Talk:2006–07 UEFA Champions League

Country coefficients for the next season

The ranking at the end of the season 05/06 determines the number of teams in 06/07 domestic championships qualifying for the 07/08 European season. The points Romanian teams made this season only apply to the season after the next. For the 06/07 European season, following ranking applies:

Two places in the CL group stage, two in the third round of the qualification, two in the UEFA-Cup (plus the cup winner): 1 Spain 2 England 3 Italy

2 (CL group stage), 1 (CL qualification), 2 (UEFA Cup first round): 4 France 5 Germany 6 Portugal

1 (CL group stage), 1 (CL qualification), 3 (UEFA Cup first round): 7 Netherlands 8 Greece

1 (CL group stage), 1 (CL qualification), 1 (UEFA Cup first round): 9 Belgium 10 Scotland

2 (CL qualification), 1 (UEFA Cup): 11 Turkey 12 Czech Republic 13 Russia 14 Austria 15 Ukraine

1 (CL qualification), 2 (UEFA Cup): 16 Israel 17 Serbia-Montenegro 18 Poland 19 Switzerland 20 Norway 21 Bulgaria 22 Croatia

1 (CL qualification), 1 (UEFA Cup): 23 Denmark 24 Hungary 25 Romania 26 Sweden 27 Slovakia 28 Slovenia 29 Cyprus 30 Bosnia-Herzegovina 31 Latvia 32 Finland 33 Moldova 34 Georgia 35 Lithuania 36 Iceland 37 Macedonia 38 Ireland 39 Belarus 40 Liechtenstein 41 Armenia 42 Malta 43 Albania 44 Estonia 45 Northern Ireland 46 Wales 47 Luxembourg 48 Azerbaijan 49 Faroe Islands 50 Kazakhstan 51 San Marino 52 Andorra

--> http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2005.html

According to this breakdown, the 05/06 Romanian champion is not qualified for the CL group stage. I've made some changes there.(134.226.1.136 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Hearts

According to kassiesa.com/friends/ricardo/ecl0506/cl0607.htm Hearts will start in the 2nd qualifying round. kalaha 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And according to xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/index.html no 10 on the coefficent list will have teams in the 2nd and 3rd qual. round, and NOT in the 3rd qual. round and group stage. kalaha 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! (134.226.1.136 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Celtic and the group stages

Also according to [1], if the Champions League titleholders come from a team that already qualifies for group stages, the #10 nation (Scotland)'s champion gets the final group play spot.

Thus, if Barcelona wins the Champions League, Celtic will get that last spot, as Barcelong has already qualified for the group stages (as Spanish champion).

If Arsenal wins the Champions League, Celtic will start in the 3rd qualification round because Arsenal will take the titleholder spot (they otherwise would qualify for the third qualification round.)

Wjmorris3 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian championship

To whoever added in Shakhtar Donetsk as Ukraine champions, according to uefa.com if yesterday's match between Shakhtar and Kiev ended in a draw (it did, 2-2), they will have a one match playoff this weekend to determine the champions. JoelCFC25 12:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek Champiosnip

In the 3rd qualification round, Greece is represented by AEK and not by Panathinaikos

Spanish League

The La Liga season is NOT over yet. Indeed, most of the lower ranked sides have played their last games of the season, but the top five have not. This is largely due to the postponement of the Sevilla v Barcelona game being postponed a few weeks ago. The top five have to play their final games in midweek, hence the final few Champions League places are still to be decided.

Scandal!

Due to the huge scandal that hammered Serie A (and the four teams involved in UCL, especially "my" Juventus -_-), I'd wait before adding Italian teams. I'm Italian and proud to be that, and I feel sorry for "the world's best championship" to collapse under money and greed. --Frank87 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Serie A is not the world's best championship. The Bundesliga is. Kingjeff 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeding tables

Why are the seeding tables provisional? The club's coefficents is "ready", and on, at least two, websites, can you the seedings[2][3]. kalaha 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't know what the groups are yet. Kingjeff 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I talk about the qual.rounds. kalaha 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, these sites are by no means official, and they make some assumptions (like "seeded team always wins") to build their tables that are called crystal-balling here. However, I was a little hasty to remove the seedings because the seeding didn't depend on match results at all. Conscious 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no... When the draw for 3rd qual.round are made, only the first 2nd qual.round leg has been played. If it is the team with a minor coefficiens who go futher, you can say that they takes the better team's coefficiens. Therefore the principe with best team wins is correct, just not in the group stage (for one or another reason). kalaha 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my example on a seeding table. kalaha 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeded teams	Unseeded teams
Internazionale	Fenerbahçe, Birkirkara or B36
Liverpool	Fiorentina
Arsenal	FK Austria Wien
Valencia	Osasuna
Ajax	Pyunik, Sheriff or Spartak Moscow
Lille	Elbasani, Ekranas or Dinamo Zagreb
SL Benfica	Cork City, Apollon Limassol or Red Star Belgrade
Linfield, Gorica or Steaua Bucureşti	Hearts, Shakhtyor or Siroki Brijeg
CSKA Moscow	Maccabi Haifa
AEK Athens	Standard
Metalurgs, Aktobe or Dynamo Kyiv	FC København, MyPa or The New Saints
Levski Sofia, Sioni Bolnisi or Baku	TVMK, FH or Legia
Shakhtar Donetsk	Debrecen, Dudelange or Rabotnicki
Galatasaray	Mlada Boleslav or Vålerenga
Hamburg	FC Zürich or Salzburg
Slovan Liberec	Djurgården or Ruzomberok

