*Official* English Football Season 2007-08

[Craig]

CL draw:

Liverpool vs Toulouse FC (French 3rd place)
Arsenal vs AC Sparta Prague (Czech title winners)

Both potential banana skins. Very tough draw.

Meanwhile, I'm laughing at Rosenborg / Astana vs Tampere United / Levski Sofia.

(Other decent clashes:

Dinamo Bucuresti vs Lazio
Spartak Moskva vs Celtic
Ajax vs MSK Zilina/Slavia Praha
Benfica vs FC København/Beitar Jerusalem
Sevilla vs AEK Athina)

So will Vino turn up and give Astana some bags of blood to use since he got got sacked by the cycling team with the same name?

Alan Smith has joined Newcastle and will play in midfield apparently. Interesting decision...

 

[Loony BoB]

Always thought he was a better midfielder than a striker.

 

[Agent TBY]

You're all quasi-Liverpool haters. A real hater right here.

Agree with Mitchell over Chelsea and Zola. Didn't mind them at all till the inflated Drogba, Carvalho and Tiago transfers.

Tore Andre Flo ftw.

 

[roseboy64]

I know loads of United fans (obviously, I suppose we all do) and I post regularly at United forums. There was even a discussion on this very subject and people agreed it doesn't matter if you do or don't hate Liverpool. I'm in their good graces well enough.

Something tells me Gary Neville wouldn't give a second thought as to which teams I preferred after United, let alone that I supported United in the first place. He doesn't even know who I am.

Maybe you should ask Ronaldo if he hates Liverpool. Doubt he gives a crap either way, either. Maybe he'd support Chelsea on the "Portuguese compatriot" basis.

After looking at the thread about who "supported" which team in the Chelsea vs. Liverpool semi in the CL last season, 5 said neither, 3 said Chelsea and 13 said Liverpool. And there you go!

Think of it like having a rival for a long time and then some bastard upstart comes along and tries to outdo the both of you. Haven't you ever seen it in comic books where the good guys and the bad guys team up to beat up the "new big bad guy"? It's like that, I suppose.

But more to the point for myself, you just can't "force" a hatred. If you hate something without any reason but "everyone else does" then you're clearly incapable of thinking for yourself. You can want to beat them due to things you read about with regards to the past, but you can't hate them just like that. Especially when you don't know any wanker Liverpool fans. Maybe you just know a bunch of wankers that happen to be 'pool fans, Rose?

The upstart thing doesn't work for quite a few fans. Still though you may have a point as if Chelsea needs to beat Liverpool to win but a draw is just as bad for them but United would have to win 4-0 I'd rather the draw TBH. Not that you have to hate them but no form of affinity is good. And no I don't know any of their fans like that. Ones I do are decent people. The Arsenal fans I know, in person, are delusional though.

 

[sideshowtim]

Hooray, the Tevez issue is sorted and we can focus on the season ahead!

Personally really looking forward to watching the Community Shield. I need football!

 

[Dark Hunter]

Can't stand liverpool, because the guy that originally got me into football, was a massive liverpool fan. All i ever heard was how brilliant they are, how much of a god Gerrard is, etc etc. So i developed a hatred for them because of it.

Also, am i the only one that thinks its bull**** that Celtic have to still qualify for the CL? I mean, they won their league, and its called the Champions League. Surely they deserve a guranteed spot?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Also, am i the only one that thinks its bull**** that Celtic have to still qualify for the CL? I mean, they won their league, and its called the Champions League. Surely they deserve a guranteed spot?

Well, the "Champions League" is really "Playground of large clubs with severely overblown economics who might just happen to not quite do well enough in their domestic league". Celtic doesn't quite fit.

Hardly alone though. Decent sides like Spartak Moscow, Dinamo Bucureşti, FC København, Anderlecht, Zagłębie Lubin, SV Salzburg all go through it.

 

[Loony BoB]

Yeah, it's more of a "who is best" league than a "won domestic league" league. It's possible that someday they could get an automatic spot. Scotland would need to improve it's UEFA coefficients to the top nine countries in Europe, I think? Not sure on the exact procedure on how they determine who gets what, but last time I checkeed the "big leagues" (Spain, Italy, England, France, Germany, Portugal) which take up the top six spots in the UEFA co-efficients all got two automatic placements in the group stage. Behind these countries were Netherlands, Greece and Russia - all of who had one automatic placement. After them is (in order) Romania, Scotland, Belgium, Ukraine, Czech. Republic, Turkey and Switzerland who all got one team through to third qualifying round.

Right now the coefficient for Scotland is 30.375, and they would need to get past Romania's 31.457 and Russia's 31.833 while staying in front of the likes of Belgium (30.250 - the only close country below Scotland).

I'm not sure on how easy it is to improve a country's coefficient, but it involves how well the countrys' clubs compete in European competitions over the past five years if I remember rightly.

Hope that helps in explaining it all.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Yeah, it's more of a "who is best" league than a "won domestic league" league. It's possible that someday they could get an automatic spot. Scotland would need to improve it's UEFA coefficients to the top nine countries in Europe, I think? Not sure on the exact procedure on how they determine who gets what, but last time I checkeed the "big leagues" (Spain, Italy, England, France, Germany, Portugal) which take up the top six spots in the UEFA co-efficients all got two automatic placements in the group stage. Behind these countries were Netherlands, Greece and Russia - all of who had one automatic placement. After them is (in order) Romania, Scotland, Belgium, Ukraine, Czech. Republic, Turkey and Switzerland who all got one team through to third qualifying round.

