![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
As you add teams to the group stage list, please make sure the comment marks are in the correct place (around the UEFA coefficient rank only) for all teams. If there are more than 8 teams in a column (Each column corresponts to the pot they will be placed in for the draw) or a team is out of order, please use cut and paste to rearrange.
Thank you. Danke. Gracias. Obrigado. Shishini(sp?). Domo arigato.
RaiderRich2001 ( talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you do your maths, there will be an odd number of teams in the second qualifying round:
Second Qualifying Round: (28 teams)
This gives 29 teams!!!
The Champions of Poland and Hungary are not "certain to compete in the second qualifying round of the Champions League". As it stands at the moment, they will start in the first qualifying round.
However, they both will be 'promoted' if the winner of the current edition of the Champions League qualifies for this addition via its league position of its associated national league.-- Fridge46 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that if the Champions League holder qualifies through its national league, that the champions of Scotland (ranked 10th) will go straight to the group stage? This rule is still operable for 2008-09, isn't it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We may be being a bit hasty in filling in the teams by round as we are. By the sounds of it there's about to be a little reshuffle, to be confirmed on 1 December - from what I understand, the same teams will qualify, but some of them will be entered in different rounds, and it seems there is to be another round inserted between the Third Qual. and the Group Stage. Falastur2 ( talk) 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The team qualifying for the third qualifying round is not necessarily the team that finishes 2nd in the league. In fact, teams 2-5 compete in a "play off" tournament, and the winner goes to the third qualifying round. So in fact the 5th place-team in the league can still qualify. See Eredivisie#European competition for details. JACO PLANE • 2007-12-29 17:42
There is surely a mistake, since champions of Poland are written in this article that they will start from 1st qualifying round AND 2nd qualifying round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 ( talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not completely inaccurate. This is depending on how the Champions League winners qualify. This is the same for Hungary. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about Champions League (so I'm not deleting anything) but how come FC Zenit is listed as the club which will automatically play in the group stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.69.34 ( talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
this website has the Russian Champions playing in the Group Stage and the Runner-up in the 3rd Qualifying Round.I'm assuming a few years ago, Russian League teams did good enough to get teams into the Group Stage of Champions League. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Artyom, in the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons Spartak Moskwa qualified automatically to the phase of the groups. Metufit ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff ( talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
CSKA Sofia are starting from Second Qualifying Round ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.155.2 ( talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this section goes into extra time. Does anybody have a reliable Bulgarian source on the current status of CSKA? The english sources just say they "could be out", not "they are out". So I see no need to cut them until UEFA has decided their case, which will eventually be later this week. Rollback? Hockey-holic ( talk) 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hockey-holic ( talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It´s not true, that Bulgaria will have no team in the CL. The 2nd in the championship - Levski Sofia will participate of course! It is in the rules of UEFA!