I've added information about the seeding (but as a list to avoid impression of pairing teams). Please improve. Conscious 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

72 headers

Let's delete the empty tables for GS. They clutter the page strongly (only TOC is 3 screens long!) and add absolutely no information. Conscious 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them. To the person that added them - your edits were not for naught. We can just add them back from the history when the time comes to fill them. - Pal 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to look down that far on the page yet. Kingjeff 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See what a nice guy I am. I met you two half way. Kingjeff 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to have empty tables for two months. They add nothing to the article. If anything there should be a sentence stating that the group stage consists of eight groups of four, lettered A-H. - Pal 03:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just comment them out for the time being? -- Arwel (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That would work, too. Though it appears Kingjeff insists on having the empty tables displayed. - Pal 15:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer tables format of UEFA Champions League 2005-06. Conscious 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingjeff, I kindly ask you not to add tables until 24 August. And read WP:V and WP:DR to learn the difference between vandalism and editorial dispute. Conscious 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave any comments for me. I'll add what I want. Kingjeff 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

With an attitude like that, you'll find a lot of other people watching your edits. -- Robster2001 02:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Same goes to you. Do you usually harass people? Kingjeff 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you've already broken WP:3RR. Don't edit war, nobody seems to agree with you. And read WP:V and WP:DR to learn the difference between vandalism and editorial dispute. Conscious 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I not say to not leave any comments for me? Kingjeff 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. But you can't stop people from that. Conscious 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if you leave messages for anyone else. Just don't leave then for me. Kingjeff 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read the various WikiPedia documents you've been referred to. Your actions indicate that you don't understand how WikiPedia works. -- Robster2001 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else is allowed to leave a comment for me. Just not you two. Kingjeff 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will comment on anything I want. Including the fact that you still don't get WikiPedia, despite all the time you appear to have spent here. -- Robster2001 12:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get that I don't want you leaving any comments for me and secondly, this discussion was over a few days ago. Kingjeff 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

Flags of Serbian participants have been changed back and forth (SCG<->SER) several times. The motivation of both sides is obvious: Serbian sides qualified through Serbia and Motenegro league, but they (will) represent Serbia. Further complication is that UEFA site displays them as SCG, but Serbia and Montenegro does not exist as a single state. I'm inviting everyone to discuss it.

My personal opinion is that we should display the flag of the country being represented (for example, points collected by Serbian teams will count towards Serbia's UEFA coefficient). There is also a precedent: on the page UEFA Champions League 1992-93, Russian flag is displayed for CSKA Moscow (they qualified as 1991 Soviet champions). Conscious 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, based on the precedent set by FIFA itself in the current World Cup. The team in question continued to represent Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) even after Montenegro declared independence. Additionally, even though they were still referred to as SCG, any points they received (towards rankings, seedings, etc.) would only count for the team that represents Serbia in the future. - Pal 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But FIFA gives teams for 2005/06 season, and we're discussing 2006/07. Conscious 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but UEFA still refers to them as representing SCG (see CL). The teams in the UEFA Cup and the Intertoto Cup are also listed as such. Maybe UEFA is simply listing them as SCG because the federations haven't officially split yet (it happens tomorrow), but until UEFA starts printing SER instead of SCG I suggest we refrain from making the switch. - Pal 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they're rather waiting until they've decided on a country code, and they're likely waiting with that until ISO finally proclaims the new codes for Serbia and Montenegro. —Nightstallion (?) 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The choice of either would be acceptable, but with a footnote to explain the confusion. ed g2s • talk 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Greece

I see we have an interesting situation where FIFA has suspended the Greek federation from all international competition because of alleged government interference in the running of the sport. I don't know what the deadline will be for sorting out the mess if Greek teams are to participate in the CL and UEFA Cup, but Greece's first qualification match for Euro 2008 is in only about 6 weeks' time, so somebody had better pull their finger out! -- Arwel (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I say we don't change anything until we see a decision by UEFA and FIFA. Kingjeff 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

about the 3th qual.

