spurs v rangers

[fergus8]

well thats rangers celtic and aberdeen all out of europe in one pick of the balls. and even if rangers scrape past panathanikos its werder bremen in lying in wait, mission ******.

[Rooky9]

I disagree that Arsenal have contributed more but it neither here nor there! (15 by Arsenal, 18.5 by Newcastle - from UEFA cup AND Champions League!)

The right teams (ie Chamions league winners and semi finalists) are always at the top of it so it can't favour UEFa cup'ers that much.

I don't think you fully understand how the points work, they are accumulated over the last 5 seasons. Arsenal have contributed more in that time than Man Utd & Chelsea nevermind Newcastle.

Also on the one occasion you qualified for the Champions League in the last 5 years you accumulated 15.52 points, in the next 3 years you played in the UEFA Cup you achieved 24, 27 & 22 so yes it does affect the ratings quite significantly outside the very top clubs who consistently go deep in the Champions League. The only reason UEFA Cuppers don't get to the very top of the rankings is because they either progress to the Champions League (eg Porto & Seville) or they fail to qualify for Europe at all (eg Newcastle, Parma, Espanyol).

Espanyol accumulated more points than any other club last season (35.27) & lost the UEFA Cup Final to Seville who were 2nd highest (31.27) while Milan won the Champions League but were only 5th highest points scorers with 27.93. The previous year Steua Bucharest were ranked 4th & Middlesborough 6th!

Do you still think the system is fair?

We went a lot further in the UEFA cup (& won more games) than we did in the Champions league (mainly due to the two league stage at that time).
I would imagine the system takes account of teams that do well in the UEFA progressing onto the Champions league. (which allows the table to look right)

The system is based on a 5 year period - so when you break it down and look at one year it can seem strange.

With the league formats in the competitions you may get annomalies for a team doing poorly but qualifying from their league and gaining less points than a team they go further than. But over 5 years it will even out.

The table looks right, so yes I do still think the system is fair.

[Rod Paradise]

I disagree that Arsenal have contributed more but it neither here nor there! (15 by Arsenal, 18.5 by Newcastle - from UEFA cup AND Champions League!)

The right teams (ie Chamions league winners and semi finalists) are always at the top of it so it can't favour UEFa cup'ers that much.

I don't think you fully understand how the points work, they are accumulated over the last 5 seasons. Arsenal have contributed more in that time than Man Utd & Chelsea nevermind Newcastle.

Also on the one occasion you qualified for the Champions League in the last 5 years you accumulated 15.52 points, in the next 3 years you played in the UEFA Cup you achieved 24, 27 & 22 so yes it does affect the ratings quite significantly outside the very top clubs who consistently go deep in the Champions League. The only reason UEFA Cuppers don't get to the very top of the rankings is because they either progress to the Champions League (eg Porto & Seville) or they fail to qualify for Europe at all (eg Newcastle, Parma, Espanyol).

Espanyol accumulated more points than any other club last season (35.27) & lost the UEFA Cup Final to Seville who were 2nd highest (31.27) while Milan won the Champions League but were only 5th highest points scorers with 27.93. The previous year Steua Bucharest were ranked 4th & Middlesborough 6th!

Do you still think the system is fair?

We went a lot further in the UEFA cup (& won more games) than we did in the Champions league (mainly due to the two league stage at that time).
I would imagine the system takes account of teams that do well in the UEFA progressing onto the Champions league. (which allows the table to look right)

The system is based on a 5 year period - so when you break it down and look at one year it can seem strange.

With the league formats in the competitions you may get annomalies for a team doing poorly but qualifying from their league and gaining less points than a team they go further than. But over 5 years it will even out.

The table looks right, so yes I do still think the system is fair.

Think that point whooshed by there....

The problem is that a) you play more games in the UEFA cup allowing more points, b) the teams are on average worse teams so the points are easier gained c) the clubs who take a run in the UEFA Cup and show an equal improvement in the league & play in the Champion's League more than the UEFA, are passed by the occaissional run in the UEFA teams.

Just because you like the results doesn't mean that the system is fair.

[Rooky9]

I completely understand the point cheers.

A fair system to have rankings for European clubs will have the best clubs, with the best results at the top, and the clubs with the worst record at the bottom. The table produced by the system they use has that - so I think it is fair.

[Teacake]

wrecking my thread with your dodgy paranoia, open up a new thread "how celtic are hard done by" im sure it ll have plenty views

What are you on about I'm not talking about Celtic, we actually benefitted from the flawed system in 2003 as Rangers have as well in the last few years.

You are obsessed with Celtic are you sure you're not a closet Tim?

[Teacake]

I disagree that Arsenal have contributed more but it neither here nor there! (15 by Arsenal, 18.5 by Newcastle - from UEFA cup AND Champions League!)

The right teams (ie Chamions league winners and semi finalists) are always at the top of it so it can't favour UEFa cup'ers that much.

I don't think you fully understand how the points work, they are accumulated over the last 5 seasons. Arsenal have contributed more in that time than Man Utd & Chelsea nevermind Newcastle.

Also on the one occasion you qualified for the Champions League in the last 5 years you accumulated 15.52 points, in the next 3 years you played in the UEFA Cup you achieved 24, 27 & 22 so yes it does affect the ratings quite significantly outside the very top clubs who consistently go deep in the Champions League. The only reason UEFA Cuppers don't get to the very top of the rankings is because they either progress to the Champions League (eg Porto & Seville) or they fail to qualify for Europe at all (eg Newcastle, Parma, Espanyol).

Espanyol accumulated more points than any other club last season (35.27) & lost the UEFA Cup Final to Seville who were 2nd highest (31.27) while Milan won the Champions League but were only 5th highest points scorers with 27.93. The previous year Steua Bucharest were ranked 4th & Middlesborough 6th!

Do you still think the system is fair?

We went a lot further in the UEFA cup (& won more games) than we did in the Champions league (mainly due to the two league stage at that time).
I would imagine the system takes account of teams that do well in the UEFA progressing onto the Champions league. (which allows the table to look right)

The system is based on a 5 year period - so when you break it down and look at one year it can seem strange.

With the league formats in the competitions you may get annomalies for a team doing poorly but qualifying from their league and gaining less points than a team they go further than. But over 5 years it will even out.

The table looks right, so yes I do still think the system is fair.

The table looks right until you get to Newcastle at 11!

[Rod Paradise]

I completely understand the point cheers.

A fair system to have rankings for European clubs will have the best clubs, with the best results at the top, and the clubs with the worst record at the bottom. The table produced by the system they use has that - so I think it is fair.

Now I know you're at the wind up


How can Newcastle be anywhere close to the best clubs? They're not even that close to the best in the EPL. Like I say results in the UEFA cup gain too many coeff points - and I know it because we got the benefit of it a few years back (although we went on to feature in the Champions League from it).

[NoflopsHomer]

I completely understand the point cheers.

A fair system to have rankings for European clubs will have the best clubs, with the best results at the top, and the clubs with the worst record at the bottom. The table produced by the system they use has that - so I think it is fair.

Now I know you're at the wind up


How can Newcastle be anywhere close to the best clubs? They're not even that close to the best in the EPL. Like I say results in the UEFA cup gain too many coeff points - and I know it because we got the benefit of it a few years back (although we went on to feature in the Champions League from it).

Rod called it the EPL... I'm going to get my gun.

[seven2unsuited]

how many teams can boast to retaining the texaco cup, newcastle are european powerhouses 

http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/RecordsDetail/0,,10278~223384,00.html