Wrong its the team with the highest UEFA Coefficent in this case AC Milan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
CSKA Sofia are definately out [1]. Porto are apparantly appealing. Bert Kassies' site here [2] already has Vitoria Guimaraes entering the CL group phase automatically, with Benfica moved from the UEFA Cup to CL third qualifying round, as we have here on this page. This of course assumes Porto's appeal fails. Kassies also already list Levski Sofia as Bulgaria's CL entrant. Kassies is an amateur site so not strictly a 100% reliable source but he is usually correct. The suggestion that Bulgaria might not have any CL entrant is almost certainly wrong, regardless of which newspapers have claimed it (newspapers usually don't have much grasp of UEFA rules and practices and just make assumptions). Precendents suggest UEFA will allow the 2nd place team in Bulgaria to enter (Levski) - this occured with Austria in 2001-02, FC Tirol had to withdraw and were replaced with the 2nd place team (Grazer I think). The Milan rumour is false, aside from the fact that allowing Milan to take CSKA's place would hardly be logical or fair, it would leave Italy with five teams in the CL and this is against UEFA's new rules set up in 2005 following the entry of five English clubs. Regardless, CSKA should not be on our list, they are out of the tournament (and probably out of the Bulgarian Premier League too), although maybe it's best to wait until the official announcement before including Levski on the list. MarkB79 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the statement from the footnote at the bottom of the page that "no Bulgarian team will replace CSKA" because this is likely to be false and in any case, we don't know for sure until an official announcement is made. Incidentally, the Austrian situation I referred to was apparently in 2002 (not 2001) and it was Sturm Graz who replaced FC Tirol. [3] MarkB79 ( talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just found this on Kassies, from UEFA's current CL regulations: "Article 1.07: A club which is not admitted to the competition shall be replaced by the next best-placed club in the top domestic league championship of the same national association, provided it fulfils the admission criteria. In this case, the access list for the UEFA Club Competitions (Annex Ia) will be adjusted accordingly." In other words, Levski Sofia should play in the CL qualifiers. The Milan rumour is nonsense apparently started by an Italian journalist and based on a misunderstanding. This situation is being complicated however by the fact that Levski Sofia's owner has allegedly announced that he does not want his team to play in the CL next year as he feels they are not strong enough to compete and that he will instruct the Bulgarian FA to nominate Lokomotiv Sofia instead. MarkB79 ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Its official! Conformation:
http://www.focus-sport.net/?do=n1148764173193 and
http://gong.bg/view_article.php?article_id=47185 both respected bulgarian sites. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jurist 88 (
talk •
contribs)
08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for UEFA Champions League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff ( talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
They were excluded for bribing referees in 2003-2004. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3648676,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, UEFA are reserving the decision for the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League season. 76.71.2.150 ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The list of confirmed teams in the group stage is shown on the main page, and we need 2, or 3 letter codes to try and make the result tables of last season :)
please feel free to post your views below // Fi nns 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we seem to get those repeats on adding and unadding the TH UCUP to Zenit at the moment, I would like to point out, especially to those IP editors, that consensus was reached on the topic last year not to add the note. Details see below (this is a copy from last year's talk page). Hockey-holic ( talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sevilla - UEFA Cup Winners 2006-07
OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be put in either. If we put it in we'd rather as well add all the other cup/league competitions that clubs happened to win last year (which we won't). As far as continual reverts go, I think whoever's doing it is trying out their hand at trolling (one born every minute). We'll just have to put up with it. Aheyfromhome 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? -- 88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't have any effect. Sevilla qualified for the Champions League 07-08 by coming third in La Liga 06-07, not by winning the UEFA Cup 06-07. Winning the UEFA Cup 06-07 was merely coincidental in relation to their Champions League 07-08 qualification. - PeeJay 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- After AC Milan is - "(automatic qualification as title holders)", therefore showing the reason why they are in the competition. So, adding "(Winner of UEFA Cup 2006-07)" after Sevilla FC could be very easily misinterpreted as meaning that they are in this competition as a result of winning last seasons UEFA Cup. OK so most of us know that is not the case, but anyone viewing the article with no knowledge of the topic, that is without a doubt, how it would read. Therefore, Peejay is correct, it is not appropriate to keep adding into it this article. In addition it does nothing to improve the article, and it could also be argued that if the article were to include details of last seasons UEFA Cup winners, then each club that has won the UEFA Cup, CL (or even the old Cup Winers Cup) should also have that information by their clubs name. But that is clearly neither relevant nor justifiable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦· Talk 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some explanations for teams automatically qualifying for the group stage or qualifying rounds. Teams such as CFR Cluj, Zenit St.Petersberg are included in the list of teams automatically qualifyed. Please some explanation for this would be helpful. rokkafellah ( talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The Coefficients for leagues determine where a club enters both UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup. A club's coefficient ranking has no bearing on where they enter. A club's coefficient ranking determines if a club is seeded or not seeded, or in the case of UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup Group Stage, determines what pot they are in. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The dates of these matches become ambiguous after the games have been played. Even as I write folks out there are scrambling to update and edit when the games for the 3rd Qualifying round are to be played - but once they've been played the viewer has to guess as to when the games were played. There has got to be a better way to save this information and display it. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Andrusha, I may ask to lower your tone a little since it is very angry and sometimes on the border to insult. Regarding the topic: Although I agree to the opinion of PeeJay and his likes that it is unnecessary to show the exact date once AFTER the game has been played, I have to make a proposal.
