Everton could theoretically benefit from UEFA rule change

[Louis]

From 2015/16 season onwards, the League Cup and FA Cup runner-up will no longer qualify for Europe when the cup winner otherwise qualifies, instead the European places will be based on league positions.

[Avinalaff]

From 2015/16 season onwards, the League Cup and FA Cup runner-up will no longer qualify for Europe when the cup winner otherwise qualifies, instead the European places will be based on league positions.

 

 

I think the cups should stay as they are, otherwise what chance does a lower league side have of Europe. We might benefit, but for the good of football, I think it shouldn't be to the detriment of other clubs.

[Romey 1878]

I'm all for it, and not just because it could benefit us. Why be rewarded for losing a final?

Edited October 26, 2013 by Romey 1878

[MikeO]

I'm all for it, and not just because it could benefit us. Why we rewarded for losing a final?

 

This; Millwall got into Europe due to the magnificent achievement of beating Walsall, Telford, Burnley, Tranmere & Sunderland (then losing the final) in 2004. How does that deserve a place ahead of the team finishing 6th in the league (Villa) over thirty eight top level games?

 

Overdue change in the rules imo (though the league cup runners up have never qualified that way have they?).

[Hoof_It_Nev]

It could take away some of the appeal of the cups though...

[marcopaulo]

if the appeal of winning the cup isn't enough then don't enter it

[Fearthainn]

Good decision imo. Not that it will affect us as we'll be qualifying for the CL by then

[bluenosetoffee]

I have to agree, I think it is good that it is changing. Who is in the cup this year...Wigan....Swansea....(Not disrespecting these teams by the way, both good teams.)

 

People take the Michael out of the Europa league anyway saying it is the carling cup of Europe. Okay maybe it is but we only have that mindset because teams Wigan, Swansea are getting into it. I know fans of the teams like Swansea and Wigan will be hating this rule change but to me it makes sense. Not only does it add an extra incentive to winning the final but also it makes the premier league more interesting as well....I understand the likes of Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool think they are to big for the Europa league and okay maybe they are with the team they have got but I know if I was a neutral fan I would want to see the top 5-6 teams in each country battle it out against each other.

[Guest Nikica]

I agree that this makes more sense. You should be rewarded for finishing higher in the league rather than losing a cup final. Perhaps this will also give lesser teams who reach finals more motivation to actually win said final as they won't be secure in the knowledge that they will qualify for Europe regardless. On the other hand, Wigan had that assurance last year and still won by playing like a team possessed. Winning a cup final should be enough motivation anyway.

 

Over the last few seasons the likes of Birmingham and Wigan have entered Europe after being relegated. Perhaps those aren't the bext examples as they actually won their cup finals, but this new rule would mean that if a team lost to a higher quality opponent in a final (as expected), then they would be protected the following season if relegated. On one hand, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for a club like Wigan to play in the Europa League, and they do make some good money from it, but on the other they have to play 46 league games this season (8 more than in the PL) as well as all of those European games. As stated, Birmingham had the same problem a few years back and it can really hamper a club's attempts to bounce back to the PL. I'd imagine that parachute payments from being relegated would compensate for a lack of revenue from going into the Europa League anyway.

 

As far as I can see, the only problems with the new rule are that it penalises smaller clubs (so you could say it's another way of increasing the quality gap in modern football i.e. it is a capitalist move) by not giving them the opportunity to experience Europe. However, if they can't actually win their final then why should they be allowed in? Wigan and Birmingham would still have qualified under this new rule, so even though that would be to the detriment of their campaign to bounce straight back, they would be there on merit.

 

This rule means that if a club is relegated there's less chance of them having a congested fixture list in terms of 46 league games as well as European. Of course, the ideal is that clubs who win cup finals are not relegated in the same season, but Birmingham and Wigan have showed that that does happen (perhaps it isn't a coincidence as some teams falter in the league because of a league cup or FA Cup campaign, indeed Wigan would probably have stayed up last season had they not made the cup final, but Martinez did the right thing as winning a trophy is huge for a club like them).

 

All in all I'd say this is a good alteration - it means that clubs have to win their finals, so they would be in Europe on merit, and it also means there's no chance of a struggling or relegated team reaching a final, being pumped, and then having a massive fixture list the next season (which is only compounded by losing players as a result of relegation and replacing them with ones of inferior quality). It also places more merit on a consistent league campaign rather than getting to and then losing a final.

