I thought they'd changed/ watered down the whole seeding thing when the great historical clubs in red stopped winning all the time? Much the same as ffp seemedvto go softcwhen it looked like affecting the old guard.
They have, but didn't want to mention that in case I was accused of being paranoidI thought they'd changed/ watered down the whole seeding thing when the great historical clubs in red stopped winning all the time? Much the same as ffp seemedvto go softcwhen it looked like affecting the old guard.
Should we win the champions league are we in pot 1? If so, who would miss out? Leicester?
Should we win the champions league are we in pot 1? If so, who would miss out? Leicester?
Should we win the champions league are we in pot 1? If so, who would miss out? Leicester?
Another way of looking at it is Chelsea lose 63 in the next two seasons and we lose 33. So as long as we simply match them next year and the year after (shouldn't be hard), we will pass them.Nice, isn't it?
Next year, Chelsea will lost 30 pts, but City will need nearly 30 next season to overtake them in the rankings. We'll need 2 more years of R16 or better to climb noticeably higher.
There's only 7 pts available now I think, if City won 3 more matches.
Personally i'm far more concerned with the EPL coeff than ours.
-looked at the updated #'s for 16-17 and the Italians are more or less tied with us.
-we absolutely must out perform them in Europa and Champions next season or we are looking at losing the 4th spot.... which would be...umm...no bueno.
Another way of looking at it is Chelsea lose 63 in the next two seasons and we lose 33. So as long as we simply match them next year and the year after (shouldn't be hard), we will pass them.