What about using this template? It has the option to display data which can be revealed by a mouseclick. The question of this template using fb team templates is also non-existent since all teams (except San Marino, but I will create those once the divisional alignment of this year's league has been announced) within an UEFA top-tier league have one in the meantime. An example can be seen on the current DFB Cup competition article.
I admit that the proposed templates have their issues regarding two-legged competition games, but it would be better than checking 500 pages currently using the TwoLegResult template on errors should it be altered one way or another. Hockey-holic ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is such note on the page:
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sparta Prague
![]() |
1–3 2 |
![]() |
1–2 | 0–1 |
When we click on 2 we go to the Note 2, but when we click on ^Note 2 : we don't go to the 2 (because there is not id #endnote 2_back).
I suggest to change these note to (for example):
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sparta Prague
![]() |
1–3 [a 1] |
![]() |
1–2 | 0–1 |
--
Ahonc (
Talk)
20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as we were trying to use the UEFA codes for everything, the Supercup match center uses ZNT for Zenit rather than ZEN // Fi nns 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way we can try to keep using the same name for a club all the way through the article? For instance, Anorthis Famagusta are called exactly that for the qualifying rounds, but are just called Anorthis in the group stage. This can be confusing for many reasons, and I think that whichever name (shorter, longer, doesn't matter) we settle on should be used throughout. I also don't think it would be a bad idea that if we settle on the really short versions of names (like just Bayern for Bayern Munich), we should try to stick to as short a name as possible for the rest of the clubs, again for consistency. -- Grant . Alpaugh 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto switch places? Shakhtar Donetsk has more away goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.116 ( talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is zero encyclopedic value in updating intermediate game scores. Just enjoy the games while they run.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the harm in updating live scores? 222.130.112.211 ( talk) 06:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Will Juventus be qualified for the knockout stage if they beat Real Madrid on matchday 4? I say yes, but Hockey-holic says that this would be a scenario after gameday 5
Let's see:
If Juventus beats Real, they will have 10 points and Real will have 6 points after 4 games. In order to catch Juve, Real can't lose to BATE on matchday 5 neither to Zenit on matchday 6. But BATE needs to beat Zenit, Real and Juve in order to catch Juventus. And Zenit also needs to beat BATE, Juve and Real to catch Juventus.
So, if Juventus beats Real on matchday 4, they will be qualified for the knockout stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.91.202 ( talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss any questions about scenarios here!!!
Can Celtic still qualify for knockout stages if they lose to Manchester United in next match? And if Manchester United defeat Celtic are they definitely through to knockout stages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.195.24 ( talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon further thought, it will be sufficient for Juventus to qualify for the knockout stage if they win their game on 5 November, even if there is a winner in the other game on that day. The reasons for that are:
My apologies go to the anon editor who came up with this first but got constantly reverted by me. Hockey-holic ( talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Do these "Scenarios" have any place on an encyclopaedic article anyway? Being full of ifs and maybes doesn't add any value to the facts as already presented. - fchd ( talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
They shouldn't be first? They have greater goal difference than Liverpool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.172.226 ( talk) 10:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any merit to distinguishing between who wins the group and who finishes 2nd? As I understand things, group winners avoid each other in the Round of 16, so there is a point to missing out on the theoretically best teams in the tournament. If there is, then it should be inidcated within the group standings, and the scenarious should discuss group winning scenarious as distinct from simply qualifying for the next round. I dunno. Thoughts? -- Grant . Alpaugh 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to the statement that trivia is not encyclopedic by Richard Rundle. However, it is notable that the game Bayern-Sporting is the biggest two leg win in UEFA Champions League era. How do we include them? Raymond Giggs 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
i know we bring up the inclusion of a bracket every year, and i don't want to belabor the point too badly. nevertheless, it seems wrong to include all 16 teams from the knockout stage in the bracket. the last three rounds do feed into each other in a way that can be represented by a bracket, but that relationship just doesn't hold between the first knockout round and the quarterfinals. the bracket makes it look like Barca were guaranteed to play Bayern if the two won their ties, even though that was not determined until a later draw. i propose using an 8-team bracket, but i'm sure some others will express a desire to eliminate it entirely. —Ed Cormany ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not display the final match as the first item? It is the most important one, followed by the semi-finals, quarter-finals etcetera. Migdejong ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
What's with the "minutes per goal" column? It's not in the source. Is it a commonly used statistic? Or is it just synthesis of published material that advances a position? — JAO • T • C 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We all remember the drama of the Chelsea vs Barcelona semi-final 2nd leg. The referee did not have his best day. Nonetheless, I think it is not appropriate to include this rather subjective recollection into the short paragraph about the semi-finals: "Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona after a highly controversial performance by referee Tom Henning Øvrebø." Firstly, it sounds as if wikipedia was stating that Øvrebø's performance was the actual and only reason for Chelsea not winning. And secondly, we could write a similar sentence next to practically each and every game of football. This sentence does not belong here as it hints to an intentional discrimination of Chelsea by the referee and the UEFA. We should not forget that Øvrebø's worst call during that evening was to send off Barcelona defender Abidal after a blatant Anelka dive with 25 minutes left to play. 83.191.122.174 ( talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008–09 UEFA Champions 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:
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.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2008–09 UEFA Champions 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
As you add teams to the group stage list, please make sure the comment marks are in the correct place (around the UEFA coefficient rank only) for all teams. If there are more than 8 teams in a column (Each column corresponts to the pot they will be placed in for the draw) or a team is out of order, please use cut and paste to rearrange.
Thank you. Danke. Gracias. Obrigado. Shishini(sp?). Domo arigato.
RaiderRich2001 ( talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you do your maths, there will be an odd number of teams in the second qualifying round:
Second Qualifying Round: (28 teams)
This gives 29 teams!!!
The Champions of Poland and Hungary are not "certain to compete in the second qualifying round of the Champions League". As it stands at the moment, they will start in the first qualifying round.
However, they both will be 'promoted' if the winner of the current edition of the Champions League qualifies for this addition via its league position of its associated national league.-- Fridge46 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that if the Champions League holder qualifies through its national league, that the champions of Scotland (ranked 10th) will go straight to the group stage? This rule is still operable for 2008-09, isn't it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We may be being a bit hasty in filling in the teams by round as we are. By the sounds of it there's about to be a little reshuffle, to be confirmed on 1 December - from what I understand, the same teams will qualify, but some of them will be entered in different rounds, and it seems there is to be another round inserted between the Third Qual. and the Group Stage. Falastur2 ( talk) 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The team qualifying for the third qualifying round is not necessarily the team that finishes 2nd in the league. In fact, teams 2-5 compete in a "play off" tournament, and the winner goes to the third qualifying round. So in fact the 5th place-team in the league can still qualify. See Eredivisie#European competition for details. JACO PLANE • 2007-12-29 17:42
There is surely a mistake, since champions of Poland are written in this article that they will start from 1st qualifying round AND 2nd qualifying round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 ( talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not completely inaccurate. This is depending on how the Champions League winners qualify. This is the same for Hungary. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about Champions League (so I'm not deleting anything) but how come FC Zenit is listed as the club which will automatically play in the group stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.69.34 ( talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
this website has the Russian Champions playing in the Group Stage and the Runner-up in the 3rd Qualifying Round.I'm assuming a few years ago, Russian League teams did good enough to get teams into the Group Stage of Champions League. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Artyom, in the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons Spartak Moskwa qualified automatically to the phase of the groups. Metufit ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff ( talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
CSKA Sofia are starting from Second Qualifying Round ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.155.2 ( talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this section goes into extra time. Does anybody have a reliable Bulgarian source on the current status of CSKA? The english sources just say they "could be out", not "they are out". So I see no need to cut them until UEFA has decided their case, which will eventually be later this week. Rollback? Hockey-holic ( talk) 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hockey-holic ( talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It´s not true, that Bulgaria will have no team in the CL. The 2nd in the championship - Levski Sofia will participate of course! It is in the rules of UEFA!
Wrong its the team with the highest UEFA Coefficent in this case AC Milan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
CSKA Sofia are definately out [1]. Porto are apparantly appealing. Bert Kassies' site here [2] already has Vitoria Guimaraes entering the CL group phase automatically, with Benfica moved from the UEFA Cup to CL third qualifying round, as we have here on this page. This of course assumes Porto's appeal fails. Kassies also already list Levski Sofia as Bulgaria's CL entrant. Kassies is an amateur site so not strictly a 100% reliable source but he is usually correct. The suggestion that Bulgaria might not have any CL entrant is almost certainly wrong, regardless of which newspapers have claimed it (newspapers usually don't have much grasp of UEFA rules and practices and just make assumptions). Precendents suggest UEFA will allow the 2nd place team in Bulgaria to enter (Levski) - this occured with Austria in 2001-02, FC Tirol had to withdraw and were replaced with the 2nd place team (Grazer I think). The Milan rumour is false, aside from the fact that allowing Milan to take CSKA's place would hardly be logical or fair, it would leave Italy with five teams in the CL and this is against UEFA's new rules set up in 2005 following the entry of five English clubs. Regardless, CSKA should not be on our list, they are out of the tournament (and probably out of the Bulgarian Premier League too), although maybe it's best to wait until the official announcement before including Levski on the list. MarkB79 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the statement from the footnote at the bottom of the page that "no Bulgarian team will replace CSKA" because this is likely to be false and in any case, we don't know for sure until an official announcement is made. Incidentally, the Austrian situation I referred to was apparently in 2002 (not 2001) and it was Sturm Graz who replaced FC Tirol. [3] MarkB79 ( talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just found this on Kassies, from UEFA's current CL regulations: "Article 1.07: A club which is not admitted to the competition shall be replaced by the next best-placed club in the top domestic league championship of the same national association, provided it fulfils the admission criteria. In this case, the access list for the UEFA Club Competitions (Annex Ia) will be adjusted accordingly." In other words, Levski Sofia should play in the CL qualifiers. The Milan rumour is nonsense apparently started by an Italian journalist and based on a misunderstanding. This situation is being complicated however by the fact that Levski Sofia's owner has allegedly announced that he does not want his team to play in the CL next year as he feels they are not strong enough to compete and that he will instruct the Bulgarian FA to nominate Lokomotiv Sofia instead. MarkB79 ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Its official! Conformation:
http://www.focus-sport.net/?do=n1148764173193 and
http://gong.bg/view_article.php?article_id=47185 both respected bulgarian sites. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jurist 88 (
talk •
contribs)
08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for UEFA Champions League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff ( talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
They were excluded for bribing referees in 2003-2004. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3648676,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, UEFA are reserving the decision for the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League season. 76.71.2.150 ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The list of confirmed teams in the group stage is shown on the main page, and we need 2, or 3 letter codes to try and make the result tables of last season :)
please feel free to post your views below // Fi nns 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we seem to get those repeats on adding and unadding the TH UCUP to Zenit at the moment, I would like to point out, especially to those IP editors, that consensus was reached on the topic last year not to add the note. Details see below (this is a copy from last year's talk page). Hockey-holic ( talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sevilla - UEFA Cup Winners 2006-07
OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be put in either. If we put it in we'd rather as well add all the other cup/league competitions that clubs happened to win last year (which we won't). As far as continual reverts go, I think whoever's doing it is trying out their hand at trolling (one born every minute). We'll just have to put up with it. Aheyfromhome 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? -- 88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't have any effect. Sevilla qualified for the Champions League 07-08 by coming third in La Liga 06-07, not by winning the UEFA Cup 06-07. Winning the UEFA Cup 06-07 was merely coincidental in relation to their Champions League 07-08 qualification. - PeeJay 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- After AC Milan is - "(automatic qualification as title holders)", therefore showing the reason why they are in the competition. So, adding "(Winner of UEFA Cup 2006-07)" after Sevilla FC could be very easily misinterpreted as meaning that they are in this competition as a result of winning last seasons UEFA Cup. OK so most of us know that is not the case, but anyone viewing the article with no knowledge of the topic, that is without a doubt, how it would read. Therefore, Peejay is correct, it is not appropriate to keep adding into it this article. In addition it does nothing to improve the article, and it could also be argued that if the article were to include details of last seasons UEFA Cup winners, then each club that has won the UEFA Cup, CL (or even the old Cup Winers Cup) should also have that information by their clubs name. But that is clearly neither relevant nor justifiable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦· Talk 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some explanations for teams automatically qualifying for the group stage or qualifying rounds. Teams such as CFR Cluj, Zenit St.Petersberg are included in the list of teams automatically qualifyed. Please some explanation for this would be helpful. rokkafellah ( talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The Coefficients for leagues determine where a club enters both UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup. A club's coefficient ranking has no bearing on where they enter. A club's coefficient ranking determines if a club is seeded or not seeded, or in the case of UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup Group Stage, determines what pot they are in. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The dates of these matches become ambiguous after the games have been played. Even as I write folks out there are scrambling to update and edit when the games for the 3rd Qualifying round are to be played - but once they've been played the viewer has to guess as to when the games were played. There has got to be a better way to save this information and display it. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Andrusha, I may ask to lower your tone a little since it is very angry and sometimes on the border to insult. Regarding the topic: Although I agree to the opinion of PeeJay and his likes that it is unnecessary to show the exact date once AFTER the game has been played, I have to make a proposal.
What about using this template? It has the option to display data which can be revealed by a mouseclick. The question of this template using fb team templates is also non-existent since all teams (except San Marino, but I will create those once the divisional alignment of this year's league has been announced) within an UEFA top-tier league have one in the meantime. An example can be seen on the current DFB Cup competition article.
I admit that the proposed templates have their issues regarding two-legged competition games, but it would be better than checking 500 pages currently using the TwoLegResult template on errors should it be altered one way or another. Hockey-holic ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is such note on the page:
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sparta Prague
![]() |
1–3 2 |
![]() |
1–2 | 0–1 |
When we click on 2 we go to the Note 2, but when we click on ^Note 2 : we don't go to the 2 (because there is not id #endnote 2_back).
I suggest to change these note to (for example):
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sparta Prague
![]() |
1–3 [a 1] |
![]() |
1–2 | 0–1 |
--
Ahonc (
Talk)
20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as we were trying to use the UEFA codes for everything, the Supercup match center uses ZNT for Zenit rather than ZEN // Fi nns 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way we can try to keep using the same name for a club all the way through the article? For instance, Anorthis Famagusta are called exactly that for the qualifying rounds, but are just called Anorthis in the group stage. This can be confusing for many reasons, and I think that whichever name (shorter, longer, doesn't matter) we settle on should be used throughout. I also don't think it would be a bad idea that if we settle on the really short versions of names (like just Bayern for Bayern Munich), we should try to stick to as short a name as possible for the rest of the clubs, again for consistency. -- Grant . Alpaugh 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto switch places? Shakhtar Donetsk has more away goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.116 ( talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is zero encyclopedic value in updating intermediate game scores. Just enjoy the games while they run.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the harm in updating live scores? 222.130.112.211 ( talk) 06:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Will Juventus be qualified for the knockout stage if they beat Real Madrid on matchday 4? I say yes, but Hockey-holic says that this would be a scenario after gameday 5
Let's see:
If Juventus beats Real, they will have 10 points and Real will have 6 points after 4 games. In order to catch Juve, Real can't lose to BATE on matchday 5 neither to Zenit on matchday 6. But BATE needs to beat Zenit, Real and Juve in order to catch Juventus. And Zenit also needs to beat BATE, Juve and Real to catch Juventus.
So, if Juventus beats Real on matchday 4, they will be qualified for the knockout stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.91.202 ( talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss any questions about scenarios here!!!
Can Celtic still qualify for knockout stages if they lose to Manchester United in next match? And if Manchester United defeat Celtic are they definitely through to knockout stages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.195.24 ( talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon further thought, it will be sufficient for Juventus to qualify for the knockout stage if they win their game on 5 November, even if there is a winner in the other game on that day. The reasons for that are:
My apologies go to the anon editor who came up with this first but got constantly reverted by me. Hockey-holic ( talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Do these "Scenarios" have any place on an encyclopaedic article anyway? Being full of ifs and maybes doesn't add any value to the facts as already presented. - fchd ( talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
They shouldn't be first? They have greater goal difference than Liverpool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.172.226 ( talk) 10:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any merit to distinguishing between who wins the group and who finishes 2nd? As I understand things, group winners avoid each other in the Round of 16, so there is a point to missing out on the theoretically best teams in the tournament. If there is, then it should be inidcated within the group standings, and the scenarious should discuss group winning scenarious as distinct from simply qualifying for the next round. I dunno. Thoughts? -- Grant . Alpaugh 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to the statement that trivia is not encyclopedic by Richard Rundle. However, it is notable that the game Bayern-Sporting is the biggest two leg win in UEFA Champions League era. How do we include them? Raymond Giggs 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
i know we bring up the inclusion of a bracket every year, and i don't want to belabor the point too badly. nevertheless, it seems wrong to include all 16 teams from the knockout stage in the bracket. the last three rounds do feed into each other in a way that can be represented by a bracket, but that relationship just doesn't hold between the first knockout round and the quarterfinals. the bracket makes it look like Barca were guaranteed to play Bayern if the two won their ties, even though that was not determined until a later draw. i propose using an 8-team bracket, but i'm sure some others will express a desire to eliminate it entirely. —Ed Cormany ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not display the final match as the first item? It is the most important one, followed by the semi-finals, quarter-finals etcetera. Migdejong ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
What's with the "minutes per goal" column? It's not in the source. Is it a commonly used statistic? Or is it just synthesis of published material that advances a position? — JAO • T • C 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We all remember the drama of the Chelsea vs Barcelona semi-final 2nd leg. The referee did not have his best day. Nonetheless, I think it is not appropriate to include this rather subjective recollection into the short paragraph about the semi-finals: "Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona after a highly controversial performance by referee Tom Henning Øvrebø." Firstly, it sounds as if wikipedia was stating that Øvrebø's performance was the actual and only reason for Chelsea not winning. And secondly, we could write a similar sentence next to practically each and every game of football. This sentence does not belong here as it hints to an intentional discrimination of Chelsea by the referee and the UEFA. We should not forget that Øvrebø's worst call during that evening was to send off Barcelona defender Abidal after a blatant Anelka dive with 25 minutes left to play. 83.191.122.174 ( talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008–09 UEFA Champions 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:
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.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2008–09 UEFA Champions 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)