Due to The Greek Scandal, all the greek teams are eliminated and other teams will take their place. therefore, 2 unseeded teams in the 3th qual. will be seeded. Moreover, It's not sure the Italian teams will be allowed to participate the UEFA Champions league, therefore, maybe other teams will be seeded. However, maybe instead the teams which will not be allowed to participate (From Italy), other teams from Italy which will be allowed to participate the UEFA Champions Legaue will take their place. I hope that teams from other nations will take Juventus' place (Because I am fan of Maccabi Haifa :-) )

Did UEFA announce it how they would deal with the Greeek teams, or is it just a speculation? Conscious 11:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything on the UEFA website other than a bare reporting of the FIFA press release. I don't suppose anyone's decided what to do yet. -- Arwel (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that the article reflects the current situation, mentioning the ban but not speculating about replacements, seeding changes etc. Conscious 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

UEFA has to decide quickly because the draw is on July 28th (less than 3 weeks), therefore, I think UEFA will announce in this week

Looks like that's no longer an issue...the ban has been lifted. I wonder what news will come for the Italian teams. Eendrani 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maccabi Haifa

Will Maccabi Haifa be allowed to host in Israel? I've seen in Israeli websites that UEFA considers if the Israeli teams should play the games in Israel due the "war" Israel-Lebanon (well, it's not a real war, but in the European communication it looks like a war) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.166.150 (talk • contribs)

We'll have to wait and see. Right now, if we put anything in the article, it would be crystal balling. I would use UEFA's official website for any news about this. Kingjeff 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I haven't seen in their site about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.166.150 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, nithing might come out of this or they may make a decision. Lets wait and see. Kingjeff 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Serie A Teams Post-Scandal

Since Juventus, Fiorentina, Lazio, and AC Milan are all out of the Champions League due to the match-fixing scandal in Italy, does anyone know which teams might end up replacing them from Serie A? --Miss kat 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lazio did not qualify for the Champions League, but for the UEFA Cup. The rest will be replaced by Roma, Chievo and Palermo. Internazionale and Roma will qualify for the group stage, while Palermo and Chievo will enter at the third qualifying round. Ross-1 19:42, 14 July, 2006 (UTC)

I think Palermo will be unseeded and one unseeded team will be seeded instead

I think so too. Kingjeff

SCG <-> SER

I noticed the old discussion above but would like to note that it seems all the references given that the Serbia teams represent Serbia and Montenegro are coming from the FIFA trigramme in a table. It has taken some time, but UEFA has finally updated their site to reflect the status of the teams in question. I don't think too many assumptions should be made about what a trigramme in a table means, but bottom line is that the Football Association of Serbia and Montenegro does not currently exist, and UEFA officially has recognized the Football Association of Serbia. This is different than the previous World Cup as the football federation and FIFA all came to agreement that team would continue to represent SCG until after the World Cup. If there is a reference that explicitly states that in the 2006-2007 competitions that the SER teams will represent a non-existant federation and country, I don't know how one can make this conclusion.

Please see note the following pages on UEFA.com:

• Football Association of Serbia Profile
• FK Crvena Zvezda Profile

--Lowg 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed and a compromise was reached above. The UEFA releases here and here are considered official. Why shouldn't we use UEFA's standards for the competition? The confusion of those clubs now playing in Serbia is resolved by the note, which you insist on deleting. - Pal 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually believe the note is incorrect as the links you provide do not state that UEFA is officially stating Red Star represents Serbia and Montenegro, have you considered that they have not updated the "SCG" trigramme on the site yet? They have just recently updated the teams pages. Even the FIFA site still refers to "SCG" while showing the first Euro 2008 qualifiying match that Serbia will have against Poland. The club and federation pages now reflect the correct football association, don't understand how one can infer so much based on a trigramme in a table. I will be willing to accept this inference if you can provide any source that states that all Serbia teams will represent Serbia and Montenegro throughout the 2006-2007 competions? There were many news sources that have reported during the World Cup that the Serbia and Montenegro team will continue to represent both countries, so I was assuming that it will be easy to find one source that backs up what your saying. I have made an honest effort to confirm your assumption but I could not find a single source that backs up what you are saying. Even forgeting the UEFA links I am providing that state the team represents Serbia, or the UEFA links you are providing that the team represents "SCG". How can team represent a non-existant country at the start of a competition? --Lowg 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How can team represent a non-existant country at the start of a competition? The reason the team is here is because they finished first in the Serbia-Montenegrin league, not by virtue of their position as the best team in Serbia. (Yes, the latter follows on from the former, but in theory FK Zeta Golubovci could have won and then it would have looked like Serbia had no representative in this year's CL - which would be false, as Zeta Golubovci would represent both Serbia and Montenegro, as champions of both.) I sort of see your point that the trigramme isn't evidence, though - it could be that they just aren't bothering to change (it took a while to get YUG -> SCG, for example). Sam Vimes | Address me 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(to Lowg) I'm not making assumptions, I'm merely suggesting that we keep this article accurate with what UEFA has released on the subject. You're the one making the assumption that the trigramme is wrong so you need to provide evidence that UEFA is mistaken in their own release. While it is possible that this is simply a case where UEFA hasn't gotten around to making the change, it's just as likely that UEFA means for the trigramme to refer to the country through which the team qualified, in this case SCG. Until anyone finds something definitive one way or the other, I say we stick with the only verifiable info we have, which are the UEFA releases with SCG. - Pal 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuantely UEFA site is very inconsistant (as you can see in the UEFA links I have provided that contradict the UEFA links you have provided) but I can provide you with mainstream media coverage of the CL (see below). As a compromise I am ok with leaving the note but I would like to update the flags. --Lowg 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Our new FIFA trigramme is SER and we should use that.Stefanmg 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• ESPN.com (US) - "The Serbian double champions, bidding to reach the knockout stages of the Champions League for the first time, dominated possession but they were unable to make any inroads in the opening half an hour."

