Talk:2009–10 UEFA Europa League
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Keep?[edit]
Gurron (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I think it should be completed and kept. It has been added a lot of things that the old page didn´t have (name of countries, leagues)
Allocations[edit]
Where's the Scottish entrants? Abaca2 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about the League Cup winners in England and France? Do they no longer qualify for the UEFA Cup? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been wondering the exact same thing. There's no mention of them in the official UEFA documentation about the rule changes, yet BBC has no given even a word of mention to it either - and the BBC certainly would mention if the League Cup had lost its UEFA Cup slot, surely? Falastur2 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, no information. So we presume that England and France League Cup winners will get a third qualifying round ticket, and Scottish League Cup winner got empty-handed. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)
- In the case of the Scots, I actually think their League Cup winner gets the 4th League slot place, a la the French and English League Cup winners. Check out this link, and remember that all decisions on format apply for three seasons (they assess the competition and make changes in three year blocks) so that doesn't just apply for 08-09 but 10-11 too. I can only assume the confusion comes because UEFA assigns all countries a Cup winner slot and X amount of league places, and even if it (UEFA) gets to ratify all their decisions on who to give the UEFA Cup slots to, "secondary tournaments" such as the League Cups officially take up a league slot rather than a cup slot. Falastur2 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Scottish League Cup hasn't provided a route into Europe for several years now; not sure how long exactly, but about a decade. UEFA at one time decided to end the practice of qualification via league cups and while the FA and FFF appealed — successfully — for exemption, the SFA decided to go along with the change. The link above by Falastur2 refers to qualification via the Scottish Cup, not the League Cup. Jellyman (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- In the case of the Scots, I actually think their League Cup winner gets the 4th League slot place, a la the French and English League Cup winners. Check out this link, and remember that all decisions on format apply for three seasons (they assess the competition and make changes in three year blocks) so that doesn't just apply for 08-09 but 10-11 too. I can only assume the confusion comes because UEFA assigns all countries a Cup winner slot and X amount of league places, and even if it (UEFA) gets to ratify all their decisions on who to give the UEFA Cup slots to, "secondary tournaments" such as the League Cups officially take up a league slot rather than a cup slot. Falastur2 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, no information. So we presume that England and France League Cup winners will get a third qualifying round ticket, and Scottish League Cup winner got empty-handed. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)
- I've been wondering the exact same thing. There's no mention of them in the official UEFA documentation about the rule changes, yet BBC has no given even a word of mention to it either - and the BBC certainly would mention if the League Cup had lost its UEFA Cup slot, surely? Falastur2 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The articles say there will be 193 teams in UEFA Europa League. Its just 192. 3 Nations have 4 teams each = 12. 47 Nations have 3 Places each = 141. 3 Nations have 1 spot each = 3. 3 fair play teams = 3. Adding the teams coming from UCL (15+10+8) it makes 192 altogether. The missing one is Title Holder Donezkm, who will play in UCL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.155.26 (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Fourth qualifying round[edit]
Originally it was: 'The following 24 teams are expected to participate in the Fourth Qualifying Round. Also entering are 35 winners from previous round along with 15 losers from the UEFA Champions League 2009-10 2nd qualifying round (10 champions) and the first qualifying round (5 non-champions)'. I was confused by the bolded part because there is no 1st qualifying round for non-champions in the new UEFA-cup set-up, for non-champions it starts in the 2nd qualifying round for non-champions. Therefore I changed the 'first' qualifying roun to 'second' qualifying round.
Acromega (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC).
Mistake[edit]
In this article there are actually 54 teams in second and 51 team in first qualifying round. I'm not sure about UEFA coefficients but one country (probably Rep. of Ireland or Moldova) should have 1 team in 1st and 1 in 2nd qualifying round. This also means that some positions of countries should be changed (according to Wikipedia).--SonjiCeli (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, some of the countries were in the wrong order, I have corrected it now, including putting Moldova's 2nd place in the second qualifying round where it should be. For future reference, this is the most accurate source for this information. - MTC (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Cup Runners-Up Situations[edit]
Okay, we have got to clear this situation up once and for all. Under UEFA Cup rules, if a domestic cup winner qualified for Champions League, their spot in the UEFA Cup (or at least a spot in the UEFA Cup) would go to the cup runners-up. It wouldn't necessarily be the spot the cup winner would have gotten (see Scotland's Queen of the South in the 2008-09 competition). However, from what I have read in the UEFA Cup article, it seems that cup runners-up will no longer be assured of a place in Europa League. That is, if the domestic cup winner goes to Champions League, their spot in Europa League would go to the highest non-Champions League team in the league. This issue needs to be cleared up soon, as more leagues finish their seasons and cup competitions. The pressing issue is if Norway's Valerenga would qualify for Europa League if they lose to Stabaek in the Norwegian domestic cup competition. I think we need clarification on this matter, and quickly. Rougue1987 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is the most recent information available. Page 14's fourth bullet point says:
Losing domestic cup finalists will still be able to play in the UEFA Cup (UEFA Europa League) if the winners qualify for the UEFA Champions League.
- That seems clear to me, the situation has not changed from previous seasons. MTC (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm tracking the Norwegian Premier League 2008 and the last couple of weeks there the press has been in a turmoil whether or not Vålerenga was secured a spot in the next years UEFA Cup even if they lose the final of the Norwegian Football Cup 2008. But last sunday, 19 October, the NFF assured the media that this was the case, however if Stabæk didn't win the League (no longer a scenario), but won the Cup, then the last UEFA Cup spot would go to the highest "non-receiving spot"-team in the league.
- Translated article:
- Stabæk-paradox: 26 October, Vålerenga (VIF) travels to Nadderud to play a league match against Stabæk. By losing, Stabæk will became league champions, and Vålerenga will be qualified for the next years UEFA Cup. But with a VIF-victory the League Championship might dissappear from Nadderud – and then Vålerenga MUST win the Cup Final, 9 November, in order to get international matches next season.
- ...
