manchester United went on tours of the USA in the 50s and 60s. Worldwide fan bases began with worldwide TV broadcasting. Glitzy foreign tournaments? The European Cup is the original glitzy foreign tournament in club football.

And it's fundamentally flawed. The Champions League is rigged from the outset, involves a tediously predictable set of matches and ultimately the same sides in the latter stages. (Or is it? Inter/Bayern last year - upset or par for the course? )

Charlton doesn't matter? Why was there a biography of him on prime time British TV last night? Tradition matters. Bobby Charlton leading up the United team in 2008 mattered.

You might still think he matters, to others he's an embarrassing relic

Your idea and other comments betray a lack of knowledge of football history and culture.

It's wishful thinking if you believe the average fan knows or cares about anything before Cristiano Ronaldo.

OhNoYouDidn't

Long and the short of it Pickarooney, you are making one fundamental and fatal mistake in your analysis. You are trying to break football down to the level of going to the cinema or buying a shirt. Yes, there are raw consumers of football who like the shiney stuff, but the bulk of people who matter - i.e. those who spend money, are fans.

Thats before we get into your quite frankly bewildering cynicism about fan culture and historical pride.

You cannot ignore the tribal element of the game. People identify with their side for reasons like political and religious identity. This might not be as prevelent in England, but on the continent its all that matters. No Roman football fan will drop his interest in the giallorossi to sit beside a former Lazio fan cheering for the Roman Gladiators. You are stoically ignoring the point that people would prefer to cheer for their side in an amateur league then drop them. Thats the strength of football.

No-one will have an interest in bland, franchise teams when full blooded derbies are available, and from the sounds of your plan, much less on the ticket front, players or not. You might have a point in terms of a tv market, but simply put, you assume that the rest of the world behavies like Irish fans.

You claim that there is a predominance for Real and Barca shirts to be worn on kids today and that points to a decline in fandom at clubs. I had alsorts of jersies when I was a nipper 25-30 years ago from all over the world. So what? A kid in Blackburn with a Brca shirt is still odds on going to end up a Blackburn fan first and foremost.

The leagues you list like the AFL and MLS are NEW leagues (incorporating existing teams and the occasional new entrant, who are usually existing amateur clubs. The only franchise piece is who gets the nod in the absence of a pyramid. Ireland has that). Not replacing existing ones, so your point is completely moot.

Or put completely another way. If there was a market for a franchise breakaway league, we would have it.

I simply cannot fathom the idea that a Real Madrid fans would abandon CL football and go and watch a franchise side instead.

OhNoYouDidn't

pickarooney wrote: »

You might still think he matters, to others he's an embarrassing relic


It's wishful thinking if you believe the average fan knows or cares about anything before Cristiano Ronaldo.

These two statements alone lead me to believe you are at it here.

Chardee MacDennis

regarding honesty why is kicking the legs off a team seen as less offensive and less 'cheating' than diving?

OhNoYouDidn't

BastardPrince wrote: »

regarding honesty why is kicking the legs off a team seen as less offensive and less 'cheating' than diving?

Nail on head. The sense of outrage and betrayal that Barca are human after all is quite interesting to read.

Bodhisopha

Because kicking the legs off players is downright manly. innit?

pickarooney

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Long and the short of it Pickarooney, you are making one fundamental and fatal mistake in your analysis. You are trying to break football down to the level of going to the cinema or buying a shirt. Yes, there are raw consumers of football who like the shiney stuff, but the bulk of people who matter - i.e. those who spend money, are fans.

Essentially what we disagree on comes down to numbers. We all (you, me, parker, etc.) know that there are glitz fans, hardcore supporters and people with a nominal attachment to a club for the sake of making watching the game more interesting. The only question is how that breaks down, now and in the future.

Thats before we get into your quite frankly bewildering cynicism about fan culture and historical pride.

It's a cynicism fuelled by many factors, not least of which is my own boredom with top-level football at club and international level. I don't think I'm alone in my apathy.