Right now the coefficient for Scotland is 30.375, and they would need to get past Romania's 31.457 and Russia's 31.833 while staying in front of the likes of Belgium (30.250 - the only close country below Scotland).

I'm not sure on how easy it is to improve a country's coefficient, but it involves how well the countries and/or countrys' clubs compete in European competitions over the past five years if I remember rightly.

Hope that helps in explaining it all.

Yeah, i did have a slight idea about the co-efficients (thank god for FM) but didn't know exactly how they worked, so thanks for that. I still think thats a little unfair, as it would seem Celtic have outgrown the rest of scotland talent wise. But, not much we can do. We should hopefully get past Spartak, though memories of the Artmedia loss come to mind.

 

[Loony BoB]

Celtic actually have a better club coefficient (ie, how good the club has been in Europe) than the clubs from Greece and Russia. But Dunfermline and Aberdeen will need to do well in the UEFA Cup before Celtic gets an automatic spot.

I suppose it makes sense, too - you can't be called a great domestic champion very easily when even the UEFA Cup (3rd/4th) spots in Scotland end up doing terribly in Europe. It basically shows that the league isn't that tough for Celtic when compared to other leagues such as those in Greece/Russia, where the teams who come 3rd/4th seem to do well in Europe (judging by their high coefficients compared to other clubs in the UEFA Cup).

 

[Dark Hunter]

Celtic actually have a better club coefficient (ie, how good the club has been in Europe) than the clubs from Greece and Russia. But Dunfermline and Aberdeen will need to do well in the UEFA Cup before Celtic gets an automatic spot.

I suppose it makes sense, too - you can't be called a great domestic champion very easily when even the UEFA Cup (3rd/4th) spots in Scotland end up doing terribly in Europe. It basically shows that the league isn't that tough for Celtic when compared to other leagues such as those in Greece/Russia, where the teams who come 3rd/4th seem to do well in Europe (judging by their high coefficients compared to other clubs in the UEFA Cup).

Yeah, thats true, although i think we performed well enough in the CL this season, to show that we should put up a good fight again. Dunfermline don't have a hope in Europe, they got demoted this season.

With regards to the league not being tough enough for Celtic, what are people's general feelings about them being moved into the English leagues? Gordon Strachan mentioned it in an interview a couple of weeks ago, and he brought up some interesting points. If we had the funding that EPL clubs get, we would quite easily improve. ATM, i reckon they'd atleast be mid-table, maybe even top 10.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah, thats true, although i think we performed well enough in the CL this season, to show that we should put up a good fight again. Dunfermline don't have a hope in Europe, they got demoted this season.

With regards to the league not being tough enough for Celtic, what are people's general feelings about them being moved into the English leagues? Gordon Strachan mentioned it in an interview a couple of weeks ago, and he brought up some interesting points. If we had the funding that EPL clubs get, we would quite easily improve. ATM, i reckon they'd atleast be mid-table, maybe even top 10.

Wouldn't make it to Europe though, so back to square one.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Haha, true. But i think in the overall terms of the club going forward, its the best option.

 

[Loony BoB]

I've always felt that if Celtic were in the PL, they'd be up there with United, Arsenla, Liverpool and Chelsea within a few years.

 

[Matteh]

With regards to the league not being tough enough for Celtic, what are people's general feelings about them being moved into the English leagues? Gordon Strachan mentioned it in an interview a couple of weeks ago, and he brought up some interesting points. If we had the funding that EPL clubs get, we would quite easily improve. ATM, i reckon they'd atleast be mid-table, maybe even top 10.

I'd say the same as you really, although i think they're capable of being top 5 pretty quickly due to the infrastructure and mass support.
Rangers these days however i think would struggle in the EPL in a sort of Wigan-esque way. Back in the mid 90s though, they'd be how Celtic are now.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Yeah, the gap between Celtic and Rangers has increased massively over the past 2-3 years, and Rangers have fallen back into the pack it would seem. Hence why moving Celtic across would be best for the club. I reckon it would help to improve the scottish league as well. The field would become alot more even, so any upcoming youngsters would spread out, rather than just aiming for Celtic or Rangers. Most of the teams would improve at the same rate, rather than it just being Celtic and Rangers, and then the rest.

 

[Matteh]

Since 98-99 the collective results SPL table looks like:

Celtic - 802 pts
Rangers - 750
Hearts - 512
Kilmarnock - 453
Aberdeen - 433
Hibernian - 409
Motherwell - 385
Dundee United - 346
Dunfermline - 313
Dundee - 301

Hearts are easily the 3rd best team in Scotland in that period, but they're still miles behind Celtic/Rangers.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Over that longer period of time, yes, there is a huge difference, but in the last two years, Rangers haven't looked like being anywhere near their previous dominance, Nor have they shown any signs of heading back that way.

 

[Matteh]

There's the fact that they finished outside the top 2 the season before last as well. Celtic didn't finish outside the top 2 in this period, last time they did was about 94-95 when Motherwell got it.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Is this move something that could actually, logistically happen? Like, how much would have to be worked out to allow Celtic to move leagues?