The Evo-Web Football Thoughts Blog

millossobek said:
View attachment 306597

Not a big fan of the new Champions League format..
This is the simplest explanation I could find (reading the explanatory text kinda gave me a headache haha)..
I think this new format makes each game less important, and also gives big teams an even greater chance to qualify, reducing the chance of upsets.
Why mess with a good thing? More games, more money I guess. 🤷‍♂️
I hope Libertadores doesn't go this same route..
Click to expand...
Great point, until you mentioned about big teams' benefits with the new format and the fact there will be less upsets.
As Silverdome mentioned, the Top 4 of the league table after the 2 matchdays were quite ridiculous. Brest was a big surprise in Top 4 of league table with 2 victories, including the most recent's big win against Salzburg away. Salzburg had previously got battered by Sparta Prague and couldn't score in either of those games!
Meanwhile, Real Madrid were in 17th after their recent loss vs Lille. Worst off all, they still had some tough UCL fixtures after this (Borussia Dortmund, AC Milan, Liverpool, Atalanta). Good thing to see one of 4 teams grabbing some shock results in the future.
It would be a full of madness if this new format of the Champions League could end up with surprise results. Remember Porto vs Monaco Final back in 2004? That was the first season of the Champions League where 16 remaining teams competed in the current knockout format.

Silverdome94 said:
This was one idea in World Football that didn't make me violently angry and I think improves the old, bland group phase, while keeping the bread and butter of the knockout stages as they are (perfect). Sure, it was difficult to figure out at first and there's not a real flow to the fixtures like we had in a four-team group phase. If I had to quibble with one thing, I think playing all these matches and having 24 of the 36 teams advance to the knockout round is a bit much (my same complaint of the 24-team Euros playing 2/3 of the matches to eliminate 1/3 of the teams).

But take a look at the table after two matchdays! Borussia Dortmund, Brest (!), Benfica and Leverkusen sit in the top 4. There's a huge log-jam in the middle that will, of course, sort itself out after more matches. It's incentivized teams to go for it because they are competing against 35 other teams, not able to look at the traditional four-team group and figure that they can get a draw away or play a heavily-rotated lineup against "weaker" opposition. The only real question most of the time in the old format was who would finish first and second in the group.

Lille beat Real Madrid and now Real sit 17th...it's a result that may prevent them from finishing in the top-8 and receiving the first bye. That result probably wouldn't have had as much of an impact before (didn't Real lose to a Moldovan team in the group stage a couple years ago, with little consequence?).
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this might also happened in the upcoming World Cup. The 48 teams group stage format, in general, also benefited some weaker teams with the possibility of being the major dark horses (like Morocco did in the last World Cup). When UEFA staged the European Championship with 24 teams for the first time in 2016, it had a significant impact for lesser countries, particularly Iceland (who had an infamous win vs England) and Wales (who went all the way to the semifinal). The last edition of the Euro also benefited Georgia, who would go on to play in the knockout stages for the first time in history, despite being the debutants. The same script can also be happened in the World Cup, considering it has more games (an extra knockout round after the group stage, so 8 games is now required for each teams to win the whole thing).

The new Club World Cup might also had a major impact. We could have a clubs outside Europe and South America winning this tournament, which is considered a big surprise. But once again, I'm pretty sure clubs from UEFA or Conmebol will prevail at the end.

(I'm pretty sure if this comment is off-topic, but it will be a comparison to the new Champions League format).
 
PES4eva said:
Probably to help sell it to their fans.
I actually quite like the yellow one. Kind of reminds me of an early 2000s colour and style.
Click to expand...
But if United started wearing yellow and pink home kits, how'd you feel about that?
I'd be burning down my club if they'd change their kits to some fucking tik tok friendly outfit
For some one off/special occasion, no worries, but pretty much every game, insane
 
Last edited:
rockstrongo said:
Why do the big clubs (in this case Juve) stray away from their heritage and use shitty home kits like this?
View attachment 307270
Click to expand...
It's so much more common in mainland Europe, AC Milan have done it in the past. PSG have worn away/3rd/4th kits at home countless times. Bayern have worn an Oktoberfest themed kit vs Leverkusen in each of the 3 last seasons, and wore their 3rd kit in UCL matches at home in the 2000's, like Lyon and Marseille.

In England, Arsenal and United (amongst others) have had to change at home due to an old UEFA rule. City had the Oasis kit vs Inter recently, and wore their new away kit when they played Middlesbrough and stuck David James upfront in 2005.
 