• Guardian Unlimited (UK) - "Serbian champions Red Star Belgrade beat Cork City 3-0 in their Champions League second qualifying round second leg on Wednesday to set up a third round clash with AC Milan."

• Toronoto Sun (Canada) - "The six-time European champions, which had been barred from Europe's top club competition because of the match-fixing scandal, will face either Ireland's Cork City or Serbia's Red Star Belgrade on Aug. 8 or 9."

• RTE (Ireland) - "The Serbian league and cup winners took just two minutes and 23 seconds to ease into the comfort zone and take a two-goal aggregate advantage."

• The Standard (Hong Kong) - "Milan will face Cork City of Ireland or former champion Red Star Belgrade of Serbia in the first leg of the third qualifying round next week."

The UEFA website is consistent on all of its releases concerning the CL and UEFA Cup: they use SCG. Of course the league page says Serbia since that is the country they represent this season, but that is irrelevant to what country they represent in European competitions (since teams qualified for these competitions last season when there was no Serbia). Also, external links are irrelevant; we're discussing UEFA standards here. Unless you can produce evidence that UEFA is wrong, I don't see the need to change the flag (doing so would be POV). Plus the note clearly explains the situation. - Pal 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? I have produced a mountain of references refering to team's particpation in the Champions League qualification . These 'external links' irrelevant to you? Do "UEFA standards" state the best way to present encyclopedic content? Give me a break.

If you feel the note clearly explains the situation and I am not objecting to leaving the note, why do oppose changing the flag that reflects what country this club currently represents? I don't know what you think is POV about this when I provided these additional references. I don't know what other references you want, but I selected what I felt were obviously credible sources from around the world. Is this not 'evidence' enough for you? --Lowg 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a UEFA tournament, then yes, UEFA standards should be used for the sake of accuracy. A similar situation came up on a FIFA World Cup article. Most of the British press referred to the first round after the group stage as the "Second Round" while FIFA (and other press outlets) called it the "Round of 16". In cases where there's a discrepancy (like we're discussing) it's better to follow the standards of the entity that runs the event, otherwise you're going with what different people feel is best (like how you feel they should represent Serbia).

And I'm not saying your sources aren't credible, but rather irrelevant. Here one that says "SEM" (alternate abbreviation for SCG) from FIFA. Here's one from Yahoo! using Serbia & Montenegro. [4] Since we can both find credible external sources backing up our points, then what better way to resolve the issue than by referring to whatever the organizer of the event (UEFA) uses?

Perhaps as a compromise we could add another note at the top stating that the flags represent the country whose league the club was a member of at the time it qualified. - Pal 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is not a compromise, we have a note right now in version you keep reverting to.

It is a fact that team gained it's entry from former the Serbia and Montenegro Football association (which the Football Association of Serbia is the successor by the way), and it is a fact that the team currently represents Serbia. You have not provided a single reference that explictly states that UEFA states that Red Star represents Serbia and Montenegro in this competition. You are just inferring that this is the case based on a trigrammes which you seem to love giving links to. I have provided many references that says FK Crvena Zvezda represents Serbia in this competion. At this point I feel you are just trolling on this issue and I am correcting the article. --Lowg 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is up to you to prove UEFA wrong! If the trigrammes are wrong, prove it! You cited articles that say they represent SER, I cited counter articles that say SCG. You haven't proven that the trigrammes don't mean they represent SCG. - Pal 02:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not cited a SINGLE ARTICLE that states that Red Star currently represents Serbia and Montenegro you have cited an article that use a the "SCG" trigramme which is still used on FIFA.com for Serbia team. Should we change the Serbia national football team article also based on your "articles"? --Lowg 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking the link I posted above. It lists the club as representing "Serbia and Montenegro". And just because I disagree, that's not trolling. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies. - Pal 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an article that states Red Star currently represents Serbia and Montenegro? Every 'article' you post is a fixtures/schedules! --Lowg 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. You know that the country listed next to them is the country they represent. What else could it be?