 

As I say, in Wigan and Birmingham's case they still had the issue of playing EL and Championship football, and that wouldn't have changed had this rule been in place because they won their finals anyway. However, had they lost their finals, they wouldn't have deserved to make Europe imo and they'd have had an easier following season, so if - for example - Sunderland were to be relegated in 15/16 but be beaten in the FA Cup Final by Man City, they wouldn't have the problems in the following season as they would prior to the rule change.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Nikica

[marcus jones]

Does the inter- toto cup thingy still happen or did UEFA scrap it? I fit still happens then that might be the route into europe for the losing team?

[Matt]

Does the inter- toto cup thingy still happen or did UEFA scrap it? I fit still happens then that might be the route into europe for the losing team?

had forgotten about that! Discontinued in 2008 apparently

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Intertoto_Cup

[Dalziel Kane]

Yes, that was made defunct a good many years ago. Did anyone ever participate in it ? I remember the old Wimbledon side were involved once or twice.

 

This debate has been done to death, but once again, they seem to change the rules of european eligibility with questionable regularity. I remain adamant that League Cup winners weren't always given entry into europe by way of a victory, and as for the argument of "lower league teams that finish runners up in an FA Cup Final shouldn't be eligible for europe" (Millwall 2004 as a best example), what other chance have they got of playing in europe ? Ok they may (or any other lower league clubs sides that finish runners up) have had a fairly easy run to get there, but every game is a challenge, and teams like that aren't going to qualify by way of the league, so if they can obtain a place by way of eventual second place, and have a few european trips because of it, then seems good enough.

 

Above all else, this new 'rule' they're going to introduce, would have worked more in Moyes favor for us as club manager than Martinez it has to be said. I.E. Moyes was never going to deliver a trophy to win at Everton, and better suited at league placings, whereas Martinez has so much more a better chance to finally deliver a cup home, and I see him as a cup manager than league. But then again, it's still early days for the Spaniard so we'll see what occurs. Above all else, it's hard not to get irritated that they seem to change the damn format of things around so frequently.

 

Fourth time trying to submit this incidentally. Damn reply function.

[markjazzbassist]

i think this is great. it will give some of the mid sized clubs a shot at europe and will make the battle for the top spots more interesting and competitive. let a cup win be a cup win and that's it. and let the league play determine europe (just like every other european league out there).

[Peter H]

DK, i think you missunderstood. The winner of the cups WILL still QUALIFY for Europe.

The new rule applies If the same team also qualifies for Europe through league placement.

 

Old rule = runner up in cup qualifies for Europe

New rule = one more team in the PL qualifies for Europe.

 

This is a great rule and will ensure that England/Wales will send their best teams to Europe.

[c1982]

I didn't think the runner up in the league cup went into Europe anyway - so it's only changed with the FA cup. Sure when Birmingham beat Arsenal on the final a few years ago we were talking about this - had Arsenal won then 6th would have meant Europe.

[Cornish Steve]

Can you imagine if, last year, Bradford City had qualified for Europe as League Cup runners-up? It may have been a Cinderella story, but it still would have been a bit ridiculous.

[c1982]

Can you imagine if, last year, Bradford City had qualified for Europe as League Cup runners-up? It may have been a Cinderella story, but it still would have been a bit ridiculous.

You can't qualify for Europe as League Cup runners up. But yeah, ridiculous!

[Matt]

ok... I hadnt really taken sides as there are both valid points, but I just thought of something...

 

Theres one argument here thats irritiating me. If youre not good enough to win the Cup, you dont deserve the place. But, if you dont finish high enough in the league to qualify by the allocated positions, you deserve the extra position from the runner up of a cup? Bullshit. If you werent good enough to succeed in either competition, you've no right to progress, definitely less right than that of the team who made it to a final.

 

Taking Romeys example of Millwall qualifying ahead of Villa (if the proposed rules had been implemented). So... a lower club, who (regardless of opposition) got to the final of the Cup and had a brief foray into Europe, whilst Villa couldnt get that far in the Cup nor finish high enough to earn a place, didnt. But because Villa finished higher, though not high enough, in the league (a completely different competition), they deserved the European place designated for the Cup? Im sorry, but the argument is just hypocritical.

