[CL] Champions League 2014/15 (42 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
however there are perspectives that can reveal it's flaw; for example in arsenal vs monaco case, arsenal scored goals over 2 matches while monaco only scored in one from the 2 matches... furthermore why how and on what basis does losing 1-3 is worse than 0-2? one can argue that losing 1-3 mean more entertainment than losing 0-2...
aside from what I said above, again as evidenced by arsenal vs monaco, it made monaco very complacent in their 2nd match at home, I didn't see the matches but I can imagine and argue that monaco put an even less effort to progress in their own home than arsenal just because they were able to snatch 3 goals in the 1st match, I can argue that arsenal were the more valiant side over 2 matches... why should they be the one that deemed worse?
It made Monaco complacent, but Arsenal go full on attacking. Monaco got rewarded for an amazing performance in the home tie. Arsenal new what they needed in the second leg, and they failed to get it. I love the away goals rule. It's perfect. I really don't care if we get eliminated by it at some point. It's harder to score away from home. So scoring more away from home > scoring more at home. Easy peasy.
why is it safe? 1-1 mean extra time and penalties; however I realize you can't treat win/lose vs draw as the same, and you can't please everyone with all possible scenarios.
![Juventino[RUS]](https://www.juventuz.com/data/avatars/s/5/5409.jpg?1650619365){kind=avatar}
The way I see this, consistently scoring over 2 matches = more effort than the one only turned up on single away game and then sleepwalking on their own home
I just can't see why winning away 3-1 cannot be nullified by losing 0-2 at home, and for the other side why scoring more consistently over 2 matches should be deemed worse over the side that don't.
It just unjust in my opinion; however I may have found the solution, so on top of the away goal rule, there should be a rule favoring sides that more consistently score over the 2 matches; this way arsenal is the one that deemed the better side and awarded qualification, and this rule will still prevent the double draw without away goal counted scenario while at the same time.favoring sides that are the more consistent performer over the 2 matches.
I just can't see why winning away 3-1 cannot be nullified by losing 0-2 at home, and for the other side why scoring more consistently over 2 matches should be deemed worse over the side that don't.
It just unjust in my opinion; however I may have found the solution, so on top of the away goal rule, there should be a rule favoring sides that more consistently score over the 2 matches; this way arsenal is the one that deemed the better side and awarded qualification, and this rule will still prevent the double draw without away goal counted scenario while at the same time.favoring sides that are the more consistent performer over the 2 matches.
Why would winning 2-0 and losing 3-1 be deemed more consistent? Arsenal was held to 2 goals in the return leg. Monaco managed to score 3 in the first leg. I don't see Arsenal's performance as more consistent at all. The away goal rule will always have my support. It's more impressive to score more goals away from home. I doubt there's much impetus for change. The only people who ever complain about this rule are the one's who are being sore losers about going out because of it.
![Juventino[RUS]](https://www.juventuz.com/data/avatars/m/5/5409.jpg?1650619365){kind=avatar}
It is - from the next season, a team that will finish at the last place will earn around 130m of euros, while the winner will receive around 180m, what the point for them to care about the europeans trophies? Forget about the europa league, while the prestige of the CL will still exist for another 5-6 years but then they will have another deal and the winner of the EPL title will earn around 200m of euros, so who needs a CL when you can earn THAT amount of money as the winner of the EPL?! PLus, they mediocre squads will be able to sign any star from la liga, serie a or bundesliga and give him a big contract
£5.163billion
Total cost of the three-season TV package. In comparison the gross domestic product of Rwanda is £4.8bn.
£1,887
Per second to show a game.
£960m
Amount paid by BT - £320m per season.
£4.18bn
Amount paid by Sky - £1.392bn a season.
12.65 per cent
Proportion of Sky's £11bn annual revenue to be spent on Premier League football.
£10.2m
The cost of each game.
70.17 per cent
The increase in price of the overall deal from 2013-16.
£11.05m
The amount Sky will pay for each of their games - £4.9m more than current deal (£6.6m per game).
£15m
In the first Premier League season (1992-93) the clubs shared less than £15m.
£99m
The approximate amount the Premier League's bottom club will receive in the 2016-17 season - up from £62m this season.
16
The new TV package is worth 16 times the wealth of The Queen
193,811
The number of years it would someone on Britain's average salary (£26,500) to pay for the new TV package.
167th
The new deal is equal to the wealth of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, the 167th richest person in the world.