If you want to get technical, the articles you posted are inaccurate. There are no Serbian champions or Serbian cup champions yet. The federation hasn't even completed a season yet! - Pal 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm asking you to calm down a bit. Please stop reverting each other, or I will request protection of the article and short blocks for you (in case you break WP:3RR). I see that the issue with Serbian and Montenegrin clubs is a subject of arguments between us. Unless we can arrive at a solution, I think we can look for other way of settling this. I can think of holding a poll and asking users from football, Serbia, and Montenegro wikiprojects to give their opinion. I don't like the idea of opening an RFC, but we could qualify for WP:LAME :)

Let me summarise the previous discussion. The following options have been proposed:

1. Display for Zeta, for Serbian clubs
2. Display for all clubs
3. Display and for Zeta, and for Serbian clubs

   Another possibility is to

4. Display no flags

In all cases an explanatory notice is necessary, I suppose. Conscious 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What we can agree on

Let me also summarise the facts. If you disagree with any of the statements, feel free to strike it out (don't remove) and provide a replacement if possible. Feel free to add relevant facts if I omit any. Conscious 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Serbia&Montenegro doesn't exist anymore
2. The Serbia&Montenegro association has been dissolved on 28 June 2006 [5]
3. There are separate associations is Serbia and Montenegro now; the Serbian one is the legal successor to the Serbian-Montenegrin one
4. Clubs used to be affiliated with the united association, now they are affiliated with either of two new associations
5. The clubs participating in the European cups have qualified through the Serbia&Montenegro league
6. Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources
7. Wikipedia articles do not have to be copies of these sources
8. UEFA website has a page for Serbian association, but doesn't have a page for Montenegrin or Serbian-Montenegrin association
9. UEFA website has pages for individual clubs; clubs from Serbia are listed as Serbian; clubs from Montenegro are listed as Serbian-Montenegrin
10. In the fixtures lists at the UEFA website all clubs in question are listed as "SCG"

Option one

• Display for Zeta, for Serbian clubs

1. My vote is option #1. I agree that is should be WP:LAME first of all :) I think my opinion is clearly stated but to re-emphasize, I think we should display for clubs in Montenegro and for clubs in Serbia, with a note that teams qualified to the tournaments as members of the Football Assocation of Serbia and Montenegro. In my opinion, it is very unencyclopedic to display a flag of a non-existant country in a current events article. --Lowg 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Vote 1. Firstly, the arguments here are incredibly lame. I vote #1 mainly because #3 is clunky and anything else is blatently going to get "vandalised" to #1. There is no strong nationalistic reason for wanting #2, but there is for #1. I say let them have it and lets stop all this pointless arguing. I wouldn't notice either way that a few flags are one way or another for a bunch of teams that are probably going to get eliminated before the group stage. #1 makes everyone's life easier and happier. aLii 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Vote 1. Although these clubs qualified as Serbia and Montenegro this country no longer exists, so it makes sense to use the flags of the countries that they are representing (i.e. Montenegro and Serbia). Dan1980 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. The teams are no longer representing SCG in terms of disciplinary action, league coefficient points etc.. As such using SCG only tells us the minor historical fact of which legaue they qualified from, as opposed to which league they are representing. ed g2s • talk 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Vote 1. I think that the fans are the most important part of any football club and I have being trying to put myself in their position. I think that once the split has happened the fans would clearly identify with the new separate countries. I also note that FK Crvena Zvezda have the Serbian flag as a link on their website. From now on, the teams would, I feel sure, regard themselves as representing their new countries. I think we have to go along with the realities. BlueValour 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
6. I prefer this option (for the reasons given above). Two flags is my second choice. Conscious 11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Vote 1I'M SERB AND I KNOW IT Stefanmg 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Regardless of the qualification process, as of now, these teams are the representatives of their new countries and they should be listed as such. We should stay in pair with the reality. --KPbIC 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Option two

• Display for all clubs

1. I go for option 2. They qualified as representatives of Serbia & Montenegro. It's a similar position to when East & West Germany merged, for the first season of merged competitions there was still UEFA representatives from East Germany, despite the country and the league not existing anymore. Next season, of course teams will represent either Serbia OR Montenegro. - fchd 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. My vote is Option 2 because thats the association it's really representing even though it's not in existance anymore. Kingjeff 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. I like 2 too. :) The concept is that they qualified by virtue of their play in the SCG league, not the SER league. Similar to Australia in the 2006 FIFA World Cup where they played as OFC representatives even though they've officialy moved to AFC before the start of the tournament. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Funny... it looks to me like the Australian, rather than the Oceanic, flag was used on the World Cup page... aLii 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   And the Japanese flags is used for Japan, of course. But when there was a list of teams by confederations, Australia was listed under Oceania. Sam Vimes | Address me 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   Australia were listed under OFC because the section emphasised the distribution of berths to different federations. At the World Cup, consideranly less importance is placed on the federation you are currently representing (for Australia it was AFC), the rest of Europe was hardly celebrating with Italy. For the Champions League, the country you are representing is much more important, which in this case is no longer SCG (not least because it doesn't exist). ed g2s • talk 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sure FIFA will reconsider the berths for AFC and/or OFC based on Australia's move to AFC, just like UEFA will use the achievements of these clubs to decide berths for the country they will represent in future tournaments, I really can't understand why someone would agree with Australia's listing for OFC and disagree with Red Star's listing for SCG, as they are esentially the same thing. - MTC 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Vote 2 As they qualified via the unified SCG league, they are representing Serbia and Montenegro this year, my second choice would be Option 3, just as long as the SCG flag is still there. - MTC 07:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   That is not true, any points earned will go towards their new federations' UEFA coefficients. ed g2s • talk 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   Makes no difference to reasoning they are representing the league they qualified through, just like Australia representing Oceania in the 2006 World Cup - MTC 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