- PS. It has earlier been in doubt what will happen to the losing cup finalist, if Stabæk were to win the Cup, but not the League. In a text-message to Nettavisen Roger Solheim, head of Information in the Football Association of Norway, writes that the last spot in the UEFA Cup then would be awarded the fourth placed team in the league.
- Can't find any article stating in which qualifying round the losing cup finalist would enter, so I will for the time being assume they would receive the original cup-entry spot. lil2mas (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about what to believe as per losing cup finalists, but I can tell you that if the cup winner has already qualified and defers their place to *someone else*, then that team will get the original cup spot, and will not be forced to compete from an earlier qualifying round. Technically UEFA still classifies them as qualifying via the cup winners slot, so they aren't going to be punished for qualifying "by the back door", so to speak. Falastur2 Talk 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- A losing cup finalist takes the lowest spot for their association unless they get a better spot from their league placing, meaning that Vålerenga would enter at the Europa League second qualifying round if they lose the cup final, and at the third qualifying round if they win the cup final. This happened for Queen of the South last year and for various other teams over the years. There is no reason to believe it has changed for the Europa League. MTC (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- So this should mean that Valerenga will definitely enter the competition in the 2nd qualifying round, as Norway possesses two QR3 slots (one reserved for the dom. cup winners) and one QR2 spot... shouldn't it? Hockey-holic (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- A losing cup finalist takes the lowest spot for their association unless they get a better spot from their league placing, meaning that Vålerenga would enter at the Europa League second qualifying round if they lose the cup final, and at the third qualifying round if they win the cup final. This happened for Queen of the South last year and for various other teams over the years. There is no reason to believe it has changed for the Europa League. MTC (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about what to believe as per losing cup finalists, but I can tell you that if the cup winner has already qualified and defers their place to *someone else*, then that team will get the original cup spot, and will not be forced to compete from an earlier qualifying round. Technically UEFA still classifies them as qualifying via the cup winners slot, so they aren't going to be punished for qualifying "by the back door", so to speak. Falastur2 Talk 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm tracking the Norwegian Premier League 2008 and the last couple of weeks there the press has been in a turmoil whether or not Vålerenga was secured a spot in the next years UEFA Cup even if they lose the final of the Norwegian Football Cup 2008. But last sunday, 19 October, the NFF assured the media that this was the case, however if Stabæk didn't win the League (no longer a scenario), but won the Cup, then the last UEFA Cup spot would go to the highest "non-receiving spot"-team in the league.
According to this (what is probably the most recent information on this subject, dating from December 20, 2008), it seems that cup runners-up will definitely be allowed to enter the Europa League if cup winners qualify for Champions League. SonjiCeli (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- But not if they qualify for the Europa League? So if Manchester United finish in the top four, then Tottenham Hotspur qualifies? Let's say Manchester United have an incredible collapse and not only fail to win the Premier League, but fall all the way to fifth, which would qualify them for the Europa League. Does Tottenham Hotspur not get the spot? Does this only apply to the first domestic cup? This is still nowhere near clear enough. Everyone needs to remember that it is possible for cup winners to qualify for the Europa League via league position, or through other cups, like winning the UEFA Cup or another domestic cup. Can someone please clarify? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It would just be so much easier if once they determined which teams qualified, they did like what MLS does for the CONCACAF Champions League, which is just award the spots based on league finishing place, so the team that finished best gets into Round X, and then Round Y for the next team, and Round Z for the lowest finishing qualifier, etc. It would give teams that are qualified an incentive to keep pushing up the table to get the best spot possible. After Tottenham Hotspur won the League Cup last year they totally switched off since they had already qualified for Europe. That would eliminate a lot of the confusion. I realize this was a little bit forrumy, but I hope you'll forgive it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The League Cup is a different prospect to the FA cup - if you do not win the cup you cannot qualify - why are Manchester United listed as being in the third round - it is unlikely and misleading! --Thelostlibertine ('talk) 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would just be so much easier if once they determined which teams qualified, they did like what MLS does for the CONCACAF Champions League, which is just award the spots based on league finishing place, so the team that finished best gets into Round X, and then Round Y for the next team, and Round Z for the lowest finishing qualifier, etc. It would give teams that are qualified an incentive to keep pushing up the table to get the best spot possible. After Tottenham Hotspur won the League Cup last year they totally switched off since they had already qualified for Europe. That would eliminate a lot of the confusion. I realize this was a little bit forrumy, but I hope you'll forgive it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
New name for 4th qualifying round[edit]
According to this forum message, the name of the 4th qualifying round will be changed to "play-off round". The final date seems to be on May 19th, definitely. To look further on uefa.com. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Idea for the article[edit]
Here looks like a good thing to put on the Europa League page.