Njorgo7 said:
It's so much more common in mainland Europe, AC Milan have done it in the past. PSG have worn away/3rd/4th kits at home countless times. Bayern have worn an Oktoberfest themed kit vs Leverkusen in each of the 3 last seasons, and wore their 3rd kit in UCL matches at home in the 2000's, like Lyon and Marseille.

In England, Arsenal and United (amongst others) have had to change at home due to an old UEFA rule. City had the Oasis kit vs Inter recently, and wore their new away kit when they played Middlesbrough and stuck David James upfront in 2005.
Click to expand...
Its less common in 51% controlled leagues/clubs though.
Would be pissed off if my club switched out our colours for something insane, or like in spain, having the supercup played in Saudi.
 
rockstrongo said:
Its less common in 51% controlled leagues/clubs though.
Would be pissed off if my club switched out our colours for something insane, or like in spain, having the supercup played in Saudi.
Click to expand...

Yup. If Aberdeen turned out for a home game wearing anything other than red, I, and plenty others, would waste no time in telling them to get themselves to fuck. 👍

Fourth kits can also get to fuck. In most cases so can third kits.

Finally, releasing separate 'fan'/'stadium'/'replica' and 'player'/'authentic'/'match' shirts at two different price points can also get to fuck.

No wonder the fake shirt business is booming.
 
Flipper the Priest said:
Yup. If Aberdeen turned out for a home game wearing anything other than red, I, and plenty others, would waste no time in telling them to get themselves to fuck. 👍

Fourth kits can also get to fuck. In most cases so can third kits.

Finally, releasing separate 'fan'/'stadium'/'replica' and 'player'/'authentic'/'match' shirts at two different price points can also get to fuck.

No wonder the fake shirt business is booming.
Click to expand...
Cant believe that huge supporter groups, in this case italy stands for this?
A boycott for a few games would change things quite fast.
We had issues with food/drink prices a few months ago, a boycott on all bars etc inside our stadoum fixed that.
 
rockstrongo said:
But if United started wearing yellow and pink home kits, how'd you feel about that?
I'd be burning down my club if they'd change their kits to some fucking tik tok friendly outfit
For some one off/special occasion, no worries, but pretty much every game, insane
Click to expand...
If those were our away colours I wouldn’t think it was a big deal if we wore it every now and again at home. We wouldn’t wear it every single home game and I don’t think Juventus will either. They clearly want to get some sales on the kits and that’s probably why they’re wearing it often at the moment. It helps sell the kits if the players wear them. A football club is a business and has been this way for decades now. I don’t think it’s the travesty that you think it is. Many clubs started with a completely different colour home shirt than the one they have these days including Manchester United. Our home shirt used to be green and yellow, then it was white and now it’s red. If you looked into it you’d find many clubs around the globe that have changed their colours. Things change, football moves on. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

Also, who is your club?
 
PES4eva said:
If those were our away colours I wouldn’t think it was a big deal if we wore it every now and again at home. We wouldn’t wear it every single home game and I don’t think Juventus will either. They clearly want to get some sales on the kits and that’s probably why they’re wearing it often at the moment. It helps sell the kits if the players wear them. A football club is a business and has been this way for decades now. I don’t think it’s the travesty that you think it is. Many clubs started with a completely different colour home shirt than the one they have these days including Manchester United. Our home shirt used to be green and yellow, then it was white and now it’s red. If you looked into it you’d find many clubs around the globe that have changed their colours. Things change, football moves on. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

Also, who is your club?
Click to expand...
Hammarby Sweden
 
PES4eva said:
You’re doing well in your league. Much better than us 😂
Click to expand...
Cheers buddy.
As a casual watcher of The premier league back in 90s-2000 (and even Div 1) id never have thought Man U would be were theyve been since SAF left, back then an institution.
Hopefully youll get back to at least a top 4 contender again
 
rockstrongo said:
Cheers buddy.
As a casual watcher of The premier league back in 90s-2000 (and even Div 1) id never have thought Man U would be were theyve been since SAF left, back then an institution.
Hopefully youll get back to at least a top 4 contender again
Click to expand...

Yeah it was a good time period in football I think until every team adopted 433 or variation of 433. I kind of get annoyed with the same tactic of dribble the wing and cut inside. It becomes a little bit repetitive. I think the art of crossing the ball for someone to header has been all but lost. There’s a serious lack of world class traditional type centre forwards and also world class creative attacking midfielders. Eg apart from say De Bruyne (who’s now at the end of his career) there’s no one on the level of say a Riquelme, De La Pena, Iniesta, Totti… the list could go on and on if I really thought about it. I guess it’s all down to 433 playing midfielders in more central roles.
Teams today base their play on pacey wingers.
I really wish teams would go against the grain and mix it up a bit.
 