5. The first explanation here seals it. They are here by virtue of being champions of Serbia and Montenegro, not just Serbia, and the flag should reflect that. Sam Vimes | Address me 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Changing vote - same reasoning as MTC. - Pal 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. I vote for this. A well-worded footnote should be enough to clear any mis-understanding. doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Derry City F.C. is currently representing the Republic of Ireland in the UEFA Cup despite the fact that they are based in Northern Ireland. This is a similar case - all UEFA coefficient points gained from clubs who qualified from the Serbia & Montenegro league will go towards the Serbian league's coefficient. That pretty much seals Zeta as representing the Serbian league for me. --Balerion 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not sure that's true (points going to Serbia). Perhaps we should ask UEFA... ed g2s • talk 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   actually, Zeta doesn't get any points this year, only clubs in the Champions League and UEFA Cup get points, Zeta were only in the Intertoto Cup. - MTC 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

9. As this is based on what happened last year, and not on the present, I see no reason why their flags should not reflect how they qualified last year. Timotheus4 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
10. They qualified as SCG representatives, they should be listed as such. —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Option three

• Display and for Zeta, and for Serbian clubs

1. Second choice. Conscious 11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Second choice. - MTC 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be an visually ugly option but at least it is clear when supplemented by a footnote. How can you spend so much time discussing this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.73.172 (talk • contribs)

Option four

• Display no flags
  • No votes yet.

Option five

• Display and for all clubs

1. Second choice--Lowg 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. If made into a hybrid flag (see below) then I'd support this as my second choice. aLii 11:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Who the teams are representing

This basically comes down to whether we want to flags to represent where the teams qualified from, or who they are representing. Seeing as the former is historical, I would say the latter is more relevant to this page. Some here have said that they are still representing SCG, however this is not the case because (a) the federation no longer exists, (b) any progress they make in this competition will earn coefficient points for the new federations and (c) if one of the new federations was expelled from UEFA, only the teams of that nation would be barred. So in no official manner are they "representing" SCG. If you still think how they qualified is more important to this page that who they currently represent, then that is a different issue. ed g2s • talk 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really the root of this dispute. I would say these teams represent the SCG federation even though they're earning points for their new federations. They are, after all, the final Serbia-Montenegrin champions, runners-up, cup winners, etc. That's perfectly logical to me. - Pal 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Section continues

Lowg, Pal, can I assume that you support the idea of holding a poll and inviting other editors to participate? Conscious 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I've already encouraged others to join in on the Football Project page. - Pal 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The opinions are split nearly even. Would people indicate if they find some compromise solution acceptable? Conscious 08:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 3 is a compromise isn't it? Even though it would look a little ugly - MTC 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as one, but may be there's a better solution... Conscious 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a flag represents country not a football federation. But if people think that flag should represent a football federation, another suggestion that came up was the use the flags of both countries, instead of a non-existant country. I will add this as an option.--Lowg 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding countries versus federations this is not the case. For UEFA articles, it has always been the case that the flags represent the federation of the club. That is why Derry City always has an Irish flag despite being from Northern Ireland (see here). Likewise, AS Monaco always has a French flag despite being from Monaco (see here). - Pal 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes also, for UEFA site, it has always been the case that the flags represent the country and federation of current countries and current federations, not non-existant countries and non-existant federations. Please see here for an example.Lowg 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Option One is still being used on the pages, even though Option Two was voted the better option. If I change the flags myself it will probably start another edit war, so is anything going to be done about this? - MTC 06:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another compromise suggestion

Another possible compromise would be to create split flags, like Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg or Image:United Kingdom-England flag hybrid.svg, and use those for this one special occasion to signify they qualified as part of Serbia and Montenegro, but now represent Template:SERBIA and Template:MONTENEGRO. I think this would be a very good compromise, actually. —Nightstallion (?) 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a better compromise than using two flags which would look really ugly, but I think that split flags would still not be very pretty. I think we are better trying to reach an agreement on using a single flag. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 07:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Add it as an option and see if anyone votes for it. Although in my opinion this is the worst suggestion yet. - MTC 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

To stop the edit war. It's not a significant issue, as long as there is a footnote. ed g2s • talk 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected to allow the article to remain up to date. A conclusion should be taken from the poll, say 1 week from now (20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)). Until that date, any changes to the flags of Serbian clubs will be considered disruptive. ed g2s • talk 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes during page protection

Completely seperately from the SCG thing: The UEFA website lists the 3rd Qualifying Round game Slovan Liberec v Spartak Moscow this way around, not the way it is shown on the current Wikipedia page, they need swapping - MTC 10:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another small update: UEFA has decided that "no European competition matches can be played in Israel until further notice". [6] --KPbIC 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The FC København-link, should be edited to the new "name" F.C. Copenhagen. kalaha 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The 4 pots for the group stage draw

Not that it will really make a difference. Does anyone know the rule of who gets the top spot for the group stage draw? Kingjeff 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

final positions within groups before the first match

quote from Uefa: "Once the draw procedure has been completed, a computer draw will determine the final position of the sides within their group." When will these be available? Some fan sites have already updated the schedules due to these final positions, but i can't find them anywhere...

Serie A Scandal

FIFA has threatened the Italian federation of suspension. What effect would this have on all the Italian teams. Kingjeff 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger Discussion - Fixtures and results

Should we really create another article just for the results? Couldn't we just put a football match box as in the World Cup 2006 article below the groups with the games of those group, or do as in the UEFA Champions League 2005-06 and just put the scores. I don't really think there is a need to create another article, let's centralize information.

What do you think? --Serte 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Some a few months ago complained about the number of headings in the main article. Kingjeff 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No one was complaining about there being too many headings. The problem was with displaying a bunch of empty tables and matchdates two months before the group stage. I think the fixtures and results should be on the main page so people can easily see where the tables are coming from. - Pal 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, you don't have to worry about it. Kingjeff 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be nice if it could be done the same way as the World Cup article, but I think that is a near impossibility to get all that information, but if people think it can be done then anything is possible. I also think continuation is important though and the article should be like previous years. If this is done like the world cup then 8 pages are required and that is just too much if the matches cannot be covered in the same way as before. So to sum up this muddle of words I just said, I am in favour aslong as each match can be covered like each World Cup match was, otherwise keep it in the same format as other Champions League tournaments. --shanda 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about 96 games just for the group stage. Thats double from the World Cup group stage. Kingjeff 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article is absolutely unnecessary, see UEFA Champions League 2005-06. Conscious 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So we should do it your way just because it was done in the past? That doesn't mean it's better or even just as good as the new group stage results page. Why did you take so long to say something about it? Kingjeff 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that we should break with tradition if a better solution is found. However, the current format isn't a better solution. It's illogical to have the match results from every other round on this page but not group stage results. It's much easier to see where the tables came from when the results are right underneath. - Pal 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then how would you make the fixtures and results page better? Kingjeff 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the basic fixtures on that page into the main article. If someone wants to create detailed match summaries for all of the group stage matches (similar to those found on pages like this) then that would make sense, but right now there's really no reason to have a separate page. - Pal 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The other article is so poor, that I think that if it is only going to have the information as the results and the stadium, they can be put in this article. Just create another if you are going to have details about each games, like line-ups and such. --Serte 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That was already proposed and I thought it was a good idea. Check User:Curswine/Sandbox. Kingjeff 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's make it like the 2006 world cup match results. Kingjeff 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, let's not go into such detail. The event is not as important as the World Cup; match results and a link to official website would suffice. Conscious 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When I first talked about it, I didn't mean that giant football boxes with the lineups and stuff. Just something like this:

24 June 2006
17:00

Template:GERf2	2–0	Template:SWEf
Podolski 4', 12'	(Report)

FIFA WM Stadion München, Munich
Attendance: 66,000
Referee: Simon (Brazil)

--Serte 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This works for me, and such concise reports could fit well within this article, without making it too long. Conscious 09:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now implemented the football box template on the results page, just need to update it with match reports when the games are played, possibly using the ones from the official UEFA website when they appear --shanda 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

I support moving it all to the main article. Conscious 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage results. All of you are wrong for mot supporting this page. Who ever came up with the crummy traditional approach should be embarresed. Kingjeff 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I like the other page, I didn't like it before because there was little information to justify having a new article. I still think that at least the scores should be at this page, just the result. --Serte 15:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the group stage draw pots, they are hardly relevant now. Could someone check kick-off times, please (matches in Moscow usually don't start at 20:45)? Conscious 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have to have the scores on the main page. Do something simple. The page was too big. Kingjeff 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then let's work to simplify it. Don't blank the whole section. - Pal 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't blanking. That's a personal attack on me and I don't lik it. You know exactly what I did and don't accuse me of doing other things. Kingjeff 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kyiv/Kiev

I was just looking for some clarification on this subject, Динамо Київ is the Ukrainian version of the club's name with the transliterated version being Dynamo Kyiv, however the official English name of the city is Kiev which is used on this site. So I was basically wondering when is right to use which, because by the current 'rule' shouldn't Spartak Moscow be listed as Spartak Moskva? --shanda 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it as both Kyiv and Kiev in english. Kingjeff 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