Mr Hall of England (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a good thing to put on the page eventually, but at the moment there are too many unconfirmed places for it to be appropriate. I think for now the list format will be easier to read and will look better. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Eh... I don't think it is appropiate until the tournament starts. First, the participating teams are not confirmed yet as some spots are replaced by the cup runners-up or the teams from league. Also, this kind of table will be added at the future. Raymond Giggs 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know they won the Carling Cup, but I can pretty much guarantee that Manchester United will not be competing in the third qualifying round of the 2009-10 Europa League! Does this table automatically update as each qualifying cup competition is completed? If so, it should make allowances for teams that are headed for the Champions League. Aside from this, I found this to be a very informative explanation of how the new competition will be formed. KCFooty (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Europa League = Uefa Cup + Intertoto Cup[edit]
I think it should be mentioned that Europa League is not only the reformed Uefa Cup, but also the result of this competition absorbing the Intertoto Cup. The enlargement of teams and qualifying rounds corresponds in practice to the number of Uefa Cup participants plus Intertoto participants. And thus it will start early in July to provide summer games for football "toto" pools, which had always been the purpose of Intertoto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.74.238 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true - England had 3 UEFA Cup spots (5th, Carling Cup, FA Cup) and an Intertoto Cup spot. Now they just have 3 Europa League spots (5th, Carling Cup, FA Cup) - so while that might be true for some lower ranked countries, to say that the two competitions merged is untrue. The Intertoto Cup was discontinued, and the UEFA Cup was expanded and rebranded. It's as simple as that really. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it directly, Europa League = Uefa Cup + Intertoto Cup isn't true. But looking at the total numbers from this season's UEFA Cup to next season's Europa League, It looks like they somehow replaced the 11 winners of the Intertoto Cup. Kingjeff (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
League Cup winners[edit]
The league cup winners from England and France may not - attention that I am saying "may not" instead of "will not" - be awarded a UEFA Europa League place. We all thought that there is a fault that UEFA did not include both cup winners. However, my state changed since the new access list version published on 19 December at the UEFA official website. They still do not include any league cup winners into the list. So, I'll strongly advise that not to remove the note about the league cup winners. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Carling Cup issue solved. The Carling Cup winners will be awarded a UEFA Europa League place according to this article. However, there is still no firm information that Coupe de Ligue will get a UEFA Europa League spot. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Listing teams[edit]
If my memory serves me correctly, teams that are confirmed are only listed. Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- And the winner of the English League Cup is confirmed, if Man U don't qualify for a higher spot this is where they get to play, what more confirmation do you need? ch10 · 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But not as far as clinching a Europa League spot. Kingjeff (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? They won the Carling Cup, so they get this spot. If Manchester United never play another football match this season, let alone win one, they are guaranteed to qualify for this competition. If/When they qualify for this tournament or the Champions League via league position, then this will change, but as of now, there is nothing incorrect about saying this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So, they'll be in Champions League and Europa League? Kingjeff (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But they're in a position to you don't know if tey will be which makes this WP:CBALL. Kingjeff (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, the crystalball would be you presuming that they will qualify another way or to another competition. At this moment, the fact is they're qualified as League Cup winners ch10 · 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is. Get over it. Kingjeff (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- If/When they clinch at least 5th place, we will make your edit. Until then, you are the one with the crystal ball. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Take the first line "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", let's see here, what's the unverified speculation? "Manchester United have won the League Cup which qualifies them to the Europa League" or "Manchester United will qualify for a better position"... Only one of those is a speculation. ch10 · 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The "unverifiable speculation" is Manchester United are in the Europa League. Kingjeff (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, because the winner of the League Cup qualifies for the Europa League... What's so hard to understand? ch10 · 03:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is unveried because they can be in Champions League. Kingjeff (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the CBALL, they can be in the Champions League, they can also fall down to 8th... They can be in the Champions League final this year, but we don't list them or the other 15 teams in 2009 UEFA Champions League Final ch10 · 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can. Don't you see!? They only can be in the Champions League. They definitely are qualified for the Europa League and will only relinquish that spot to appear in the Champions League. Since that is not guaranteed to happen, this is correct. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Both are crystal balling. Kingjeff (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, the text of the article says that those teams are expected to compete because of their respective achievements. Nothing is set in stone. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not, the winner of the League Cup qualifies for that spot, that's not speculation, If Spurs had won, their name had been there. ch10 · 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is until their Champions League 2009-10 status is confirmed. Kingjeff (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Their Champions League status is non-existant until they qualify for the Champions League. Seriously, remove your fandom from the equation for a minute. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It actually is until they either clinch or are eliminated from qualification or even winning the competition. Kingjeff (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Come on guys, please. This was resolved long, long ago. Teams are only added if their entrance in the competition is certain. That doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a place if they need it, it means that they definitely will be in the competition as their entrance is secured and they don't qualify for an alternate competition - the Champion's League, in this case. As Man Utd can, and surely will, still qualify for the CL, their entrance into the Europa League is questionable, and thus shouldn't be added here. Falastur2 Talk 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct, Falastur. Eligibility for the competition is not the same as confirmation of participation. Saying clubs are "expected" to take part (no sources for these "expectations" - who is doing the "expecting"?) is crystal-balling. The wording should be changed to something accurate and verifiable.
- Expected is there because things can change, teams can be excluded, qualify for a better spot, it would be misrepresentation to not show that for example Man Utd have that spot, right now the only competition they're qualified for next year. ch10 · 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. Saying they are eligible for the slot is verifiable. Saying they are expected to take it up is original research, crystal-balling and misrepresentation. Knepflerle (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Expected is there because things can change, teams can be excluded, qualify for a better spot, it would be misrepresentation to not show that for example Man Utd have that spot, right now the only competition they're qualified for next year. ch10 · 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct, Falastur. Eligibility for the competition is not the same as confirmation of participation. Saying clubs are "expected" to take part (no sources for these "expectations" - who is doing the "expecting"?) is crystal-balling. The wording should be changed to something accurate and verifiable.
It's always the same - the name "Manchester United" pops up and you can bet that there will be a huge and unnecessary discussion over marginalia right around the corner. As a compromise (and as suggested by User:Hack over at the project discussion page) - how about putting it like this:
- Manchester United1
and at the bottom of the section:
- ^Note 1 : The spot will be transferred to the 6th-placed team of Premier League 2008–09 if Manchester United qualify for the UEFA Champions League 2009–10 via their league place.