Flipper the Priest said:
Yup. If Aberdeen turned out for a home game wearing anything other than red, I, and plenty others, would waste no time in telling them to get themselves to fuck. 👍

Fourth kits can also get to fuck. In most cases so can third kits.

Finally, releasing separate 'fan'/'stadium'/'replica' and 'player'/'authentic'/'match' shirts at two different price points can also get to fuck.

No wonder the fake shirt business is booming.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely in the same boat.

This year my club made a 3rd kit in purple and pink and many fans weren't happy with it, to say the least. Especially because they club badge was pink as well and not in the original colours. But it became the club's best sold kit so far.

And unfortunately I have to confess, ... I absolutely love it. :LMAO:
Bought it instantly. 90 euros for an awful quality plastic kit, because that's what Adidas produces nowadays. Feel a bit ashamed though because absolutely nothing justifies the price...
 
Shame to you Jürgen Klopp, fakk of Red Bull!
I am extremely disappointed about your new job, Kloppo!
:MAD:
 
So what's the thing with red bull? I don't understand. Forgive my ignorance. Are they your local rivals or something?
Also forgive my laziness in not googling, trying to second guess what you mean 😁
 
Andy said:
So what's the thing with red bull? I don't understand. Forgive my ignorance. Are they your local rivals or something?
Also forgive my laziness in not googling, trying to second guess what you mean 😁
Click to expand...
Red Bull clubs like Leipzig, Salzburg, New York and so on are the same bullshit global football company like City football group, ManCity, Girona, Melbourne and so on.

One owner as a billionaire in which Kloppo will be the global head CEO for "soccer".

Quite apart from that is the soft(energy)drink anything but healthy and not for sport athletes.
 
I think its hard for people/supporters outside the countries not having the 51% rule.
They are used to companies/groups/owners owning a piece of their city/culture/club, and some are good, some are bad, and some just insane.
But nevertheless thats how its done in those countries, but for us having the 51% rule, the likes of RB is pretty much the devil.
Its all based on members pretty much owning the clubs, like a democratic country, not happy with how your politician/board of football is doing?
No problem, just take it up on the next membership meeting then vote those in charge out.
but RB is controlling who becomes a member, either by restricting the number of members the club allows, or/and very very high fees.

So short but sweet, 51% runned clubs=democracy, a RB club within the same system, more of a dictatorship/they control who gets to vote
To me thats worth fighting against, would never accept that my club/league would be ran by Saudi/football groups/conservative mormons/or a soft drink company, those things arent my football, succes isnt everything, a club is a part of your community/city and should be treated respectfully
 
rockstrongo said:
I think its hard for people/supporters outside the countries not having the 51% rule.
They are used to companies/groups/owners owning a piece of their city/culture/club, and some are good, some are bad, and some just insane.
But nevertheless thats how its done in those countries, but for us having the 51% rule, the likes of RB is pretty much the devil.
Its all based on members pretty much owning the clubs, like a democratic country, not happy with how your politician/board of football is doing?
No problem, just take it up on the next membership meeting then vote those in charge out.
but RB is controlling who becomes a member, either by restricting the number of members the club allows, or/and very very high fees.

So short but sweet, 51% runned clubs=democracy, a RB club within the same system, more of a dictatorship/they control who gets to vote
To me thats worth fighting against, would never accept that my club/league would be ran by Saudi/football groups/conservative mormons/or a soft drink company, those things arent my football, succes isnt everything, a club is a part of your community/city and should be treated respectfully
Click to expand...

Amen. We're very fortunate in that we're owned by a very wealthy local businessman who grew up in the city, supporting the club, who 'gets it'. Don't get me wrong, the club has commercial drive, but it remains rooted in the local community.
 
Flipper the Priest said:
Amen. We're very fortunate in that we're owned by a very wealthy local businessman who grew up in the city, supporting the club, who 'gets it'. Don't get me wrong, the club has commercial drive, but it remains rooted in the local community.
Click to expand...
As it should be, and yes you're fortunate to have a owner like that.
Look at PL, how many is owned that way?
I'd say none or hardly any, lost interest in a very locally invested club like Burnley, then owned by a local business man, kept them up for years, now owned by yanks and I've clocked out from that interest
How many Scottish premier league clubs are locally own?
Must still be a majority?
We're lucky we support a team in smaller leagues for sure buddy
 
Football has always been a business, which is a harsh reality.

