egafd.com

The point was about the naming convention, not the actual name. We could well be playing in the 'Vagisil Cup' in years to come!

I prefer the 'no-one gives a fuck anymore cup'

MrTickle wrote:

> I prefer the 'no-one gives a fuck anymore cup'

Very true. I realise it, somewhat bizarrely, when Barnsley made the semi-final a few years ago. At the time of the semi, we were in the bottom three of the championship, and had to play our cup opponents (Cardiff) on the last league game of the season.

I'd have happily accepted a stitch-up, whereby we let them win the semi if they let us get the three points in the league. That was when the FA cup died for me.

Playing European football on a Thursday night isn't something new... go back to when we had the Inter City Fairs Cup (later became the UEFA Cup), the European Cup Winners Cup and the European Cup (played on Tuesday, Thursday and Wednesday nights respectively). So it's not so much the day of the week, per se, as the sheer number of extra games the new UEFA League format generates that is the problem.

Certainly, given the vast difference in financial riches the ECL offers over the UL, it can make sense for a club wishing a seat at the top table to forgo the scraps of the other competition should they not automatically qualify for the Champions League. One season out of Europe won't damage long-term team building plans, and the extra rest allows a mediocre team, for example Liverpool last season, a chance at finishing higher than they would normally expect to finish.

Regarding why clubs from other nations take it more seriously, the answer, to me anyway, is quite simple. It's based on two criteria; the first being the number of clubs who genuinely can qualify for the Champions League, the second being the depth of strength of each league.

In Spain there are only 3 clubs who will realistically have a chance of qualifying for the Champions League on a regular basis. In Germany, that number is cut down to 2. In Italy 3 or 4. In France 2 or 3. Here in England there are perhaps as many as 7 clubs who, in February, believe they have a good chance of a top 4 finish. On top of that, in Spain, Italy, Germany and France, the top two or three clubs rarely get beaten by anyone below mid-table. That is not true of the Premier League, where, on any given day, a side heading for relegation can upset a team striving for the title (or at least a top 4 finish)

Real Madrid, Barcelona, PSG, Juventus, Bayern etc can field weakened teams in the league and still win comfortably. Even when at full strength, they don't need to exert as much energy as a Chelsea or a Man City or an Arsenal to overcome lower opposition, so players remain fresher for the bigger games.

Thanks to Sky, Stoke City are the 30th richest club in the world!!! The TV revenue bias in Spain means outside of the top 3 clubs (Barca, Real and Atletico Madrid) any form of European football is needed to attract better players, as the wages alone won't be enough to keep the very best players for long. The same is true of clubs like Napoli, Sampdoria, Wolfsburg, Schalke etc. Any of those clubs, even with European football, can (and often are) outbid for players by the likes of Hull City, Swansea or Newcastle.

For a club like Spurs, Liverpool, even Southampton or Everton, the UEFA League is more of a hindrance. They don't need the very small prize money on offer as the Sky TV money allows them to beat most non-English clubs to some of the best talent around.

Maybe now that the winners get automatic qualification to the following year's Champions League, some may start to take it a little more seriously.

Probably the only way Liverpool could qualify next season, most likely

Another ?150m on the transfer market should get them fighting for Europa League again in the 15/16 season....

I think the Baggies ground had one of the cheapest entrance charges in the Premier Division,
all the better when you see them beat Man Utd 1-0 and save a penalty.

Oh, sorry l just remembered - that was at Old Trafford this evening and not at
the Hawthorns, all the better.

Which is why I am seriously wondering if Klopp would be better for us. I would trust him with that money over Rogers, who wasted the Suarez money on a lot of crap (Balotelli.....ugh!)

A couple of players have improved, but not enough to justify the money he spent. Which is why I found it ironic that some so-called supporters flew a banner saying "Rogers Out, Rafa In" when Rafa spent a ridiculous amount of money on transfers that (Torres aside) rarely worked out.

Don't misunderstand, I love Rafa for the success (in the early years at least and the title charge we did have) but that doesn't mean I will blindly ignore his shortcomings too.

Reality check. Liverpool haven't won the league in almost 3 decades. Not that big a club anymore. Message ends.

Yeah but they do have the world class Steven Gerrard in their team
Youre right many young kids like leeds as well do not think of them as big as us oldies
Man city are now massive