UEFA uses Kyiv on their English website, so that's a fairly good guide (and yes, they do day "Spartak Moskva" too). -- Arwel (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Round of 16"

As far as I can see, the "Round of 16" refers only to the World Cup second round - on the UEFA Champions League page here it calls it the "First knockout round" - does anyone object to changing the article to match? "Round of 16" doesn't even make much sense in English (the language of this article) QmunkE 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It does make sense in the English language...it is the round of 16 teams. I agree it is a very bad term. In the Champions League it is known as the first knockout round and in the World Cup it is called the Second Round (Round of 16 is an Americanism). DJDannyP//Talk2Me 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past it's always been called the Round of 16 (see here), but I'd have no problem changing it. - Pal 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think either is wrong. I thik both are acceptable. Kingjeff 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate Group Articles

Should we create articles for each group with detailed results etc. á la 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying? Archibald99 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I did create a seperate article for the group stage. I say it should depend on if the article becomes too big. Kingjeff 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of ones like this with the same detailed match information, which let you have full details on each match and don't take up much room. Archibald99 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a page for group a to d and another one from e to h. Kingjeff 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this page now exists, can the information in the Group stage section be removed as unneccesary duplication? QmunkE 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the tables ought to stay at least, for people wanting a quick overview. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the table and at least the results stay to centralize basic information. then, if people want detail, they go to the main article and that's why it exists. Leave the table and the results, please. --Serte 13:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, leave the results in a basic form and the table on the main article but put detailed match information (example below) as well as the table in separate group articles.

September 2, 2006
15:00 BST

Scotland	6–0	Faroe Islands
Fletcher 7' McFadden 10' Boyd pen 24', 38' Miller pen 30' O'Connor 85'

Celtic Park, Glasgow
Attendance: 50,059
Referee: Egorov (Russia)

Archibald99 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But that information already exists on UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results, why duplicating it? I think things are ok as they are now. This article as basic info, this one has goalscorers, hours, ref, and such. Either I can't really understand what you mean, or I think it already is as you say.--Serte 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be duplicated. We would change that page to one of the pages we would need and create a new page. Kingjeff 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results will be far too big after a few matchdays. Archibald99 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results should become UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Groups A - D standings & results and the other page should become UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Groups E - H standings & results. Kingjeff 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think they could be too large, but we'll see what the general consensus is. :) Archibald99 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus will probably be to keep the article as is now. But I think we should go my route before yours. Kingjeff 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

this years "visual identity"

UEFA released it today, should it be posted with this article since its this years 'symbol'? link- http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/news/Kind=1/newsId=477054.html

Valencia

Why does Valencia secure first place with a win or draw in game 5? 70.24.95.4 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who tops?

Who tops group F is Man Utd and Celtic both win their next matches? Would it be Celtic because they scored two goals in Manchester? Just so that i don't make a mistake.

You are correct, Celtic would be ahead of Manchester United based on the away goals tiebreaker. - MTC 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Match information

I noticed the FA Premier League results pages (FA Premier League results November 2006 etc.) use templates for goal and cards, would it be possible to use those on this article? Archibald99 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bracket

I wonder if a tournament bracket is appropriate for this article, at least starting at the quarterfinals? --Howard the Duck 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I though about that but I don't think so, because this is a two legged competition and we would still need to have tables for the results of both legs.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about displaying the aggregate score? The 2006 NBA Playoffs had series sumarries and a bracket too. --Howard the Duck 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But, the current page says that after every Knockout round there is a draw to decide the next round of matches. This method is not a straight forward bracket where, the progression path is decided on the first round of matches -- Tirupraveen 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no more draws from the quarterfinals onwards, although those drawn from the round of 16 are different. So all those drawn on March 9 are permanent. --Howard the Duck 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. But we'll need scores for both legs. We can get the entire table set up once the draw for the quarter-finals are done since the semi-finals and final are more or less set in stone. Kingjeff 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the aggregate scores are enough. --Howard the Duck 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the bracket table would replace the current one. Kingjeff 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What should it supposed to replace? Also, we can also add the round of 16 to the bracket, but it won't be connected to the quarterfinal matchups, just as what they did at 2006 NHL Playoffs. --Howard the Duck 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Date formatting

2-legged fixtures seem to cause a problem over how to prevent the scheduling, but some of the results look frankly ugly: "were played on 11 July and 12, 2006" ; " will be played on 20 February/21 " bear little resemblance to written or spoken English. I would suggest that it is far better to de-wikify dates than to have this linguistic bastardisation. Any objections? Kevin McE 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an option like February 20 and February 21, 2007, or even February 20, 2007 and February 21, 2007. Conscious 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to teams

For the knockout stage, teams don't need to be linked anymore since every team is already linked at least once in the article. Kingjeff 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the teams are 'redundantly' linked in all football competition articles, are you proposing changing all of them? - MTC 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Kingjeff 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've a problem with this. It's just a lot easier to click the team page I want right then and there, instead of having to scroll up and look for it. --Snojoe 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)