£55.3m
The amount Cardiff, the Premier League's bottom club, earned in TV money for the 2013-14 season - more than Ligue 1 winners PSG (£33.1m), La Liga winners Atletico Madrid (£31.17m), and Bundesliga winners Bayern Munich (£27.39m).
£156m
The approximate amount the Premier League's top club will receive in the 2016-17 season - up from £97.5m this term.
£1.5m
The bottom club in 2016-17 will earn approximately £1.5m more than the top club this season.
£70m
The new TV package will cost around £70m than the BBC's total revenue in 2013-14.
£6.47m
The amount BT currently pay per game - this will increase to £7.62m in the new deal.
£15m
The approximate value of the Scottish Premier League's TV rights - roughly the same as 1.5 Premier League games in the new TV package.
£5.163billion
Total cost of the three-season TV package. In comparison the gross domestic product of Rwanda is £4.8bn.
£1,887
Per second to show a game.
£960m
Amount paid by BT - £320m per season.
£4.18bn
Amount paid by Sky - £1.392bn a season.
12.65 per cent
Proportion of Sky's £11bn annual revenue to be spent on Premier League football.
£10.2m
The cost of each game.
70.17 per cent
The increase in price of the overall deal from 2013-16.
£11.05m
The amount Sky will pay for each of their games - £4.9m more than current deal (£6.6m per game).
£15m
In the first Premier League season (1992-93) the clubs shared less than £15m.
£99m
The approximate amount the Premier League's bottom club will receive in the 2016-17 season - up from £62m this season.
16
The new TV package is worth 16 times the wealth of The Queen
193,811
The number of years it would someone on Britain's average salary (£26,500) to pay for the new TV package.
167th
The new deal is equal to the wealth of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, the 167th richest person in the world.
£55.3m
The amount Cardiff, the Premier League's bottom club, earned in TV money for the 2013-14 season - more than Ligue 1 winners PSG (£33.1m), La Liga winners Atletico Madrid (£31.17m), and Bundesliga winners Bayern Munich (£27.39m).
£156m
The approximate amount the Premier League's top club will receive in the 2016-17 season - up from £97.5m this term.
£1.5m
The bottom club in 2016-17 will earn approximately £1.5m more than the top club this season.
£70m
The new TV package will cost around £70m than the BBC's total revenue in 2013-14.
£6.47m
The amount BT currently pay per game - this will increase to £7.62m in the new deal.
£15m
The approximate value of the Scottish Premier League's TV rights - roughly the same as 1.5 Premier League games in the new TV package.
Because of... Duh... Scoring over 2 games > scoring in just 1 game??? How can anyone not seeing this? One team scores accross 2 matches while the other scored only in 1 match.
You agreed with me that monaco got complacent on the 2nd match, I bet they were complacent and quite careless with it, only gave half fuck on their own home knowing that losing 0-2 will still get them qualified, this rule can lead to unsportmanship mentality.
Sure winning away can be applauded, but that cannot justify the inevitable complacency and 'I only give half fuck even if I lose with certain scoreline' attitude on the return match at home.
If it was losing at home 1-3 but winning away 5-3 then the away goal can rule but winning away 3-1 only to lose 0-2 at home should be punished.
You agreed with me that monaco got complacent on the 2nd match, I bet they were complacent and quite careless with it, only gave half fuck on their own home knowing that losing 0-2 will still get them qualified, this rule can lead to unsportmanship mentality.
Sure winning away can be applauded, but that cannot justify the inevitable complacency and 'I only give half fuck even if I lose with certain scoreline' attitude on the return match at home.
If it was losing at home 1-3 but winning away 5-3 then the away goal can rule but winning away 3-1 only to lose 0-2 at home should be punished.
As you said, a matter of opinion. I could frankly care less about the "consistency" of scoring in both matches. Monaco could have scored a couple on the counter against Arsenal in the home leg. It's not like they really played as though they could care less and wanted Arsenal to win. They defended and tried to strike on the counter. A very valid tactic.
You can argue until your blue in the face. We have different opinions. I prefer the away goal rule. And rarely is it complained about, aside from those who have just been eliminated by it. Arsenal had a lot of time to score that third goal. They failed. Too bad for them.
You can argue until your blue in the face. We have different opinions. I prefer the away goal rule. And rarely is it complained about, aside from those who have just been eliminated by it. Arsenal had a lot of time to score that third goal. They failed. Too bad for them.