UEFA Champions League Qualifying Rounds 2020-21

[YNWA14]

Sorry Arsenal fans don’t like plastic clubs and financial doping? Never said Arsenal should play in the Champions League 2020/21. Never said Arsenal are currently better than Leipzig. Just said it does not feel right seeing clubs like Leipzig do better than Schalke, AC Milan playing in the Europa League and clubs like Manchester City do better than Arsenal. These things make me feel sick.

Why do these things make you feel sick? Are Arsenal, Schalke and AC Milan the only clubs allowed to be successful because 'history'?

 

[AB13]

Why do these things make you feel sick? Are Arsenal, Schalke and AC Milan the only clubs allowed to be successful because 'history'?

No, but I don’t like to see fans of big clubs suffering at the expense of much smaller clubs. Especially at the expense of clubs that have become sucessfull in completely immoral and unfair ways. I thought this was a common stance.

 

[cgf]

As I already have explained two wrongs doesn't make it right. Instead of pointing out inconsistencies that are not there I suggest you spend that time reading posts you are replying to instead.

I get it. Red Bull is emotional to you. Maybe I would have felt the same if some random Chinese Shipyard bought Spurs. Hopefully we will never find out - even though I'm not looking forward to find out who the next owners will be.

Always a great sign that your argument is coming along well when you have to claim people who disagree with you are being emotional. You sure you aren't projecting there? ;-)

I'm just asking for some consistency in how a team who are a delight to watch & whose management team have done an impressive job, are treated. When all of the financial doping they've benefitted from has left them poorer than your spurs or buddy's gunners, you're gripes just ring so hollow.

 

[koyvoo]

AB, they are also suffering for the ineptness of their boardrooms and upper management as well. None of those teams are run as well as they once were.

ACMilan have been garbage up until this year. They didn’t deserve to be in the CL because if they’re history when there are currently teams that a better. Nothing stays the same.

 

[AB13]

If this were definitive and absolute, English teams would’ve done better than them in the competition. At least one of them.

English clubs have not made up 4 of the top european clubs in the past. But they do now, this season, and probably have since 2018-19. One off fluke results that were incredibly unlikely knocked City and Liverpool out last season, but it won’t happen again. Liverpool are CL favorites, followed by Bayern and City.

 

[YNWA14]

No, but I don’t like to see fans of big clubs suffering at the expense of much smaller clubs

Wait, what does this even mean? If you're a big club you deserve success because you have a lot of fans?

Especially at the expense of clubs that have become sucessfull in completely immoral and unfair ways. I thought this was a common stance.

As though Arsenal is a squeaky clean club that isn't part of a system designed to make sure that it's almost impossible for other clubs to come up in a 'moral and fair way'? What is immoral or unfair about how RBL and City have come up relative to what big clubs have been doing for decades? Who decides this?

 

[AB13]

AB, they are also suffering for the ineptness of their boardrooms and upper management as well. None of those teams are run as well as they once were.

ACMilan have been garbage up until this year. They didn’t deserve to be in the CL because if they’re history when there are currently teams that a better. Nothing stays the same.

I fully agree. You are right about everything. Just saying I hate to see it. Does not mean it isn’t fair.

 

[AB13]

Wait, what does this even mean? If you're a big club you deserve success because you have a lot of fans?


As though Arsenal is a squeaky clean club that isn't part of a system designed to make sure that it's almost impossible for other clubs to come up in a 'moral and fair way'? What is immoral or unfair about how RBL and City have come up relative to what big clubs have been doing for decades? Who decides this?

What is immoral about RBL has already been discussed. I don’t think you genuinely need me to explain what is immoral about how City and Chelsea rose to the top. Chelsea spent 40% of the Premier League total market spendings when Abramovich first came, despite not having nearly as much revenue as the top clubs. How is that fair?

 

[cgf]

If this were definitive and absolute, English teams would’ve done better than them in the competition. At least one of them.

'Obviously, because Leipzig doesn't have to play in the EPL between CL matches they were more rested. EPL clubs are all at a disadvantage in europe because Uefa just loves to screw them...'

Don't you worry, some EPL fans have excuses (& backup excuses) for everything

 

[cgf]

Who decides this?

Fans of clubs that used to matter.

 

[Blender]

What is immoral about RBL has already been discussed. I don’t think you genuinely need me to explain what is immoral about how City and Chelsea rose to the top. Chelsea spent 40% of the Premier League total market spendings when Abramovich first came, despite not having nearly as much revenue as the top clubs. How is that fair?

It's fair because it's within the rules of profit/losses. That Arsenal chooses to pay out profits to their owner and such instead of investing it into the club is their decision and their business. It's not that Arsenal couldn't compete with the spending on display, it's that they chose not too. Now tons of clubs have caught up to them.

 

[AB13]

It's fair because it's within the rules of profit/losses. That Arsenal chooses to pay out profits to their owner and such instead of investing it into the club is their decision and their business. It's not that Arsenal couldn't compete with the spending on display, it's that they chose not too. Now tons of clubs have caught up to them.

You have to spend reasonably, I think. There is nothing reasonable about spending as much as Chelsea did, just ruins the pairity of the sport. No club can compete financially with a dirty blood money owner who injects obscenely high amounts of his own money in to the club. That is taking shortcuts towards becoming a top club, rather than getting there fairly. The main reason Chelsea and City are immoral though is where the owners money comes from.

This is not about Arsenal, specifically.