You cannot ignore the tribal element of the game. People identify with their side for reasons like political and religious identity. This might not be as prevelent in England, but on the continent its all that matters. No Roman football fan will drop his interest in the giallorossi to sit beside a former Lazio fan cheering for the Roman Gladiators.

Many do. Many also support clubs for more tenuous reasons. Players aren't the only ones who move around, though. Fans who change cities will inevitably either stop going to games or go to another club's games. Their kids will follow suit. Granted, there's no evidence of mass migration in countries like Italy and Spain. Yet.

You are stoically ignoring the point that people would prefer to cheer for their side in an amateur league then drop them. Thats the strength of football.

I'm really not. I've addressed this on several occasions. My point from the outset has been that real fans shouldn't care if their team is in the World Club Cup or the Zenith Data System Trophy. The obvious losers in this are the 'real' fans of the 'big' clubs who would perhaps prefer not to be playing against European giants on a weekly basis and would rather the trek to Middlesborough on a cold November night.

No-one will have an interest in bland, franchise teams when full blooded derbies are available, and from the sounds of your plan, much less on the ticket front, players or not. You might have a point in terms of a tv market, but simply put, you assume that the rest of the world behavies like Irish fans.

There'll be nothing bland about two teams of glacticos duelling it out in front of billions. This is what a huge number of fans enjoy watching already, I'm simply talking about making it a more regular occurence. Derby games between massive clubs and their poor neighbours are becoming less and less attractive as it is. And Lazio/Roma, Celtic/Rangers, Newcastle/Sunderland would have nothing to worry about - they'll still be playing one another on the smaller stage.

You claim that there is a predominance for Real and Barca shirts to be worn on kids today and that points to a decline in fandom at clubs. I had alsorts of jersies when I was a nipper 25-30 years ago from all over the world. So what? A kid in Blackburn with a Brca shirt is still odds on going to end up a Blackburn fan first and foremost.

I'm not convinced. The kid in Blackburn will probably move house five or six times and have parents who are too busy to bring him to games. He'll develop an attachment to something constant like Real Madrid.

I simply cannot fathom the idea that a Real Madrid fans would abandon CL football and go and watch a franchise side instead.

They won't. RM are a blue-chip commodity. They'll be watching an improved CL without all the dross from the minor leagues.

OhNoYouDidn't

pickarooney wrote: »

Essentially what we disagree on comes down to numbers. We all (you, me, parker, etc.) know that there are glitz fans, hardcore supporters and people with a nominal attachment to a club for the sake of making watching the game more interesting. The only question is how that breaks down, now and in the future.

But glitz fans and nominal fans aren't any use. They will watch the odd game on the box, and fair enough. But they don't have the wallet spend to allow what you are arguing for.

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a cynicism fuelled by many factors, not least of which is my own boredom with top-level football at club and international level. I don't think I'm alone in my apathy.

So watch a lower level of football. I know its stating the bleedin obvious, but there is a professional league on your doorstep that has most of the positives and few of the negatives of the soap operas in other leagues.

pickarooney wrote: »

Many do. Many also support clubs for more tenuous reasons. Players aren't the only ones who move around, though. Fans who change cities will inevitably either stop going to games or go to another club's games. Their kids will follow suit. Granted, there's no evidence of mass migration in countries like Italy and Spain. Yet.

But that completely blows your arguement out of the water. If I as a Rovers fan moved to London and started to go and see Milwall every week, my kids would grow up Milwall fans with an attachement to Rovers.

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm really not. I've addressed this on several occasions. My point from the outset has been that real fans shouldn't care if their team is in the World Club Cup or the Zenith Data System Trophy. The obvious losers in this are the 'real' fans of the 'big' clubs who would perhaps prefer not to be playing against European giants on a weekly basis and would rather the trek to Middlesborough on a cold November night.