The note will be removed once MU have mathematically assured their CL participation. (Warning, sarcasm ahead)Besides - where have you seen the following lines: "This article contains information about a future UEFA Europa League season, and is likely to contain information of a speculative nature. The content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available." I'm just saying...(end sarcasm) --Soccer-holic (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- That, coupled with getting rid of the inaccurate "expected" phrasing, sounds like a good idea. Knepflerle (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps change it to something in the lines of "The following 3758 teams are eligible to enter in the xyz Round of UEFA EL:". --Soccer-holic (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Doing something for Manchester United that will not be done for every other cup winner is exceptionalism. There is nothing incorrect about saying that Manchester United is eligable to enter the Europa League. This will only change iff they finish higher, but that is the case for every cup winner, so why include a caveat about Manchester United just because they're Manchester United. We can change the article if/when they qualify through the league for this or another competition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are no other cup winners whose season is still ongoing have qualified, so the note is only relevant to United. If other Cup winners qualify before the league placings are confirmed, it would make sense to add a note to them as well. It's the most diplomatic solution until we can agree a consensus. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Eastlygod. Knepflerle (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are no other cup winners whose season is still ongoing have qualified, so the note is only relevant to United. If other Cup winners qualify before the league placings are confirmed, it would make sense to add a note to them as well. It's the most diplomatic solution until we can agree a consensus. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Doing something for Manchester United that will not be done for every other cup winner is exceptionalism. There is nothing incorrect about saying that Manchester United is eligable to enter the Europa League. This will only change iff they finish higher, but that is the case for every cup winner, so why include a caveat about Manchester United just because they're Manchester United. We can change the article if/when they qualify through the league for this or another competition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps change it to something in the lines of "The following 3758 teams are eligible to enter in the xyz Round of UEFA EL:". --Soccer-holic (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with putting the note in for all situations like this, because it gives very useful info to people to who aren't too in the know about these things, without being factually incorrect and without misleading casual readers ("United in the UEFA cup, my arse!" as one friend said to me). It just so happens that the English League Cup is particularly early in the season. Other cups are sorted later, so it's often more definate whether teams can qualify or not for the champions league, and therefore not every cup needs a note. They can be tucked away in the references anyway so that they don't disrupt the flow of the page.
- TBH I've been ducking out of all this because chances are United will seal >6th place next Saturday anyway. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is clear consensus here for the inclusion of some sort of qualifying note. Knepflerle (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, a very interesting reference from the Bert Kassies website, Man United has not been listed. If I were you, I will list Man United there and wait until 21 March, which Coupe de la Ligue Final held. Raymond Giggs 04:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Grant, I know I posted the same thing on your user page, just re-posting here to get more of a discussion.) The point is, is that the note added to Manchester United, only applies to Manchester United, the English League Cup is currently the only one whose result has happened before the League season, and therefore other European placings have not been determined. For the Norwegian and Lativan teams for example, their cup competitions and league placings for European competition next year have already finish and been determined. There are no other currently qualified teams would could also qualify for the Champions League. Which is why we only need a note for Manchester United/ the English League Cup it is the only one with a qualifier that might upgrade to the Champions League. Not the 50 cup competitions you keep mentioning. I've refrained from editing the article itself as not to be drawn into an edit war, but to try and solve the agreement through discussion. There are two sides to every argument, and I am more than happy to hear others. Eastlygod (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. Now you've pointed this out for a second time, we can all be absolutely sure it's been said at least once! Knepflerle (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Qualification Reason[edit]
Kaplanjosh (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Can we retain the reason each team has qualified? It might be useful to know that a team qualified as 4th place in a domestic league or as a domestic cup winner. Right now it seems that we're just overwriting "2nd placed team of This League 2008–09" with "Team Name".
Proposing something like the following:
Unknown seeding
|
2nd placed team of Umaglesi Liga 2008–09 | |
|
|
3rd placed team of Umaglesi Liga 2008–09 | |
|
3rd placed team of Divizia Naţională 2008-09 | |
|
Keflavík | 2nd placed team of Úrvalsdeild 2008 |
|
|
Fram | 3rd placed team of Úrvalsdeild 2008 |
|
2nd placed team of Macedonian Prva Liga 2008–09 | |
|
|
3rd placed team of Macedonian Prva Liga 2008–09 | |
|
2nd placed team of Azerbaijan Premier League 2008–09 | |
|
|
3rd placed team of Azerbaijan Premier League 2008–09 | |
|
Fair Play | |
|
|
Fair Play | |
|
|
Fair Play |
- I agree that there is some value in keeping the qualification reason. Two points I'd raise: 1) the information would ultimately get deleted once the draws are made 2) i wonder whether the two-column format would still fit average monitors with tables in (the only appropriate format methinks). Feel free to dummy-edit the whole page with said tables so we can see what it'd look like. Good idea. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Manchester United[edit]
Manchester united have qualified for the Europa League next season du to them winning the Carling Cup so why are they not included as one of the qualified teams? The C of E (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Without being 100% sure, I think they've clinched at worst a 3rd or 4th place in the Premier League, therefore they'll play in the Champions League chandler ··· 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, as of this moment they're not even guaranteed a top 4 place in theory. You'd think that not even Newcastle could blow it from here, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
List of qualifying teams whose starting round is unknown[edit]
Would it be helpful to have a table of teams that have secured a Europa League berth but have an uncertain starting round (including those that may qualify for the Champions League instead)? Something along the lines of:
| Club | CL Group | CL Playoff | CL Q3 | CL Q2 | CL Q1 | EL Playoff | EL Q3 | EL Q2 | EL Q1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Everton (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Athletic Bilbao (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Milan
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Juventus
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Bordeaux (LC)
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
 Zenit St. Petersburg
|
X | X | |||||||
 Sporting CP
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Benfica
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Nacional
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Paços de Ferreira (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Ajax
|
X | X | |||||||
| PSV*
|
X | X | |||||||
| Heerenveen* (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Falkirk (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Shakhtar Donetsk
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
 PAOK
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Panathinaikos
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| AEK Athens
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Larissa
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
 Zürich
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Basel
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Young Boys
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 CSKA Sofia
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Brøndby IF
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| F.C. Copenhagen
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Red Bull Salzburg
|
X | X | |||||||
 Slovan Bratislava
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
 Debreceni VSC
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Dinamo Zagreb
|
X | X | |||||||
| Hajduk Split
|
X | X | |||||||
 Anorthosis
|
X | X | |||||||
 Zrinjski
|
X | X | X | X | |||||
| Makedonija
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| WIT Georgia
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Dinamo Tbilisi
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Olimpi Rustavi
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Flora
|
X | X | |||||||
| Trans
|
X | X | |||||||
| FK Baku
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Inter Baku
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 KF Tirana
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| Vllaznia Shkodër
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Ararat Yerevan
|
X | X | |||||||
| Banants Yerevan (CF)
|
X | X | |||||||
 Crusaders
|
X | X | |||||||
 F91 Dudelange
|
X | X | X | ||||||
| FC Differdange 03
|
X | X | X | ||||||
 Hibernians
|
X | X | |||||||
| Valletta
|
X | X | X |
(CW) denotes cup winner, (CF) denotes cup finalist who is guaranteed qualification as a result, (LC) denotes league cup winner. Teams could be removed as they qualify for the Champions League (and added to the Champions League page as appropriate) or as their position becomes confirmed. PiGuy314 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this would be a really useful tool to have on the talk page for editors, but I think that having it on the pages themselves would be a little too much for the casual reader, and possible cross some lines about Original Research. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since it might be useful on the talk page, at least, I've updated the table through games of April 27. Removed Chelsea, Dynamo Kyiv, Anderlecht, Standard, and Partizan (qualified for Champions League), and Omonia (final position determined); added Everton, A.C. Milan, Juventus, Bordeaux, Sporting CP, Benfica, Twente, Ajax, Falkirk, Larissa, Zürich, Basel, F.C. Copenhagen, Red Bull Salzburg, Dinamo Zagreb, Hajduk Split, Dacia, KF Tirana, Vllaznia Shkodër, Crusaders, and Valletta; updated Porto's possible starting rounds. PiGuy314 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last update: May 3. Not entirely sure about the Dutch situation because of the playoff; if the cup winner (or a team guaranteed a spot as a cup finalist) is exempt from the playoffs, then this should be accurate. PiGuy314 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time for a full update at the moment, but there's a likely mistake regarding the Belgian teams - the Belgian First Division page says the tiebreaker is overall wins (not goal difference), so a Club Brugge win and Gent loss would put Brugge in the third round and Gent in the second. So there's either a mistake here or a mistake on the Belgian First Division page. PiGuy314 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Club Brugge's website seems to indicate this is true - the players are still talking about taking third [1] Sam Vimes | Address me 08:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair play places[edit]
Why are the fair play places allocated to Rosenborg and unknown teams from Scotland & Denmark? Surely the allocations aren't know until the end of the season? (The ref quoted appears to be in relation to the 2008-09 UEFA Cup). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
- Nope, the source says
- Norway finished ahead of Denmark and Scotland, and all three associations will be granted one additional slot for the first qualifying round of the 2009/10 UEFA Europa League.
- Also, on the Norwegian Premier League 2008 page, there's a source for Rosenborg being awarded the fair play place in Norway. The other leagues, as you point out, aren't finished yet, so those spots could conceivably still change. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If Chelsea win the FA Cup[edit]
Do Everton automatically enter the group stage anyway now that Shakhtar Donetsk will be in the Champions League? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.230.225 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- If Everton managed to finish 5th in the league they will do. Normally the loser of a domestic cup gets the worst place that country has, but because Everton are guaranteed a decent league place that doesn't apply.Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What would happen if…[edit]
In the Champions League article, it explains what would happen should that competition's winner finish in an automatic spot in their country's league. What I'm wondering is: what would happen if the UEFA Cup winners qualify for the Champions League (as happened with Zenit St Petersburg last year)? And if it goes to the runners-up, what happens if they too qualify for the Champions League (as happened with Rangers last year)? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- UEFA haven't given any indication about that yet. In [previous years] the best ranked cup winners would move up from the round below. This year is more complicated though, because the Holders alone have a place in the group stage. They'd probably just move 2 cup winners from the 3rd to the playoff, and 2 from the 2nd to the 3rd. Dunno about who they'll shift from the 1st to the second, but you get my drift.
- And the UEFA Cup runners up never get any kind of automatic qualification. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The information Aheyfromhome talked about have no any reference value due to the regulation change from UEFA Cup to UEFA Europa League.At UEFA Cup era, five situation may happened to a title holder if they qualified for the Champions League. But in the new competition, six situation may happened to this kind of team:- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL failed to qualify to the third qualifying round of CL.
- As experience, this kind of team would be considered as a new team which is challenging for the CL, not to defend their EL title. So the status of EL title holders will no longer exist. So this kind of team cannot defend their EL title if first situation occurs.
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL eliminated at the third qualifying round of CL.
- The spot for the defending champions are prepared for the teams which are going to defend their champion, not for the teams failed to challenge CL. So the title holders have to play play-off round if they are going to defend their EL title.
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL eliminated at the play-off round of CL.
- They started from the same starting point, so nothing "changed".
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL finished third at the table in group stage.
- As a third-placed in their group, they will defend their title by CL third-finisher.
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL finished last at the table in group stage.
- They were eliminated from the UEFA competition, so they failed to defend their EL title.
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL qualified for the knockout round.
- They can't defend their EL title anymore as no team will be demoted to EL in knockout round of CL.
- EL Title holders which qualified for the CL failed to qualify to the third qualifying round of CL.
- Also, for the defending champions spot, this spot is only for defending champions. If the title holders are not going to defend their title, this spot will not be replaced by any team. As a result, two cup winners of the highest-ranked country in third qualifing round will be shifted to play-off round i.e. Winners of Swiss Cup and Bulgarian Cup in 2009–10 EL. Also, four cup winners will be shifted from second qualifying round to third qualifying round, and eight cup winners will be shifted from first qualifying round to second qualifying round. Raymond Giggs 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the article has been updated in a different way (ie, FA Cup winner/best ENG moves up to Group Stage). There is no reference for this (and Bert Kassies hasn't put that it his site). I suspect would has been added in currently is actually wrong (and that Raymond's suggestion above is more likely to be correct - something like CW16-17 -> Q4, CW28-31 -> Q3 and 3rdN22-29 - > Q2). However, maybe there has been a source for this data other than over-exuberant editing. Jlsa (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's in one of the annexes in the regulations. It's referenced at the end of the second paragraph of the Team Allocation section. Priority is given to domestic cup winners in compensating for the vacant holder spot. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you mean the one on the bottom of page 42 I really think you are over-reaching what it says there. The suggestion above pretty much fulfils that annex (maybe we would have CW52-53+3rdN22-27 -> Q2 instead). Even more so considering that if Everton lose the FA Cup you would see exactly the opposite occur, that is an incredible leap in priority given to a side that is not a domestic cup winner!!! Jlsa (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's in one of the annexes in the regulations. It's referenced at the end of the second paragraph of the Team Allocation section. Priority is given to domestic cup winners in compensating for the vacant holder spot. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Despite the mass movement that might appear in the edit-comparison, all that's happened is that one team has been moved from each round to the later. It's a very simple system that UEFA has uses to compensate for things. I don't think UEFA are going to make mass alterations to the qualifying set up. It may be unusual to have a single team in the group stage, but thats just the way it plays out.