Unfortunately, as it always have been, without money you can't win. You can compete but not win. Serie A was a huge league for about 20-30 years due to the investment from TV deals and sponsorships, and so was La Liga with Valencia, Deportivo, Celta, Real Sociedad and others. Very much alike the Premier League is the best league in the world due to the investment that owners put into their clubs just to keep afloat and not get relegated. Obviously, the English folklore and overall club traditions and history makes it an attractive league to follow in itself but without investment people from overseas wouldn't care similarly to both Ligue 1 and Bundesliga.

As a Newcastle supporter from overseas that choose the club out of odd life coincidences when I was 12, I didn't know much of the club besides Cabaye, Ben Arfa and that they played in black and white. I didn't care if the club was rich or not but I felt something special regarding the stadium and atmosphere every time I got to watch a game. I've got experience the Ashley days with great European nights and a dumb relegation. I've got to embrace the colours, the traditions and sentiment from overseas which hasn't changed with either Ashley or PIF.

I could share stories when my city used to have a team in the Chilean pyramid trying to get into pro football as well so I fully get the local, homegrown sentiment.

So even if football it's a business, there are supporters out there that will care about the culture, values and traditions of their chosen clubs. I know Chileans that support Leicester before they won the Prem, Chileans that support Tottenham before their erruption into the top 6, Chileans that support Everton, and so on. You'd be surprised how people from afar support European clubs more than the locals do - either way, the sport turned into an entertainment and with it into a profitable business until the bubble bursts.

It will be interesting to see how the Premier League can cope with the intricacies and effects once the finances can't grown anymore.
 
Why is RB Leipzig so hated when Bauer Leverkusen (and to a lesser extent, Wolfsburg) are corporate-owned clubs? Is it simply because they’ve been around for much longer?
 
Silverdome94 said:
Why is RB Leipzig so hated when Bauer Leverkusen (and to a lesser extent, Wolfsburg) are corporate-owned clubs? Is it simply because they’ve been around for much longer?
Click to expand...

Leverkusen and Wolfsburg for example were founded by the workers of the Bayer and the VW factories. Of course they both have the big companies in their back but you can't compare them with Red Bull.
Leverkusen and Wolfsburg where originally founded in the sense of the sports while Red Bull is nothing than a brand and their only interest is developing their brand.

They have chosen Leipzig not for sporting reasons but simply because of the location. Big city with a history in a landscape that lacks of successful football clubs. They bought a licence of a lower league club and founded RB Leipzig. Invested in players who could easily play 2-3 leagues higher (and paid them like that) and rushed through the leagues.

Red Bull built a network of clubs round the globe in which they are moving money and players around and circumventing the rules.

Wonder why both Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig are allowed to play in the Champions League, although they belong to the same concern? Because they did some half-baked changes in their internal structures to be just different enough for the corrupt UEFA.

It's all about the brand and profit maximizing, it's nothing about sports.
 
Flipper the Priest said:
Amen. We're very fortunate in that we're owned by a very wealthy local businessman who grew up in the city, supporting the club, who 'gets it'. Don't get me wrong, the club has commercial drive, but it remains rooted in the local community.
Click to expand...
Does it though? Or is just a clever facade to increase revenue by making supporters think their club cares about them and not just their money?
 
shumway said:
Leverkusen and Wolfsburg for example were founded by the workers of the Bayer and the VW factories. Of course they both have the big companies in their back but you can't compare them with Red Bull.
Leverkusen and Wolfsburg where originally founded in the sense of the sports while Red Bull is nothing than a brand and their only interest is developing their brand.

They have chosen Leipzig not for sporting reasons but simply because of the location. Big city with a history in a landscape that lacks of successful football clubs. They bought a licence of a lower league club and founded RB Leipzig. Invested in players who could easily play 2-3 leagues higher (and paid them like that) and rushed through the leagues.

Red Bull built a network of clubs round the globe in which they are moving money and players around and circumventing the rules.

Wonder why both Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig are allowed to play in the Champions League, although they belong to the same concern? Because they did some half-baked changes in their internal structures to be just different enough for the corrupt UEFA.

It's all about the brand and profit maximizing, it's nothing about sports.
Click to expand...
100% correctly! Nothing more to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom