If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Platini
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, Platini's the new UEFA president. What do you think of his proposals?
- Maximum of 3 teams from each country in the Champion's League by 2009.
- Minimum of 5 local players in the starting lineup of each team.
- Increasing the European Championship from 16 to 24 teams.
- Salary cap of 60% of the clubs annual turnover.
They're just the ones I've heard about so far.
On the Champions League, I think it's fine as it is, and there's no need to change it. Anyway, I think this'll see quite a lot of opposition from the G14 clubs, and the big leagues.
On the minimum of 5 local players, I think this is a good idea in principle, and I'd extend it to require a certain number of homegrown players too. But I can also see smaller clubs getting held to ransom over players because they need someone who is English. Not sure how it'll work in practice.
On the European Championship, I definitely agree. Love the competition, so anything to expand it would be good.
And on the salary cap, again I agree in principle. It would make the league more competitive, and would mean that teams would have to build success rather than buy it. But then again, I think the current gross mismatch in income between the top four and everyone else might have the reverse effect. So not sure.
Thoughts?
- Maximum of 3 teams from each country in the Champion's League by 2009.
- Minimum of 5 local players in the starting lineup of each team.
- Increasing the European Championship from 16 to 24 teams.
- Salary cap of 60% of the clubs annual turnover.
They're just the ones I've heard about so far.
On the Champions League, I think it's fine as it is, and there's no need to change it. Anyway, I think this'll see quite a lot of opposition from the G14 clubs, and the big leagues.
On the minimum of 5 local players, I think this is a good idea in principle, and I'd extend it to require a certain number of homegrown players too. But I can also see smaller clubs getting held to ransom over players because they need someone who is English. Not sure how it'll work in practice.
On the European Championship, I definitely agree. Love the competition, so anything to expand it would be good.
And on the salary cap, again I agree in principle. It would make the league more competitive, and would mean that teams would have to build success rather than buy it. But then again, I think the current gross mismatch in income between the top four and everyone else might have the reverse effect. So not sure.
Thoughts?
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
- 3 teams maximum will only release another 3 places. It's not worth doing really. The Champions League should either be reorganised to allow more teams in without dramatically increasing the number of games or it should be left how it is. If he tinkers too much with it, it could be straw that breaks the camels back with regard some sort of breakaway European Super League.
- I agree in principle. Should be workable.
- Unless groups are increased to 6, I don't see how it would work. Anything to reduce the number of qualifying games is welcome though. I don't think many European countries would be able to host a 24-team tournament when they would a 16-team one.
- Again I agree in principle, but it'll face massive opposition.
The local players rule is good in theory, but it's a non-starter I feel. How do you define local? And surely it means clubs in the huge cities benefit most as they'll have a greater pool of talent to draw from.
European Championship changes sound good to me. More chance of Northern Ireland getting in!
Not sure about salary caps. Seems like another one that would be good in theory, but probably wouldn't work out. You'd get alot of corrupt teams finding ways around it, paying dodgy under the table payments to attract players etc.
I would agree with the changes to the Champions League, though. The whole format devalues the European Cup- Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal all got to the final without being their domestic champions, and that's ridiculous. Smaller countries should have more chance of getting in, like in the old days, and the bigger countries should have to give up some of their slice of the cake. It wasn't so long ago that only the top two in England went into the European Cup, and that's how it should be, really. Teams like Bolton and Everton have no place qualifying IMHO.
I'd change it so the FA Cup winner gets a Champions League spot, to let the smaller clubs have a chance. It'd also stop teams like Bolton taking the piss out of the most famous trophy in the world.
Extending the Euro Championships would simply have the effect of creating more pointless games as shite like Scotland would get there and not achieve anything.
That would be my concern. Only English players would get developed here unless you included the whole UK as a single country. Also, looking farther afield, South American talent would be left untapped if the Spanish clubs were restricted in how many they can take etc. I think these regulations would almost certainly move football backwards, not forwards.
Beats watching overhyped shite like England get a tiny bit further and achieve about the same.
Precisely what happened in the past. I remember the likes of McClair, Hughes and Giggs being declared as foreign when UEFA has the "no more than 4 foreigners" rule. It's partly why the best United team of a generation really struggled.
Totally agree. Either it's for Champions, or it isn't.
In a footballing utopia perhaps. These things may all seem good in theory but there's big flaws.
You'd actually be damaging the potential of the smaller countries' players if they aren't able to receive the best youth training at the best clubs. Using Northern Ireland and Manchester United as an example, I know we wouldn't have the quality of Gillespie, Healy and more recently Johnny Evans had they not received such a good apprenticeship at Manchester United. I like the idea of 'homegrown' quotas, just without limiting it to nationality.
South America already has a prosperous league, and the production line keeps clubs like River Plate in business.
If not, change the name back to European Cup!
As for the local players, I agree too. Gives more incentive to smaller countries to develop football.
What is wrong with 24 teams for the European Championship? Nothing!
Salary cap, as if the underhand things are not going on already, anything to lessen the ridicilous pay is good.
And bring back the Cup Winners Cup!
The same Gillespie who struggles to get into Sheff Utd's team? :eek:
Funny how these type of comments were never levelled at Liverpool in the 70s & 80s isn't it (and not this isn't me talking about anti-United sentiments)... there was never a problem with the number of non-english in their team for example.
I quite like the idea of wage caps - would stop players getting stupidly high wages.
Not too sure I agree with having x amount of homgrown players. I think Wenger was moaning about this a while back because Arsenal don't have that many homegrown players.
I agree with bringing back the Cup Winners Cup though, mainly because it stops shite like Gretna who get to the Cup Final without beating an SPL team, yet manage to get a UEFA Cup place over an SPL team who've worked their arses off to get fourth.
Not got a problem with the Euros being extended to 24 teams either. Smaller nations like Scotland are well capable of giving the supposedly better teams a game (France and Holland beaten, Italy drawn with in the last couple of years), and it's better for the tournament to have teams who play with a bit of pride and fire in their bellies, rather than underachiving botttlers like the English.
Eh? Half their sqaud are homegrown.
Well that's because of his drinking and his fighting really...and that he's old now.
I'd agree, really. Liverpool had a team full of Scots but nobody cared- not because of an anti-United agenda but because they weren't dirty foreigners who spoke a dirty foreign language.
Why on earth do these people think they need to tinker and change things which are already so successful?
5 local players is so contemptibly stupid it is horrible, what the hell would it achieve? The only people who care about the nationality of their clubs players are xenophobes/racists and people who do not understand football (or anything quite possibly).
I don't know what he has to do to enact these proposals but I hope he fails miserably and humiliatingly.....
Strange from a Man Utd fan, seeing as you wouldn't have been in the Champions league in 1999 if that were the case.
If any of the cups need changing it is the UEFA cup which is a complete mess as it stands....
Couldn't agree more.
I'd also put a stop to this parachuting into the UEFA from the Champions League too.
It was always better in the old days of the Cup Winners Cup because it's an absolute joke that the losing team in a cup final should take the UEFA Cup spot of somebody who finished high up in the league.
So why was Wengerm whinging then? And I can only think of 2 English first team players. (Hoyte & Walcott)
Nah, it actually isn't. They have alot of young players and people seem to believe these are all Arsenal's kids, but they're not. Hardly any of them actually came through the academy and most of them were just snatched from other clubs around Europe, for 'undisclosed fees'. I think Fabregas counts as 'homegrown' because he was signed before he had a professional contract, but obviously Barcelona did all the graft with him, not Arsenal. Under the proposed regulations, Arsenal would be the worst off out of the big clubs.
Does the same go for Hoyte and Aliadiere etc?
Hoyte is one of their few homegrowns. Not sure where Aliadiere came from. Players like Senderos, Clichy, Eboue, Diaby and Flamini are the ones people usually confuse as homegrown, when they were all actually bought from other European clubs.
He's Man City homegrown because he hadn't signed a professional contract with Oldham. Had he signed a professional contract with them, which players don't usually do until they're 17/18, and then you signed him, he wouldn't be a Man City homegrown player. That's the way it works I believe. It's confusing though because there's semi-professional contracts as well.
A lad born in Rhyl who came through the Liverpool academy wouldn't be "local", but a lad born in Brighton would be. Who's more local?
Is this likely to happen?
What with the massive new TV conratc for the premiership that pays huge amounts of money to even the bottom club this seems unlikely......
i personally believe it should be limited to 2 teams per country, and only then for england, spain and italy, for the "champions" league. only drawback is the competition would be weakened for a few years.
its a total catch 22 - the teams from smaller nations do not have the budget to hang on to the best players from their nation, so they go to other nations. why don't they have the budget? they're not allowed into the champions league. i mean what if guys like cech, nedved, baros, all played for sparta prague? what if haestad, john arne riiise, john carew all played for brann or rosenberg, forsell and hyypia for finnish teams. then you'd have a competitive competition, strengthen national squads and leagues, AND solve the problem of 'local' players. there'd be enough money for players to stay in their own leagues. its really that simple, but G14 will never never allow it - UEFA don't really have the first say in what goes on in european football, G14 and the other big teams control it totally.
teams like bolton in the CL is a total and utter joke and it devalues the competition and is a complete insult to teams from other nations who work so hard with limited resources to actually WIN their leagues. whole situation is a travesty.