- It is an issue over whether they technically mean cup winner in all cases, or whether they mean the best spot for the next country in line for a shift-up. I believe that, given the linearity of the place distribution pattern, it would be the best placed of the next-ranked association whether they are a cup winner or not. Aheyfromhome (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- From my position there are two points here. The important point is that this really has no real source - it's just one person's guess based on a fairly innocuous statement in the regulations, dressed up as "fact". The claim that this is "past practice" is not totally wrong, there is obviously going to be some moving up of teams. However, the "assumed" methodology does something that has (to my knowledge) NEVER been done before - move one side into a group above all others. In the past teams have moved up to JOIN other sides in a higher band - but this lifts a single team into its own group. Sure, the original plan had a team on its own, but that was the title holder and hence it was in a "class of its own", there is nothing (apart from the current country ranking) separating the English Cup winner/best league team not in the CL from other Europa League teams. You claim that "that is how it plays out" but that's only the case in your assumed answer - there are others (as I have noted). The less important point is that I think the edits are actually going to need to be reversed once they are revealed to be wrong (of course, by writing this in a public forum I have just massively increased the chances that you will be right - you can thank me later). Jlsa (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the situation is unusual, and that the holders place in the GS is a special spot. However, the situation with a single team has never been possible before. But I see no difference between a holder placed on its own and one placed with 15 other teams, or 10, or 2, or 1. Ultimately the movement of teams has been to replace holes left by vacant reserved spots. This happens in the champions league when you get a team from the next ranked association moving up to the GS to replace the vacant holder. They don't decide to forget about it and re-jig the whole qualifying distribution; they give it to the next ranked team. And that is also what seperates the English team from the rest of the Europa League teams; England is the top ranked association and therefore the next in line to shift up. Another point I'd raise is that the regulations don't bother to specify whether N2 or N3 teams move up first. If they'd have intended the wholesale movement of teams I think they would have mentioned that in addition to the CWs.
- Ultimately I do believe the statement in the regulations makes UEFAs intent to move a single team from each round clear. (Although they could have clarified whether they absolutely have to be cup winners). And I think the old system is definately wrong so can't be left in the page, and out of the new possibilities the one on the page now is the most likely. The method mentioned by KyleRGiggs would be a complete change in ethos by UEFA. I'm also anticipating confirmation by UEFA but as I say, I'm just very confident that this will be the method used by them, and I think the regulations is sufficient referencing for it. (And by writing that in a public forum I've just balanced out the odds of either of us being right :)Aheyfromhome (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- You write that if "they'd have intended the wholesale movement of teams...", ignoring that promoting Everton to the GS necessitates changes to the qualifying rounds which are just as wholesale as promoting clubs from the third to the fourth qualifying rounds. I would recommend reversing the edit until full confirmation either way from UEFA is obtained, perhaps with a note added until then that Shakhtar's qualification for the CL will require some changes to be made to the qualifying format. Leviramsey (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- From my position there are two points here. The important point is that this really has no real source - it's just one person's guess based on a fairly innocuous statement in the regulations, dressed up as "fact". The claim that this is "past practice" is not totally wrong, there is obviously going to be some moving up of teams. However, the "assumed" methodology does something that has (to my knowledge) NEVER been done before - move one side into a group above all others. In the past teams have moved up to JOIN other sides in a higher band - but this lifts a single team into its own group. Sure, the original plan had a team on its own, but that was the title holder and hence it was in a "class of its own", there is nothing (apart from the current country ranking) separating the English Cup winner/best league team not in the CL from other Europa League teams. You claim that "that is how it plays out" but that's only the case in your assumed answer - there are others (as I have noted). The less important point is that I think the edits are actually going to need to be reversed once they are revealed to be wrong (of course, by writing this in a public forum I have just massively increased the chances that you will be right - you can thank me later). Jlsa (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the article has been updated in a different way (ie, FA Cup winner/best ENG moves up to Group Stage). There is no reference for this (and Bert Kassies hasn't put that it his site). I suspect would has been added in currently is actually wrong (and that Raymond's suggestion above is more likely to be correct - something like CW16-17 -> Q4, CW28-31 -> Q3 and 3rdN22-29 - > Q2). However, maybe there has been a source for this data other than over-exuberant editing. Jlsa (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I was thinking there would be (substantially) more teams moving from round to round than there actually is. I suppose if they scrapped the GS spot, the way to compensate would be to move 2teams Q4<-Q3, 2teams Q3<-Q4 and 4teams Q2<-Q1. Less than I thought, but still it leaves the notion that UEFA haven't prioritised between N2 and N3 places in Q1, so maybe they didn't intend it. But it is possible ofcourse. All the clubs that have been moved up in the with-GSspot system would be moved in the without-GSspot system (Except FA Cup winners), so i suppose theres no harm with leaving the page in this kind of transitional stage. I think I'll put in another paragraph just above the table (because it will catch people's eyes there methinks) explaining fully the page as it is, and what changes there will be if they scrap the GSspot.Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well Bert has changed his site and he's used the without-GSspot method. Anyone who wants to is quite welcome to change the page to this for the sake of compatability and simplicity. I still reckon that the other method will be used in the end, but I'm only one bloke so the majority rules. It's been a pleasure. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- (psst - when Bert originally updated his site he went with what you had - I was just about to write about it when it changed! Still, either option leaves my original point unchanged - we actually don't know the answer) Jlsa (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well Bert has changed his site and he's used the without-GSspot method. Anyone who wants to is quite welcome to change the page to this for the sake of compatability and simplicity. I still reckon that the other method will be used in the end, but I'm only one bloke so the majority rules. It's been a pleasure. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, now the article is very unclear as it say different things in different sections. In 1.1 Distribution it says that the cup winner of England goes to group stage as well as section 2. Teams (England flag in the group stage). Also in 4. Qualifying rounds there is a little bit of mess and the number of entering teams is not correct. And also 5. Group stage says that there will be 47 teams competing in this stage which is certainly not right. I don't feel eligible to correct all of the mistakes (and I also have no time at this moment), so I am just letting you know and hope that someone will correct it to the version where all af the information in the article would be the same (and I wish good luck to that person, it won't be easy).--Quelhar (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The answer is ...[not the stuff below - which was just rubbish - this is (a) why you don't post late at night and (b) why Bert is the expert (all hail Bert)] Jlsa (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
...title holder spot disappears and an additional match is held in the play-off round. Source: Season review - England from UEFA, namely the section:
European places for 2009-10: Everton FC – UEFA Europa League play-off round.