 

The idea of giving the position to already rich clubs will just create a bigger void. Why shouldnt the likes of Bradford, Birmingham, Wigan, etc have their time in Europe if theyve earned it, more than everyone else in the competition except the team that beat them in the final? Not trying to be disrespectful to them, but what else have they got to look forward to?! It can give them some additional funds (if they progress) but most importantly, it will give their fans a moment of excitement. For the fixture congestion, thats up to the club to chose how they want to prioritize matches.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Matt

[Romey 1878]

ok... I hadnt really taken sides as there are both valid points, but I just thought of something...

 

Theres one argument here thats irritiating me. If youre not good enough to win the Cup, you dont deserve the place. But, if you dont finish high enough in the league to qualify by the allocated positions, you deserve the extra position from the runner up of a cup? Bullshit. If you werent good enough to succeed in either competition, you've no right to progress, definitely less right than that of the team who made it to a final.

 

Taking Romeys example of Millwall qualifying ahead of Villa (if the proposed rules had been implemented). So... a lower club, who (regardless of opposition) got to the final of the Cup and had a brief foray into Europe, whilst Villa couldnt get that far in the Cup nor finish high enough to earn a place, didnt. But because Villa finished higher, though not high enough, in the league (a completely different competition), they deserved the European place designated for the Cup? Im sorry, but the argument is just hypocritical.

 

The idea of giving the position to already rich clubs will just create a bigger void. Why shouldnt the likes of Bradford, Birmingham, Wigan, etc have their time in Europe if theyve earned it, more than everyone else in the competition except the team that beat them in the final? Not trying to be disrespectful to them, but what else have they got to look forward to?! It can give them some additional funds (if they progress) but most importantly, it will give their fans a moment of excitement. For the fixture congestion, thats up to the club to chose how they want to prioritize matches.

 

 

So a team that wins 4 or 5 games and then loses a final deserves a place over a side who has done it consistently over 38 games? Nah, I'm not buying that. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a loser, but you should be rewarded for consistently doing it over a season.

 

It's why the play-off system in rugby league absolutely pisses me off (and the side I follow benefitted this season). A team can finish top after being the most consistent side over a season, go into the play-offs and lose one game and then a side finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc can go on to win the whole competition.

 

I'm glad of the rule change not for Everton, but because I don't agree with failure being rewarded.

[Matt]

 

 

So a team that wins 4 or 5 games and then loses a final deserves a place over a side who has done it consistently over 38 games? Nah, I'm not buying that. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a loser, but you should be rewarded for consistently doing it over a season.

 

It's why the play-off system in rugby league absolutely pisses me off (and the side I follow benefitted this season). A team can finish top after being the most consistent side over a season, go into the play-offs and lose one game and then a side finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc can go on to win the whole competition.

 

I'm glad of the rule change not for Everton, but because I don't agree with failure being rewarded.

when there are designated places in each competition, yes. Finishing in the league outside of the Euro places is being a loser in that sense - you didnt do enough to win the position.

 

So then why transfer the place from one loser to another? because of one competition being longer than the other? then dont put the European place in the Cup competitions

Edited October 31, 2013 by Matt

[Romey 1878]

when there are designated places in each competition, yes. Finishing in the league outside of the Euro places is being a loser in that sense - you didnt do enough to win the position.

 

So then why transfer the place from one loser to another? because of one competition being longer than the other? then dont put the European place in the Cup competitions

 

The designated place should be for the winner only, I see no reason why a runner-up should get the place.

 

If finishing lower down the league is classed as being a loser in your book then there shouldn't be any European places awarded for league position, other than the Champions.

[Matt]

 

The designated place should be for the winner only, I see no reason why a runner-up should get the place.

 

If finishing lower down the league is classed as being a loser in your book then there shouldn't be any European places awarded for league position, other than the Champions.

And thats how I feel about teams who fail to qualify in the league via the allocated positions available. Fundamentally, I agree with you - a runner up shouldnt qualify. What I strongly disagree with is transferring a position away from a competition, in which any team in England has the possibility of qualifying for Europe to a competition of 15 teams (20 minus the already allocated places) who already have the opportunity to qualify, because they play in a league that has predefined European places. Just wrong in my opinion...