So they should be punished with having their bigger players snatched to play in a tv based franchise league?

pickarooney wrote: »

There'll be nothing bland about two teams of glacticos duelling it out in front of billions. This is what a huge number of fans enjoy watching already, I'm simply talking about making it a more regular occurence. Derby games between massive clubs and their poor neighbours are becoming less and less attractive as it is. And Lazio/Roma, Celtic/Rangers, Newcastle/Sunderland would have nothing to worry about - they'll still be playing one another on the smaller stage.

Not quite. You can't seriously tell me that part of the reason a billion tuned into the Real v Barca game was because of the nature of the rivalry. I can't see the interest in the same players playing for the Madrid Bulls and the Catalan Colts.

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm not convinced. The kid in Blackburn will probably move house five or six times and have parents who are too busy to bring him to games. He'll develop an attachment to something constant like Real Madrid.

How is Real more constant for a kid in Blackburn than Blackburn? Fans have numerous teams. Their main, usually local one, or at least one with a familly connection and then the glamourous ones. The idea that regional English sides are losing core fans to overseas sides is strange. Why has this not happened before noe?

pickarooney wrote: »

They won't. RM are a blue-chip commodity. They'll be watching an improved CL without all the dross from the minor leagues.

That doesn't involve RM though. Thats the whole flaw in your argument.

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

You have these pointless matches in the CL all the time. Arguably the entire first round is pointless. Half teh games in the Premiership are futile adventures ("will we finish eighth or ninth, the suspense!"). The entire Scottish premier season is pretty much pointless outwith the Old Firm. Spain isn't too far off that in terms of competitiveness but people still like to watch Barcelona muller Getafe. They'll enjoy them putting 8 past Juventus in an end of season warm-down. American sports have no big problem with their teams having nothing to play for at the arse end of the year.

Again you miss the point. Teams can be relegated in those leagues. There are very few teams who are safe from relegation and without any other reason to play in most leagues until the near end of the season. In your league, the majority of teams after the first month or so would have nothing to play for. Winning the league would be all there is to compete for. No excitement over qualifying for Europe. No excitement about avoiding relegation. No teams hoping that they can be promoted. It would nothing. An empty, vacant, meaningless bastardised league. Your comment about Spain is a typically British or Irish line. It is ignorant of the vast history that so many clubs have in Spain. Think of what Atletico Madrid means to their fans.

European football is not America, so any comparisons are meaningless. Despite what you think, you will not turn over 100 years of meaningful European football into a meaningless, marketing mans wet dream.

There was one last week, was there not? I don't think you're really looking at the future, to be honest. That's understandable when you're happy with the way things are; it's human nature to resist changes to the things you love.

There's no need to patronise me or second guess what I think. The outcry about that name change shows those feelings still exist. They would pale into comparison with the outcry over your idea. Take the reaction to the 39th game and multiply it by 100,000. I am open to positive change. The change in the Champions League was a great change. My reaction to your idea is not a resistance to change, it is the reaction of somebody reading a terrible idea that would not work.

Fair enough, there have been non-local players around since the year dot but there was still an emphasis on the home-grown talent even up to a few years ago at the bigger British clubs. I think we've seen the last of the Scholes and Gerrard line.

No we have not. Good young players still break through, plenty of Premiership teams have local players in their teams or on the verge of a breakthrough. If they are good enough, they'll come through the ranks. Otherwise they end up playing at other English teams anyway. The notion of teams full of home-grown players never existed either. It was a rarity for a team like the Celtic European Cup winning team of 1967 to have so many local players. Teams have always taken the players from around the country.

Not really what I was saying, but Villa and his ilk were still the exotic exception. Until relatively recently it was rare for top-level European and South American players to go to England. Now it's expected that your team will have Brazilians, Koreans, Spaniards in the line-up and on the bench. The move towards homogenisation is visible if you follow the trends of player movement. You'll find there is not so much of a British or Spanish or German style of football these days as there is a top-tier, mid-tier, relegation-battler style of play. Teams are formed in the image of one another, no longer in the style of their country of origin.

Again another Anglo-centric viewpoint. Look at Italian football in the 1980s with Brady, Platini, Zico, Maradona etc all plying their trade in Italy. Also, there are clear national differences in styles of play. Compare how the Spanish teams play with German teams or English teams. Three different styles. Of course styles emerge and recede, that is nothing new. But there are still differences between the leagues. English football is fast-paced. Italian football is slower. Spanish football shows the tiki-taka influences. The Argentinian team learn to play like Argentinians in their youth teams from set up initiated by Jose Pekerman.

And it's fundamentally flawed. The Champions League is rigged from the outset, involves a tediously predictable set of matches and ultimately the same sides in the latter stages. (Or is it? Inter/Bayern last year - upset or par for the course? )

There are 2 elements to this. Firstly, it is common to refer to how no team has retained the trophy since AC Milan 20 years ago. Hardly a sign of a tediously predictable competition? Compare that to Madrid winning 5 in a row in the 50s. Or the dominance of Bayern and Ajax in the 1970s, English teams in the late 70s and early 80s. There are always periods when certain teams are dominant. But it doesn't last. Madrid went over 30 years without winning it. United similarly had a spell on the sides. Barcelona had a long spell without winning the EC and then spent over 15 years without winning another.

In your competition, those changes would not happen. New teams would not emerge in the form of Chelsea. There would not be finals like the Porto/Monaco final. It would be frozen in time to the same set of teams. Now that would be tedious.

You might still think he matters, to others he's an embarrassing relic

Bobby Charlton is not a embarrassing relic. That sounds like something a 21 year old marketing guy with scant knowledge of football would say. It is a laughable and insulting opinion. Do you think they commissioned that documentary just for me? There is a massive market for such items. Look at the sales of his autobiography. A large part of footballs appeal is the inherited traditions passed from father to son. A father who watched Bobby Charlton going to OT to watch Bryan Robson with his son. Then that boy grows up and watches Wayne Rooney with his own son. Your nonsense league would end all that.

It's wishful thinking if you believe the average fan knows or cares about anything before Cristiano Ronaldo.

Clearly that is not true given the massive market for memorabilia, documentaries, autobiographies etc. Look at the reaction to Kenny Dalglish at Liverpool.

I don't want to continually rip you apart, but your idea is just terrible. It would not work for about 1 million different reasons.

parker kent

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Because kicking the legs off players is downright manly. innit?

I did an essay in college on sport in the 19th Century and the most controversial aspect to codifying the rules was the outlawing of hacking. One prominent footballing man of the time at the Blackheath club said that by doing away with hacking:

you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week’s practice.

The idea was that hacking made the man. That idea never really left English football.

LuckyLloyd

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Because kicking the legs off players is downright manly. innit?

It is more manly than getting incidental contact to your chest or stomach and rolling around on the ground clutching your face and pretending that you were punched in the jaw and that you are in agony when there is actually nothing wrong with you. Now, that's ****ing unmanly.

Chardee MacDennis

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is more manly than getting incidental contact to your chest or stomach and rolling around on the ground clutching your face and pretending that you were punched in the jaw and that you are in agony when there is actually nothing wrong with you. Now, that's ****ing unmanly.

what has manly-ness got to do with anything though?

i dont want to see diving but i'm not entertained by the destructive element of the game either - teams that put the boot in against the arsenals and barcas of the world; its about as enjoyable to watch as the diving that it encourages...

LuckyLloyd

BastardPrince wrote: »

what has manly-ness got to do with anything though?

i dont want to see diving but i'm not entertained by the destructive element of the game either - teams that put the boot in against the arsenals and barcas of the world; its about as enjoyable to watch as the diving that it encourages...

Because I can't identify with the players engaging in such behaviour as men. It is so improper that it obscures everything else in my eyes - as such, no matter how pretty the football once they carry on like they do I genuinely hate watching them play.