 

[YNWA14]

What is immoral about RBL has already been discussed. I don’t think you genuinely need me to explain what is immoral about how City and Chelsea rose to the top. Chelsea spent 40% of the Premier League total market spendings when Abramovich first came, despite not having nearly as much revenue as the top clubs. How is that fair?

What is unfair about it? It seems more unfair to put limitations on teams that are not already at the top so that they are incapable of breaking the structure of a select few teams that would otherwise attempt to monopolize the top end of football by simply being able to outspend everyone else.

 

[robertmac43]

If you want parity I don't think Soccer is the sport for you, might want to look the massive Hockey part of this website...

 

[AB13]

What is unfair about it? It seems more unfair to put limitations on teams that are not already at the top so that they are incapable of breaking the structure of a select few teams that would otherwise attempt to monopolize the top end of football by simply being able to outspend everyone else.

I would prefer the environment you are describing, that is basically how it was before Chelsea started the trend of taking shortcuts to the top. In the environment you are describing, clubs are still very much able to get to the top through developing players and making smart buys to give them large assets to sell, which can build foundations. That is more fair and allows for more pairity than these new plastic clubs who come in and outspend everyone despite not really having the revenue for it, while also ruining the transfer market.

 

[Blender]

You have to spend reasonably, I think. There is nothing reasonable about spending as much as Chelsea did, just ruins the pairity of the sport. No club can compete financially with a dirty blood money owner who injects obscenely high amounts of his own money in to the club. That is taking shortcuts towards becoming a top club, rather than getting there fairly. The main reason Chelsea and City are immoral though is where the owners money comes from.

This is not about Arsenal, specifically.

It wasn't fair that the EPL was intentionally structured to benefit specific big clubs and to make it prohibitively difficult for any other clubs to gain the financial power to compete. Rich owners and corporations started "taking shortcuts" because it was clear that this old money group that founded the EPL was not interested in fair competition, and now you're just bitter that you no longer have the financial advantages that you used to.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Let us remember, for the billionth time, that Abramovich bought Chelsea because they were ALREADY IN EUROPE. They had finished in the top 6 for seven straight seasons, and had won two FA Cups, the Cup Winners' Cup, and the Super Cup in that timespan. Chelsea won more European trophies (2) in the seven years before Abramovich than Arsenal have won ever (1).

 

[Lambo]

They would qualify in any league but the Premier League. The Premier League top 4 are probably 4 of the 6 best teams on earth at this very moment.

That is really very exaggerated.

 

[AB13]

It wasn't fair that the EPL was intentionally structured to benefit specific big clubs and to make it prohibitively difficult for any other clubs to gain the financial power to compete. Rich owners and corporations started "taking shortcuts" because it was clear that this old money group that founded the EPL was not interested in fair competition, and now you're just bitter that you no longer have the financial advantages that you used to.

The EPL was not trying to hinder fair competition. That is a massive overexagerration to the league giving more TV money to more marketable clubs.

 

[AB13]

That is really very exaggerated.

Name three clubs that would make it into the PL top 4 outside of the Premier League.

 

[AB13]

Let us remember, for the billionth time, that Abramovich bought Chelsea because they were ALREADY IN EUROPE. They had finished in the top 6 for seven straight seasons, and had won two FA Cups, the Cup Winners' Cup, and the Super Cup in that timespan. Chelsea won more European trophies (2) in the seven years before Abramovich than Arsenal have won ever (1).

Roman bought Chelsea because they were on the brink of administration and cheaper to buy than Spurs, who he wanted instead. Don’t act like Chelsea where a top club before Abramovich, they had 1 league title and were a Championship club for most of the 80s. Also, lol at counting the Super Cup. If we can do that, Arsenal have won 22 ( I think, can’t be arsel to check) more total trophies than Chelsea because of Community Sheilds.

 

[Havre]

Always a great sign that your argument is coming along well when you have to claim people who disagree with you are being emotional. You sure you aren't projecting there? ;-)

I'm just asking for some consistency in how a team who are a delight to watch & whose management team have done an impressive job, are treated. When all of the financial doping they've benefitted from has left them poorer than your spurs or buddy's gunners, you're gripes just ring so hollow.

No. You are completely missing the point. Have I ever defended RM? I have criticised their past many times on here. Much more than I have criticised Energy Drink FC. You are implying that Franco and others supporting Madrid has anything to do with Red Bull - it doesn't. Red Bull are not going to rectify Madrid's history.

 

[cgf]

Name three clubs that would make it into the PL top 4 outside of the Premier League.

I only need one league. Bayern, Dortmund & Leipzig.

 

[Blender]

The EPL was not trying to hinder fair competition. That is a massive overexagerration to the league giving more TV money to more marketable clubs.

LOL yes it was. They intentionally broke away from the EFL because the top clubs were unhappy with the revenue sharing agreements with everyone else. They wanted to hoard the wealth that the TV deals were bringing in to prevent parity with smaller clubs.

 

[cgf]

No. You are completely missing the point. Have I ever defended RM? I have criticised their past many times on here. Much more than I have criticised Energy Drink FC. You are implying that Franco and others supporting Madrid has anything to do with Red Bull - it doesn't. Red Bull are not going to rectify Madrid's history.

My point was that as a Union fan, you are all sellouts. So it's funny seeing you all pointing at one another going 'yeah, but they're worse sellouts' & 'f*** those new sellouts'