So, unless something really weird is happening (or if the UEFA website has got it wrong - and you can't rule it out I suppose) - the format we have adopted appears to be the right one. Jlsa (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Geographical zones?[edit]
Will the teams be regrouped in geographical zones to be drawn like for the last UEFA Cups' first preliminary rounds? 153.109.47.61 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- According to the info on Bert Kassies' site there will be no regrouping this year...--Quelhar (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Team coefficients information[edit]
I think that in the main table it may be interesting that you shall add the data regarding the clubs coefficients. In this way it may be easier to understand how will the format & draws behave & the logic behind seeded & un-seeded teams
Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.157.128 (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Draw results[edit]
Some draw result already available here (1st round), waiting for 2nd round. http://www.uefa.com/live/competitions/uefacup/draw/2010.qr1-2/draw_basic.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.193 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Turkish suffixes[edit]
Seems customary to try and establish what the consensus is on adding "Instanbul" etc to the end of the Turkish teams in the draw. I'm assuming due to the constant reversion that consensus is against it but let's have something permanent to prove this consensus. For the record I'm against the additions. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm against it too. Clubs are well known enough, locations are not used by UEFA themselves, and if a reader wants to know where a club is from they can always follow the link. Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Note at group stage[edit]
(This is here rather than just reverting). The reason the text was put at that point was three-fold. 1) There has been lots of editing of this point. 2) The change (not to "promote" a lower team into the TH spot) is a different solution to that which UEFA has used at all times before - therefore it is worthy of a special note and 3) It is the most obvious difference from the UEFA access list for this tournament (which the article links to). Someone following that link is much more likely to be confused by the difference here (what happened to the TH spot, how has the problem been dealt with) than by the fact that some minor country's cup winners now start in a later round. There are other mentions of this point at the top of the section, but this final mention is to ensure that the very significant difference in this case (as per point 2) is noted. I'm not quite sure what the revert info "should not be appeared here" is trying to say, but it most certainly is not giving a reasons as to WHY the removal of the text is justified, it's just someone saying it should with no justification. Jlsa (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Grouping in qualifying rounds[edit]
I don't know if we should include the grouping in the sessions. I made a copy for the grouping earlier, should we include it? Raymond Giggs 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does such a grouping actually exist? Did UEFA actually group the teams that way? – PeeJay 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. It it always announced with the seeding (Bert kassies prob has a link for that and he has had explanations of how the seeding groups are formed). The seeding is done to ensure that the best ranked team and best unranked team tend not meet (so they want more like 1v16, 2v15 etc rather than 1v9, 2v10 etc). Jlsa (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am trying to find out the grouping of second qualifying round but... cannot sum up yet. Raymond Giggs 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- By the way Jlsa, can you show that link of the grouping please? Raymond Giggs 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Grouping here: http://fr.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind=1/newsid=840353.html Schnapper (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- By the way Jlsa, can you show that link of the grouping please? Raymond Giggs 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am trying to find out the grouping of second qualifying round but... cannot sum up yet. Raymond Giggs 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Notes, notes, notes (and more notes)[edit]
Apart from the reversal of fixtures, there seems no justification for the plethora of annotations on the locations of various matches (eg, "Lummox FC forced to play at Oafs XI home ground due to conflict with scheduling of midsummer moonshine and mushroom festival"). The page of detailed match results and scorers is far more appropriate for this level of detail (which, if shown here, lacks any context) if only to cut down on the size of what is already a ridculously overlong page. Jlsa (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I can't rememeber having all these trivial bits before. Maybe theres some wiki code that can hide the notes on the page, but if not I think its far better to just remove them. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are two note 1's - one for CL drop ots, and one for order of ties reversed. Can someone fix this. 86.177.154.93 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Steaua and Red Star suffixes[edit]
I am for the same observation made for the Turkish team regarding Steaua and Red Star Belgrade. I doubt that teams like Slavija Sarajevo, Buducnost Podgorica, Mika Ashtarak, Vllazna Skoder, Iskra-Stal Râbniţa, Cherno More Varna, Vetra Vilnius, Honka Espoo, Vojvodina Novi Sad, Omonia Nicosia, Flora Talinn, Fram Reykjavik, Banants Yerevan, Irtysh Pavlodar, Naftan Novopolotsk (there town isn't mentioned; hope to be enough examples) are more knowed than Steaua or Red Star. Unuon 00:53, 7 August 2009 (EET)
- In English, FK Crvena zvezda is known as Red Star Belgrade, with the city name included, simply because Red Star on its own is fairly ambiguous. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a fair amount of inconsistency in this from ALL sources. Take the "official" UEFA names (the ones on their website). Steaua is FC Steaua Bucureşti (Bucuresti appears on their badge, so this seems like one case where adding the word does seem correct). But Red Star is FK Crvena Zvezda, it's Sporting Clube de Portugal (not Sporting Lisbon) and many of the others DON'T have town names in their titles (of those like above, Sarajevo, Podgorica, Varna, Espoo, Reykjavik, Pavlodar and Novopolotsk are included as far as FIFA are concerned - the others aren't. But even that can change from year to year as the names are revised, although that type of revision is fairly unusual). I am not sure where the wikipedia versions of these names come from - that they probably follow UK newspaper would be my guess. I am not sure that is appropriate - but good luck getting it changed. Jlsa (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Slavija Sarajevo, Cherno More Varna, Honka Espoo, Vojvodina Novi Sad, Omonia Nicosia, Irtysh Pavlodar, Naftan Novopolotsk, BATE Borisov, Rabotnicki Skopje, even Ajax Amsterdam have theire city written on the crest, but are mentioned only by the "first name". Lazio is officially knowed by "S.S. Lazio" (the UCL broadcasting tv banners mention this name) but in the article is mentioned only by "Lazio". The official name of Steaua is "AS FC Steaua Bucureşti SA" (Asociaţia Sportivă Fotbal Club Steaua Bucureşti Societate pe Acţiuni), meaning "Sports Association Football Club Steaua Bucharest Joint-Stock Company".
My personal opinion is, for consistency, that all teams should be mention by the name wich are known and by the city name (Lazio Roma, Juventus Turin, Feyenoord Rotterdam), with some exceptions for English-teams (West Ham United London or Aston Villa Birmingham is a little bit strange) because the names on official paper is changed.. Unuon 12:40, 7 August 2009 (EET)
- I personally see no reason change anything. The names as they are right now communicate effectively which club is in question, and that's really what matters here. However, if you feel the need to change things, it is my recommendation to use the UEFA versions (i.e. the ones on the UEFA website). –Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Switch hosting[edit]
Explain me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.206.242 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Explain you? Well, I don't know anything about you, but I think it's fairly safe to assume that you are a human being, one of a species of life on the planet Earth, and that you are made up of billions of cells. As for explaining you, it's also probably true that you are the result of the union between a man and a woman who you would call your parents and who love you very much because you're their special little boy or girl. – PeeJay 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Lets get to the real answer since PeeJay2K3 got his smart ass answer out of the way. The home club from the 2nd leg will become the home club for the first leg and the visiting club for the 2nd leg. Kingjeff (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Group A standings[edit]
Ajax should be number 1 in the poule, also according to the UEFA site, since they draw with Anderlecht when they were playing there, away goals are rated higher. Total goals made is irrelevant. 85.144.4.80 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- And Ajax isn't qualified for round of 32 yet. If Ajax don't get any more points and timisoara win the last two matches, they'll continue and Ajax will be out or did misunderstand something? - dauton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.30.192 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're both right. Ajax should be in first since they're tied with Anderlecht on most criteria, but have more away goals in head-to-head comparison. However, they're not through yet either for the reasons described in the previous post. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can a note be placed?[edit]
I've just fixed two groups that were the wrong way round because people had done overall GD first rather than results. Can someone please add a note to make sure people know that results are the first tie-breaker 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What is a UEFA license?[edit]
And why would a team not obtain one? --AW (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- UEFA licences are issued to clubs, managers and coaches to certify them for European involvement. For a club, I imagine this would involve meeting ground regulations, financial regulations, player registration rules and whatnot. Teams apply for them at the beginning of the season if they don't have one. Sometimes they don't meet these somewhat basic requirements, or fudge the application, and aren't allowed to participate. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- thanks. Maybe we should explain that here, or write an article on it? --98.218.233.2 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Mistake[edit]
There is a mistake regarding the group with Salzburg, Villareal, Lazio and Sofia. Lazio can still progess IF they defeat Sofia AND Salzburg beat Villareal, and the total winning margin from both games is 3 goals or more. I don't know how to change the red to white, so can someone please correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.39.129 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- May I suggest you read the tie-breaking criteria? If two or more team are tied, the head-to-head results are used before goal difference. Therefore, no matter what the score between Lazio and Sofia is, Villareal will still be ahead of Lazio. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Really. It's not all about you.[edit]
The constant adding/deleting of the "qualified" teams table is getting beyond childish. I don't see the need for the table - but it seems obvious others do. The current arguments against it seem pretty weak: "The draw will be held soon". So what? You are effectively saying - "please come back and look at this section later, we don't want to serve you now, we know who is through and if you don't well you're not smart enough to use this page". And the "it's just above here" is also weak - if you click the link from top of page (or, even worse in the CL case, follow it from the WCC page) you don't see that because the stuff above is out of screen - how far away is irrelevant unless you set a guideline gap beyond which people aren't expected to read (the "it's just above" argument was true during the group stage but we included lists of qualifiers in that case - or was the "gap" then larger some magic number?) The list being added is just a placeholder until the draw is made. If people want to just see a list of who is qualified, then the page should include a list of who is qualified. It seems that the people deleting it are placing their own preferences ahead of everything else. People want the list - let them have it - it does no harm to have a temporary (if slightly redundant) section. Jlsa (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
top scorers[edit]
Too lazy and unregistered to bother myself, but the top scorers list is wrong. E.g. Bobby Zamora has scored 8 (against Vetra, Amkar Perm, Baselx2, Shakhtar, Juve, Wolfsburgx2)
- The goals against Vetra and Amkar Perm don't count because they were during qualifying which isn't considered part of the competition proper. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Except that the minutes played figures seem to include the qualification games. jnestorius(talk) 05:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2009–10 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080929002657/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=754085.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=754085.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828002136/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=877339.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=877339.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091123064300/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=922169.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=922169.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2009–10 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=676743.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128004339/http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=924697.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=924697.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091031230120/http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=911828.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=911828.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211154541/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefaeuropaleague/statistics/players/type=topscorers/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/statistics/players/type=topscorers/index.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind=2097152/newsid=788365.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2009–10 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D754085.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D676743.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D924697.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D512/newsid%3D877339.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D512/newsid%3D911828.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D512/newsid%3D922169.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://en.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/matches/season%3D2010/round%3D2000042/match%3D2000967/postmatch/report/index.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211154541/http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/statistics/players/type%3Dtopscorers/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/statistics/players/type%3Dtopscorers/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)