jdckelly Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 It amazes me that it hasn't always been the case. Good move. really is just a "why the hell wasn't this the case already you bloody morons" moment so I'll refrain from calling it a good move because its so ridiculously painfully late. Also it better be a straight into the group stage type qualification than here you go straight into the first qualifying round a couple of weeks after the final -enjoy- type. Also it would amuse me if it denied someone like chelsea a CL place if it takes from a country's allocation of champions league places like winning the CL does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Colossus Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Seven-man attacking kick-off results in goal for Red Bull Leipzig in under 10 seconds - video http://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2013/sep/18/seven-man-kick-off-red-bull-leipzig-video?CMP=OTCNETTXT8115 that's class (and perfectly logically) Basically the same thing happened at six-a-side this week. Instead of playing it back from the kick off they just sliced through us straight away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toondave Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Seven-man attacking kick-off results in goal for Red Bull Leipzig in under 10 seconds - video http://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2013/sep/18/seven-man-kick-off-red-bull-leipzig-video?CMP=OTCNETTXT8115 that's class (and perfectly logically) Basically the same thing happened at six-a-side this week. Instead of playing it back from the kick off they just sliced through us straight away. I think I see why they sliced through you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It amazes me that it hasn't always been the case. Good move. Not sure I agree with it. In recent years, teams like Boro & Fulham have been within 90 minutes of this. Should they get a Champions League place for winning this over the 4th team in the league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It amazes me that it hasn't always been the case. Good move. Not sure I agree with it. In recent years, teams like Boro & Fulham have been within 90 minutes of this. Should they get a Champions League place for winning this over the 4th team in the league? I thought the spot for the Europa League winner doesn't count towards the league quota. Edit: Also teams who win the Champions League or Europa League but finish outside the qualifying places in their domestic campaign will no longer usurp one of their league rivals to take up their place the following season. That means the fate that befell Tottenham Hotspur in 2011-12, when they missed out on Europe despite finishing fourth because Chelsea won the Champions League and finished sixth, would not happen again. Instead, England would now have five representatives. In the unlikely scenario that teams from the same country win the Champions League and the Europa League, also expected to confer Champions League qualification from 2015, yet finish outside the top four then a total of five clubs will be permitted – the top three plus both European champions. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/may/23/uefa-champions-league-europa-league The new ruling will mean that England could have five Champions League places from 2015-16 if one of its clubs lifts the Europa League in 2015 and finishes outside the top four. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2329601/Europa-League-winners-given-Champions-League-place-UEFA.html Up to 5 spots so won't be affected unless bolded scenario occurs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 So they stop a team from another country gaining entry potentially? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 So they stop a team from another country gaining entry potentially? I'd guess they'd have a spot just labelled Europa League Winner tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 At which phase of the CL would the EL winner enter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 my butt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 At which phase of the CL would the EL winner enter? From wiki: The winner of the UEFA Europa League qualifies for the UEFA Super Cup and from the 2015-2016 season onwards the winners of the previous season's UEFA Europa League will qualify for the UEFA Champions League, the winner entering at least at the play-off round (assuming they do not already qualify through domestic performance), and will enter the group stage if the berth reserved for the Champions League title holders is not used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 So most times they'll go straight to the group pase, that's quite the bye. Although checking the list of EL winners this decade there aren't names that jump at me as teams that wouldn't challenge for a CL spot in their leagues at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Under the changes the Europa League winner will usually qualify directly for the group phase of the Champions League although under some circumstances they may have to go into the final qualifying round. UEFA said the Europa League winners will go into the next season's Champions League at the final qualifying round at least. A UEFA statement said: "The Europa League winners could even gain direct access to the group stage, should the Champions League title-holders also qualify via their domestic league, thus freeing up a place in the Champions League group stage. "As an effect of the Europa League winners qualifying for the Champions League, the current limit of a maximum four teams per association will be increased to five. "Further changes were made to the access list, whereby, in principle, all associations will now have a maximum three teams entering the Europa League." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/uefa-confirm-champions-league-reward-for-winning-the-europa-league-8630925.html Pardew needs to finish in 9th spot or lower from 2015 to be safe then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Just saw this on the guardian Norwich City were the first club to come out and say they would not be sporting Stonewall's rainbow laces this weekend in support of removing homophobia from football. Stephen Fry, board member and ardent supporter of the campaign is sure to be pleased. But what is the club's noble reason for turning down the request? Apparently 'Norwich have discussed the matter with Stonewall, explaining that the organisation's partnership with Paddy Power conflicts with their own relationship with SBOBET and use of the promotional material would set a precedent other good causes would attempt to follow.' So their bookie of choice conflicts with Stonewall's? An insurmountable problem. What an awful signifier of the state of the modern game when puny commercial interests can get in the way of an undeniably good cause. And this at a club with an openly gay board member and where Justin Fashanu began his career. Toby Moses http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/sep/20/premier-league-10-things-weekend I could understand if they thought it was way too tokenistic, but that is one shitty reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 That was a real idea?!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
basjen Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Supposedly, this is how the clubs have responded to the Stonewall initiative: ARSENAL: Maybe ASTON VILLA: Maybe CARDIFF: Maybe CHELSEA: Players choose for themselves CRYSTAL PALACE: Players choose for themselves EVERTON: Yes FULHAM: Players choose for themselves HULL: Players choose for themselves LIVERPOOL: No MAN CITY: Players choose for themselves MAN UTD: No NEWCASTLE: Players choose for themselves NORWICH: No SOUTHAMPTON: No STOKE: Maybe SUNDERLAND: No SWANSEA: No TOTTENHAM: No WEST BROM: Maybe WEST HAM: No So no means that the players are not allowed to do this, even if they want to. I can understand that the clubs wont force it upon they're players, even if this is something everyone should be perfectly fine with (apart from the odd superstition), but refusing the players to do this is just plain wrong. I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDT Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Everton bunch of queers. Not that much of a difference between Toffee and Fudge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixx Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 They still have more balls than the rest of the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 ARSENAL: Maybe ASTON VILLA: Maybe CARDIFF: Maybe CHELSEA: Players choose for themselves CRYSTAL PALACE: Players choose for themselves EVERTON: Yes FULHAM: Players choose for themselves HULL: Players choose for themselves LIVERPOOL: No MAN CITY: Players choose for themselves MAN UTD: No NEWCASTLE: Players choose for themselves NORWICH: No SOUTHAMPTON: No STOKE: Maybe SUNDERLAND: Any players caught doing so will be sent to re-education camps. SWANSEA: No TOTTENHAM: No WEST BROM: Maybe WEST HAM: No FYP. --- Good on those clubs allowing it btw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It's a daft idea anyway and won't make one bit of difference. Even the most homophobic cunt could wear them just to save face and come out looking like the good guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I'm really unsure of what it's all about like, how is wearing multi-coloured laces in any way fighting homophobia? It's faux sentimental bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinotheprehistoricgeordie Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It's a daft idea anyway and won't make one bit of difference. Even the most homophobic cunt could wear them just to save face and come out looking like the good guy. Sends a message to the fans though. It's a small thing but it's a start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Good on Everton. Changing the name of their ground to Goodinson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Supposedly, this is how the clubs have responded to the Stonewall initiative: ARSENAL: Maybe ASTON VILLA: Maybe CARDIFF: Maybe CHELSEA: Players choose for themselves CRYSTAL PALACE: Players choose for themselves EVERTON: Yes FULHAM: Players choose for themselves HULL: Players choose for themselves LIVERPOOL: No MAN CITY: Players choose for themselves MAN UTD: No NEWCASTLE: Players choose for themselves NORWICH: No SOUTHAMPTON: No STOKE: Maybe SUNDERLAND: No SWANSEA: No TOTTENHAM: No WEST BROM: Maybe WEST HAM: No So no means that the players are not allowed to do this, even if they want to. I can understand that the clubs wont force it upon they're players, even if this is something everyone should be perfectly fine with (apart from the odd superstition), but refusing the players to do this is just plain wrong. I think. Its a marketing ploy by paddy power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I'm really unsure of what it's all about like, how is wearing multi-coloured laces in any way fighting homophobia? It's faux sentimental bollocks. kinda agree here fail to see how it will help in any fashion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts