Old Style Champions League

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

The current format is like a tennis competition - seeded so it is predictable to see the usual suspects in and around the last four.
The European Cup was tough or easier depending on who you drew against to play. That was the beauty of it in allowing Villa and Forest to go on and win it with an open draw each round.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

You’re contradicting yourself. If we went back to the old knockout system for just the Champions, Chelsea would have been the sole English representatives in it this season and they finished further behind City than Liverpool did.

More to the point Liverpool would not qualify for next years Champs league ,so not a contradiction , the "Champions" qualify for the following seasons competition only

 

[moon]

The European Cup was actually a better name for the present competition.

 

[KS55]

One competition: The European Club Championship.
128 clubs including all champions plus qualifiers selected on league position.
32 groups, winners thru to knock out comp. No seeding, open draw.
That makes 17 games to win it.

 

[Southern]

Th

One competition: The European Club Championship.
128 clubs including all champions plus qualifiers selected on league position.
32 groups, winners thru to knock out comp. No seeding, open draw.
That makes 17 games to win it.

17 too much mate . Shouldn’t be more than 12/13

 

[Blue Til Death]

Well whatever format they use aside from the old one, it’s not a champions league is it.... Not keen, should be champions and previous years winners only, that’s it ...!

 

[KS55]

Th


17 too much mate . Shouldn’t be more than 12/13

Yeah, that was my worry. You could add a first round knock out, so ther would only be 16 groups and winners only going thru. That would be 13 games. Money is the problem, they all want more. But i dislike the idea of losers qualfying for a second rate tourney and winning a trophy. The Europa cup is a joke.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I don’t think clubs who haven’t won a league title for more than a decade should be allowed to play in it. So, Spurs’ and Liverpool’s place would go to the next highest recent league winning team of the last decade.

This is the CHAMPIONS League, not the Let-any-old-failure-in League.

Plus, to qualify for it you have to finish high up in a LEAGUE format yet you get into it and half the comp is a knock-out Cup competition. It should just be a smaller number of teams in a league format.

It’s the Champions LEAGUE, not the Champions knock-out-Cup.

 

[lust overlord]

We finished 3rd and qualified for it the first time.
I remember how gutted most were when spurs beat us to 4th the year before as well.
The competition is what it is.

 

[squirtyflower]

I don’t think clubs who haven’t won a league title for more than a decade should be allowed to play in it. So, Spurs’ and Liverpool’s place would go to the next highest recent league winning team of the last decade.

This is the CHAMPIONS League, not the Let-any-old-failure-in League.

Plus, to qualify for it you have to finish high up in a LEAGUE format yet you get into it and half the comp is a knock-out Cup competition. It should just be a smaller number of teams in a league format.

It’s the Champions LEAGUE, not the Champions knock-out-Cup.

An interesting twist, next year’s combatants would be us, United, Chelsea and Leicester

In fact how long would it have been since the Mighty Liverpool had been in it?