i agree
champions only.... not runners up...
why should runners up be there....
champions are champions, not runners' up...
you only say that because you assume man utd will be 1st or 2nd.....
it gives the runner-up a consolation prize which i think is fair...
Numeric
well then they need to pump more cash in the UEFA cup, because the gulf of class was all too apparent.
But i'll stick by my guns and say this might be better in the long run
Lets take Copehagen for instance, if you can get yourself in the goup stages you can get yourself some money and build on it.
four nil to United against Dynamo Kiev tonight, good result, Sir Alex made a lot of changes, Fletch, Carrick, Simpson and Nani did well and Pique scored which was nice...
i just hope we don't field weakened teams in the next two games and end up qualifying second as has been the case in seasons past...
Numeric
I have absolutely no doubt that Utd will field weakened teams in the next 2 CL games. except this team, we'll still win the group.
don't forget we've got this rediculous freindly to play in Saudi Arabia in January and the oil barons have paid good money to ensure at least 4 or 5 big names will be playing.
Ronaldo, Rooney etc will need all the rest they can get.
Sir Alex is definitely showin these pretenders how to rotate and still win games :)
Numeric
to be fair the team that played last night was still strong, and with the quality that United have in their squad there's a difference between rotating and fielding a weakened team...
Numeric
no...
how about... ferrari being 1st or 2nd in the world is a safer bet...
or federer being 1st or 2nd far more safer...
or phil taylor....
there are many many sports....
so i hope you were not being serious....!!!
and yeah, if it is a champions league, then only the champions should qualify ..... not runners up because they lost and are winners of nothing.....again, you only want runners up in there because you hope man utd would be either 1 or 2.... so dont be a hypocrite.... it's either a champions league or it isnt...
it wont happen.... money is the issue and it will continue as it is...
i disagree (and it has nothing to do with United finishing second)
as a showcase of the greatest football teams in Europe the runners up from the top leagues should also be included...
Numeric
then you must understand that it cannot be called the champions league because the runners' up are not champions....
so it should be called the two-tier euro cup....
two tier, being champions and runner's up....
it should be only the champions ..... showcase? liverpool, arsenal, man utd, chelsea all have that 'showcase' appeal to the masses around the world.... so your showcase argument does not hold.
it's not really an argument it's just my opinion mate...
Numeric
From a "Purist" point of view, The Champions League shpould only be for the champions. However, I'm not a purist, I think todays system is Ok.
Firstly, last years champions are seldom this years best team and secondly, I want to see Arsenal play in it every year.
What do you think I should do if I ever grow up?
www.stinsford.me.uk
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1212090572
******************
statisitcally, you're actually completely wrong.
since 1992 Man Utd have failed to finish in the top 2 places only 3 times.
in that same period, Ferrari have failed to finish in the top 2 places 6 times.
as for federer, as far as I know, he doesn't get to the final of every tournament he enters, so it's a stretch to claim that one.
like I said, Utd finishing in the top 2 is statistically the safest bet in world sport.
I never said I thought the runners up should be in the champions league.
if you read back over the thread, I was the first person to post that only the champions should be in the champions league, so before you bandy words like hypocrite around willy nilly, at least know what the fcuk you are talking about son, otherwise you might just make yourself look a right silly cunt.
Bull microdot...
federer coming 1st or 2nd is meant for being world number one!
who determined the time constraints???? let's set the parameters for the last 200 years..... Oh, then the safest bet is liverpool to win the league is it because they won more titles than the rest of the league? you just twisted my first point. So no, Man Utd are not the safest bet
this bet is based on current form over the last few years and possible dominance in the next few years. You are not a cut above the rest like some in other sports.
liverppol are a safer bet to get to the champions league final than man utd.... how do you like that one? or does your philosophy break down here?
as for the last point, i was addressing numeric. - ie all the manc points in one go.