UEFA's Disrespect - 'All countries deserve a team in the Champions League,' CFR Cluj's boss Dan Petrescu

Although a lot of people complain about the ridiculousness of it being called the "Champions League" when usually most teams in it are not even champions, that won't change now as it has such a strong brand identity. I would like to see more genuine country champions included but if you try to cut back on the big league non-champions then any proposal will be thrown out as they need their snouts in the trough.

Therefore, a compromise to me would be to double the participants to 16 groups of 4 (64 total instead of the current 32). The last year's UCL 4 semi-finalists and the Europa League finalists would automatically qualify, along with the champions from the top 36 ranked countries (4+2+36 = 42).

The other league champions can be in a one round play-off with the rest of the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th placed teams - this gives an additional 44 teams a chance to qualify (42+44 = 86, so it opens it up to slightly more teams than currently have a chance - think it is about 80 at the moment).

I know this probably won't happen as average TV ratings will be down in the short-term, but not as much as moving them from terrestrial telly to satellite telly.

Also, the big league runners-up and non-champions would have to start their season a fortnight earlier and so they'd miss out on these stupid high-paying lucrative pre-season rip-off friendlies where they earn £millions for glorified training matches (BTW - this another stream of revenue currently being denied to teams like Celtic at the moment due to us/them being so focused on European qualifiers).

I can dream, I suppose!
 
Last edited:
It’s a shit show right enough but the bottom line is that’s the way it is and until it changes, which it won’t, we need to accept that our countries coefficient is farcical. I would prefer we were judged on our own and that determined where we were placed so if we make an arse of it we know it’s our fault.

I also have always thought that if we get a squad capable of negotiating these four games, it ups our match fitness for the league and puts a few million into the bank. My issue has always been we are never quite prepared. Last night we had one new player and he was the worst player on the park. We need quality in early to tool us up. Do that and these games get our team firing and put money in the bank over and above the CL payout.
 
It’s a shit show right enough but the bottom left be is that’s the way it is and until it changes, which it won’t, we need to accept that our countries coefficient is farcical. I would prefer we were judged on our own and that determined where we were placed so if we make an arse of it we know it’s our fault.

I also have always thought that if we get a squad capable of negotiating these four games, it ups our match fitness for the league and puts a few million into the bank. Mybusdye has always been we are never quite prepared. Last night we had one new player and he was the worst player on the park. We need quality in early to tool us up. Do that and these games get our team firing and out money in the bank over and above the CL payout.
henrik Larssons early form was quiche

As were a lot of players in their first few games at club.

So this get better players in doesn't instantly solve form or team gel.

Better players is what we all want.

but


1 they must want to be here
2 they must fit the wage structure
3 the must be affordable to point they don't cost miles more than their intrinsic value
4 they need to be given time to get their body mind and heart in right place before they get judged as being shite.

We have a luxury at a left back

A really classy Tierney

finding better than him is not going to be easy, so anybody covering him might look not as good.

I recommend getting behind who we actually have rather than constantly saying we need better when you know fine well the only guaranteed better players play at clubs ranked higher than us and therefore usually cost more than what we can sell.

I remember hoidonk being mediocre for months before he gelled.

instant gell is rare. So even buying guaranteed higher quality comes with high risk short term shish
 
henrik Larssons early form was quiche

As were a lot of players in their first few games at club.

So this get better players in doesn't instantly solve form or team gel.

Better players is what we all want.

but


1 they must want to be here
2 they must fit the wage structure
3 the must be affordable to point they don't cost miles more than their intrinsic value
4 they need to be given time to get their body mind and heart in right place before they get judged as being shite.

We have a luxury at a left back

A really classy Tierney

finding better than him is not going to be easy, so anybody covering him might look not as good.

I recommend getting behind who we actually have rather than constantly saying we need better when you know fine well the only guaranteed better players play at clubs ranked higher than us and therefore usually cost more than what we can sell.

I remember hoidonk being mediocre for months before he gelled.

instant gell is rare. So even buying guaranteed higher quality comes with high risk short term shish

Agreed but players who aren’t quality are even higher risk. They never come good. Proof of that is 70% of Rogers signings.
 
henrik Larssons early form was quiche

As were a lot of players in their first few games at club.

So this get better players in doesn't instantly solve form or team gel.

Better players is what we all want.

but


1 they must want to be here
2 they must fit the wage structure
3 the must be affordable to point they don't cost miles more than their intrinsic value
4 they need to be given time to get their body mind and heart in right place before they get judged as being shite.

We have a luxury at a left back

A really classy Tierney

finding better than him is not going to be easy, so anybody covering him might look not as good.

I recommend getting behind who we actually have rather than constantly saying we need better when you know fine well the only guaranteed better players play at clubs ranked higher than us and therefore usually cost more than what we can sell.

I remember hoidonk being mediocre for months before he gelled.

instant gell is rare. So even buying guaranteed higher quality comes with high risk short term shish

One more thing. Our wages structure needs to reflect the market rate. There’s no point in sticking to one that sees us decline. Supplementing our income in Europe and selling on better players is the key. Or else we are in a rush to the bottom.
 
Manager said what we are all saying ,disgraceful and disrespectful to champion winners in there countries,having to go through this rubbish ,when 4/5 place teams walk straight in ,?at the end of the day greatly what can the real champions do to ,right this ,answer ,sod all,? The money men ,in sponsoring and the media companies,rule the roost,PW has his hands full with this ,if he did make inroads,that WOULD be an achievement,hh
 
One more thing. Our wages structure needs to reflect the market rate. There’s no point in sticking to one that sees us decline. Supplementing our income in Europe and selling on better players is the key. Or else we are in a rush to the bottom.
thatspart of the problem mate.

the market rate is dictated by sky subsidy

you try keep up with that subsidy without subsidy you will not have a club


that is exactly what Rangers did.

They had hidden sources of extra funding in order to compete with the elite markets

trying to compete with the occult cloaked funding teams requires occult cloaked funding, subsidy or sheik

The market rates are beyond celtic

Don't know why you cant grasp that
 
Unfortunately the top Euro tournament is becoming a closed shop - deliberately shutting out the smaller nations . Money rules !
It will only be a matter of time before a bunch of overpaid mercenaries from the UAE or Dubai are given access to the Champions ( sic ) League . Look at how the authorities sold out the World Cup to Qatar - for money - f*ck the good of the game !

HH
 
How do you think UEFA would react if the club's outwith the so called big 4 nations told them to stick the C.L. and started their own premier tournament then competed for sponsorship and television rights after a few years of only having 16 teams competing they would have to change it up as it stands just now people are getting bored with it considering the amount of non league winners who get to the last 16 and beyond
 
Although a lot of people complain about the ridiculousness of it being called the "Champions League" when usually most teams in it are not even champions, that won't change now as it has such a strong brand identity. I would like to see more genuine country champions included but if you try to cut back on the big league non-champions then any proposal will be thrown out as they need their snouts in the trough.

Therefore, a compromise to me would be to double the participants to 16 groups of 4 (64 total instead of the current 32). The last year's UCL 4 semi-finalists and the Europa League finalists would automatically qualify, along with the champions from the top 36 ranked countries (4+2+36 = 40).

The other league champions can be in a one round play-off with the rest of the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th placed teams - this gives an additional 48 teams a chance to qualify (40+48 = 88, so it opens it up to slightly more teams than currently have a chance - think it is about 80 at the moment).

I know this probably won't happen as average TV ratings will be down in the short-term, but not as much as moving them from terrestrial telly to satellite telly.

Also, the big league runners-up and non-champions would have to start their season a fortnight earlier and so they'd miss out on these stupid high-paying lucrative pre-season rip-off friendlies where they earn £millions for glorified training matches (BTW - this another stream of revenue currently being denied to teams like Celtic at the moment due to us/them being so focused on European qualifiers).

I can dream, I suppose!
No splitting hairs bridie but 4+2+36 ain't 40.funny when yir names bridie and yir maths mince,innit HH
 
Although a lot of people complain about the ridiculousness of it being called the "Champions League" when usually most teams in it are not even champions, that won't change now as it has such a strong brand identity. I would like to see more genuine country champions included but if you try to cut back on the big league non-champions then any proposal will be thrown out as they need their snouts in the trough.

Therefore, a compromise to me would be to double the participants to 16 groups of 4 (64 total instead of the current 32). The last year's UCL 4 semi-finalists and the Europa League finalists would automatically qualify, along with the champions from the top 36 ranked countries (4+2+36 = 40).

The other league champions can be in a one round play-off with the rest of the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th placed teams - this gives an additional 48 teams a chance to qualify (40+48 = 88, so it opens it up to slightly more teams than currently have a chance - think it is about 80 at the moment).

I know this probably won't happen as average TV ratings will be down in the short-term, but not as much as moving them from terrestrial telly to satellite telly.

Also, the big league runners-up and non-champions would have to start their season a fortnight earlier and so they'd miss out on these stupid high-paying lucrative pre-season rip-off friendlies where they earn £millions for glorified training matches (BTW - this another stream of revenue currently being denied to teams like Celtic at the moment due to us/them being so focused on European qualifiers).

I can dream, I suppose!
Although a lot of people complain about the ridiculousness of it being called the "Champions League" when usually most teams in it are not even champions, that won't change now as it has such a strong brand identity. I would like to see more genuine country champions included but if you try to cut back on the big league non-champions then any proposal will be thrown out as they need their snouts in the trough.

Therefore, a compromise to me would be to double the participants to 16 groups of 4 (64 total instead of the current 32). The last year's UCL 4 semi-finalists and the Europa League finalists would automatically qualify, along with the champions from the top 36 ranked countries (4+2+36 = 40).

The other league champions can be in a one round play-off with the rest of the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th placed teams - this gives an additional 48 teams a chance to qualify (40+48 = 88, so it opens it up to slightly more teams than currently have a chance - think it is about 80 at the moment).

I know this probably won't happen as average TV ratings will be down in the short-term, but not as much as moving them from terrestrial telly to satellite telly.

Also, the big league runners-up and non-champions would have to start their season a fortnight earlier and so they'd miss out on these stupid high-paying lucrative pre-season rip-off friendlies where they earn £millions for glorified training matches (BTW - this another stream of revenue currently being denied to teams like Celtic at the moment due to us/them being so focused on European qualifiers).

I can dream, I suppose!
We all dream, Bridie bhoy, but as good as the Idea is of increasing the numbers is the big boys will knock it down as it would cut the pie too thin. It's not in their nature to be charitable to us we nations.
 
That was a brilliant piece by Petrescu a nail on the head moment ,more clubs need to come out and call out Uefa
he's right league losers should start the qualifiers
Won’t happen ,the money men control the proceedings,not eufa,who think they do ,only idiots would come up with the current scheme ,,hh
 
We all dream, Bridie bhoy, but as good as the Idea is of increasing the numbers is the big boys will knock it down as it would cut the pie too thin. It's not in their nature to be charitable to us we nations.
I know, I know. And if they did try to increase the numbers it would be so the English, Spanish, German and Italian 5th & 6th places automatically entered the group stages as well. :cautious:
 
I'm afraid the horse of setting up an alternative competition is gone! However that is ultimately the solution imo.
HH
 
Some highlights from the other game last night in this one plus CFR Cluj's manager Dan Petrescu has a go at UEFA....

https://thecelticstar.com/uefas-dis...champions-league-cfr-clujs-boss-dan-petrescu/
Another great post/link to the Celtic star WC. It's how do European national champions force through a change? I've loads of ideas as many as everyone else I won't bore you with but UEFA are a law unto themselves. The way I see it is we will be further and further marginalised from the cl if UEFA are left to their own devices. I honestly believe it would take the ECA and it's member clubs like celtic ajax steaua red star and the like to come together and refuse to take part in the nonsense of qualification for season or 2 at least. As the piece said clubs aren't rewarded for their successes, ajax cl semi finalists and Europa league runners up in 3 seasons having to negotiate rounds and rounds of qualies shows the utter contempt UEFA has even for the clubs who've won it. This will get worse until the ECA members puts aside for a season or 2 the potential earnings the group stages brings. Infantino promised change , liar, just another platiniin disguise. Also can clubs afford to not take part and recieve nothing but a fine ? For many clubs id say no, thats where the ECA can help compensate the clubs for taking a stance. Cl is turning into the SPL for the big 5s clubs playing the same opponents over and over. They've stripped any excitement away from the challenge of qualifying.It's the uncertainty that makes it good. That Celticstart before maccabbi tel Aviv is just ridicoulous we have made a European tourney group stage every season during our 8iar run and Scotland beat Israel to win the nation's league
thatspart of the problem mate.

the market rate is dictated by sky subsidy

you try keep up with that subsidy without subsidy you will not have a club


that is exactly what Rangers did.

They had hidden sources of extra funding in order to compete with the elite markets

trying to compete with the occult cloaked funding teams requires occult cloaked funding, subsidy or sheik

The market rates are beyond celtic

Don't know why you cant grasp that
both of you are right here. Celtic can match the market place but not in sky's money land. we've lost (looks like ) sawyers to Wbrom for only a small amount of money it would seem. if Celtic were prioritising in that market they would know if an English club counters we won't compete. in Europe we can , loads of good players outside the big 5 and if we're competing with clubs not from those leagues we'd probably be favourites to get the deal done. I think Celtic have upped their structure (spending if not wages) that's reflected in the money we've spent, not a lot by big 5 standards but amounts many big clubs from smaller countries can only dream about. If as a club we've realised that we have to pay more now for transfer fees it would stand the club must also realise that the wages will be higher too. Celtic have broken the wage structure before when it suited us , Robbie Keane an example. he was worth it though as for sawyers to west Brom, evenif Celtic bid more than them chances are they'd have responded with an improved offer themselves and we can't be in a bidding war with a club that's been raking it in for years. we are strong in that dept anyway. so I think you're both right. The fees these days are off the charts and don't reflect the true value of a player.
 
Back
Top