 

Thats my feeling on the Champions League. It should be the Champions only. I would make it 1 league, Champions of each league who play each other home and away - he who wins the league, wins.

 

edit: but thats not as financially interesting

Edited October 31, 2013 by Matt

[Romey 1878]

And thats how I feel about teams who fail to qualify in the league via the allocated positions available. Fundamentally, I agree with you - a runner up shouldnt qualify. What I strongly disagree with is transferring a position away from a competition, in which any team in England has the possibility of qualifying for Europe to a competition of 15 teams (20 minus the already allocated places) who already have the opportunity to qualify, because they play in a league that has predefined European places. Just wrong in my opinion...

 

Thats my feeling on the Champions League. It should be the Champions only. I would make it 1 league, Champions of each league who play each other home and away - he who wins the league, wins.

 

edit: but thats not as financially interesting

I just see it as I want the best teams representing us in Europe, the clubs who are likely to go further in the competition rather than go out with a wimper, and the best chance of that happening is if the place transfers to the league rather than to the runner up in the cup.

[Matt]

I just see it as I want the best teams representing us in Europe, the clubs who are likely to go further in the competition rather than go out with a wimper, and the best chance of that happening is if the place transfers to the league rather than to the runner up in the cup.

but theyre not the best teams if they dont qualify through the league, so I dont see the difference. Id rather see a Millwall or Wigan than a Villa or Sunderland because they did better in that particular domestic competition.

[Lowensda]

I just see it as I want the best teams representing us in Europe, the clubs who are likely to go further in the competition rather than go out with a wimper, and the best chance of that happening is if the place transfers to the league rather than to the runner up in the cup.

 

[Romey 1878]

but theyre not the best teams if they dont qualify through the league, so I dont see the difference. Id rather see a Millwall or Wigan than a Villa or Sunderland because they did better in that particular domestic competition.

You don't think a Villa finishing 7th doesn't make them a better side than a Millwall finishing 16th in the Championship and losing a cup final? You don't think a Villa playing in Europe is likely to go further in the competition than a Millwall?

 

If that's the case then this discussion need go no further.

 

Edit - maybe I should have put better teams, rather than best teams, in my previous post.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Romey 1878

[Cornish Steve]

I agree completely with the argument of consistency. It takes a stronger team to win 20 of 38 games in the EPL than to finish runner-up after potentially playing four or five lower league or even non-league teams.

 

Incidentally, for the same reason, I don't like the play-offs for promotion at the end of the year. Consistency over the long haul is more important than being on-form for just a couple of games.

[Guest Nikica]

I agree completely with the argument of consistency. It takes a stronger team to win 20 of 38 games in the EPL than to finish runner-up after potentially playing four or five lower league or even non-league teams.

 

Incidentally, for the same reason, I don't like the play-offs for promotion at the end of the year. Consistency over the long haul is more important than being on-form for just a couple of games.

 

Fair point, but the play-offs are probably more for logistical purposes i.e. in a 24 team league lots of them would have fuck all to play for with about 10-15 games to go if it was 3 up and 3 down. I agree though that the play-offs are a joke - it's like how America does things.

[Sibdane]

 

Fair point, but the play-offs are probably more for logistical purposes i.e. in a 24 team league lots of them would have fuck all to play for with about 10-15 games to go if it was 3 up and 3 down. I agree though that the play-offs are a joke - it's like how America does things.

 

Playoffs make sense for the USA, but I never really got it in England. Clubs are located relatively close to one other and they play against each other the same amount of games.

[Guest Nikica]

 

Playoffs make sense for the USA, but I never really got it in England. Clubs are located relatively close to one other and they play against each other the same amount of games.

 

I didn't mean any offence mate, I just read a shocker of a thread this morning on an American 'soccer' site, putting down Scotland etc, and I've had a bee in my bonnet since.

 

As I say, it's probably because teams in 15th would have no chance of making third with 10 games to go. Still some money to play for, but no European places etc in a bigger league than the PL. There needs to be an incentive, which is why the play-offs exist I expect. Well, that and the FA/ Football League making money from the Wembley final showpiece.