Talk:2006–07 UEFA Champions League

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006–07 UEFA Champions League article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

From the UEFA's information, the term "Round of 16" is not accepted. The reason why the phase called First Knockout Stage is there is no many teams in Round of 16. Round of 16 means the elite ones. How come to call those 16 teams are elite from all 73 teams? That's not meaningful. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, i will do this for the 07-08 tournament from the quarter finals onward Chaza93 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Archibald 9 9 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Time to add bracket?? 91.103.40.211 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree. Although I don't follow many of the team links, I think repeating the link each time is a more user-friendly solution. - fchd 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That just seems like laziness. Kingjeff 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy or not, it's still the simple and definitely makes it more user-friendly. --Snojoe 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and a total turn off to most users. Kingjeff 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A turn off to most users? Lets take a look at what you are proposing:

This is what we have now…

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
ND Gorica	0-5	Steaua Bucharest	0-2	0-3
Levski Sofia	4-0	Sioni Bolnisi	2-0	2-0
FC Zürich	2-3	Red Bull Salzburg	2-1	0-2
Djurgården	2-3	Ružomberok	1-0	1-3
Debrecen	2-5	FK Rabotnicki	1-1	1-4
Cork City	0-4	FK Crvena Zvezda¹	0-1	0-3
Fenerbahçe	9-0	B36 Tórshavn	4-0	5-0
Mladá Boleslav	5-3	Vålerenga	3-1	2-2
Sheriff Tiraspol	1-1(a)	Spartak Moscow	1-1	0-0
Liepājas Metalurgs	1-8	Dynamo Kyiv	1-4	0-4
FH Hafnarfjörður	0-3	Legia Warszawa	0-1	0-2
F.C. Copenhagen	4-2	MyPa	2-0	2-2
Ekranas	3-9	Dinamo Zagreb	1-4	2-5
Hearts	3-0	Široki Brijeg	3-0	0-0

…and this is what you are proposing…

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
ND Gorica	0-5	Steaua Bucharest	0-2	0-3
Levski Sofia	4-0	Sioni Bolnisi	2-0	2-0
FC Zürich	2-3	Red Bull Salzburg	2-1	0-2
Djurgården	2-3	Ružomberok	1-0	1-3
Debrecen	2-5	FK Rabotnicki	1-1	1-4
Cork City	0-4	FK Crvena Zvezda¹	0-1	0-3
Fenerbahçe	9-0	B36 Tórshavn	4-0	5-0
Mladá Boleslav	5-3	Vålerenga	3-1	2-2
Sheriff Tiraspol	1-1(a)	Spartak Moscow	1-1	0-0
Liepājas Metalurgs	1-8	Dynamo Kyiv	1-4	0-4
FH Hafnarfjörður	0-3	Legia Warszawa	0-1	0-2
F.C. Copenhagen	4-2	MyPa	2-0	2-2
Ekranas	3-9	Dinamo Zagreb	1-4	2-5
Hearts	3-0	Široki Brijeg	3-0	0-0

…I think your proposal (the second example) would be more of a turn off. - MTC 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about only the knockout stage. Kingjeff 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, your edits like this one suggested otherwise. - MTC 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind since that edit last night. Kingjeff 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think editing and removing all the links for teams post-knock out rounds is still unnecessary, it's still so much easier to keep them linked, especially for people directed right to a knockout round, they don't have to scroll to get to a teampage, you know? Just keep it as it is, linked. --Snojoe 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout round info

Is anyone going to supply the details regarding the knockout round results, for example, the score for each leg, the scorers, which minute, etc.????? this would be very informing to those who missed some of the matches —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.202.237 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I plan on doing a page fro brackets and game info. Kingjeff 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the winner of the year

Why don't add the stuff like that?

UEFA Champions League 2006 Winners
Barcelona Second Title

kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Fair Use Rationale CHAZA93 Talk Contribs 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool 1-0 PSV (Agg 4-0)

Wasn't the result of Liverpool-PSV second leg 0-0? It says 1-0 for Liverpool in champions league 06-07 page here...

The second leg did finish 1-0 to Liverpool, Peter Crouch scored the goal at Anfield Ross1 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of AC Milan

Why don't we make a more easy name as Milan, AC Milan still too long. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "AC Milan" is the clubs' name. -- Arwel (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internazionale Milano is a club name but we still call it Inter Milan. I've heard AC Milan be called just Milan. Kingjeff 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two clubs in Milan that have Milan in their name. I think that for the average soccer fan, there would be confusion if we called one of the clubs "Milan". Also, I don't understand, kYLE RaymonD GIGGS, why you consider AC Milan to be too long, it only has seven letters. Please explain it to me. Johnn 7 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only because we're trying to fit everything in a small box. FC Bayern Munich is shortened to "Bayern" and Manchester United is just "Man United". In this case, I see no reason to put the full name of A.C. Milan in the box when other team names are shortened and there's only one team from Milan still in the tournament. There should be no confusion. Especially since the quarterfinal matchups are just inches above this box. Also, I previewed the full name and it makes the box look weird. This is a temporary placeholder anyways. We'll know the actual teams playing by April 11 and then we can put full names.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I think that if you are as lazy as these guys (too lazy to add like 2 letters) then maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my opinion, putting only "Bayern", or "Milan", or even "Man. United" looks stupid, you only put those when you are too lazy, you should just put their full name, because IT IS their name. The thing with Internazionale is that most people actually know Internazionale as simply "Inter", because it is shortened so often (I know I thought it was just "Inter" for some time when I was younger) that people only know it as "Inter". However, when I see Milan, I think of the city, so I would vote on using the "AC", but then again guys like "kyle ramond giggs", "kingjeff", or "littleman" would rather make the article not look "weird" by not using the teams' actual names. I for one don't even care about Internazionale, I would just use it like that if there is any confusion about the name "Inter". But then again you guys will only revert it back and call it vandalism and ridiculous. --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this a soccer related article. So I think people would think of the team. I think Inter or Internationale has always been to tell the difference between the 2 Milan teams. I don't know about you, but here in North America, the city usually has been understood to be the team when talking about sport teams. Kingjeff 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that it takes more time to type [[A.C. Milan|Milan]] than just [[A.C. Milan]]? So how is that lazy? Articles on Wikipedia frequently abbreviate names of all different types of proper nouns. In order to make the article read or look better, we abbreviate. Some of us happen to think that the article looks better with the abbreviated names in the box. When the actual teams are determined, then the full names can go in, but we think it looks better this way. If you disagree, you can just say so here. The way not to go about it is accusing well-meaning editors of causing some revert war that hasn't even happened yet and insulting us by assuming we won't discuss the issue (which is what we're doing...) and that we'll just revert something 'cause it doesn't agree with our opinion. Maybe you should take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. By the way, your "IT IS their name" argument falls apart when you apply it to people or really anything, even Manchester United (abbreviated "United" in their article) or FC Barcelona (abbreviated "Barca" or "Barça"). Another aside, changing it now probably will get reverted because we're discussing it and normally you leave it as is until a consensus is reached in the discussion.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Yo Littleman, when I said you guys are too lazy to write it, I was assuming that you guys weren't gonna put the name in these things [[ ]]. I live in North America, but you know what Jeff? This article is about soccer, EUROPEAN soccer, I understand that instead of calling Detroit Pistons by their full name, you may call it Detroit, but then why don't we call the European teams by what cities they are from? In Europe, it doesn't always work like that, see, what are you gonna do if you decided to call the London teams from the Premier League simply London or whatever? Also, I don't really care if it LOOKS better (you are assuming that every single Wikipedian agrees with you), because I guess you care more about how it looks than calling the team by its actual name. Why would I wanna look at Civil? I never said anything uncivil, I just said the obvious, there's like 3 arguing for calling the team Milan, and one (me, because the other guys don't seem to care that much) for calling it AC Milan, and I don't think I'm gonna waste my time here much longer. All of you are saying that it looks "weird" if you put two letters, AC, in front of Milan (instead of putting AC Milan), so you're obviously gonna use Milan. By the way, maybe we should use Manchester United in their articles instead of United, we are not saying this to people, like saying United won the other day, this is an encyclpedia. --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Oh I'm sorry, I didn't see the part where you said "Some of us", nevermind about where I said that every single Wikipedian agrees with you. However, you said that you guys think it looks better, and you said this is until a consensus is reached, but then why are you already using it? Even if it is only until April 11? --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind everything I said, this discussion just bores me too much so forget I said anything. --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole argument is moot, to be honest. The team's official name is Associazione Calcio Milan, but they are colloquially referred to as Milan (pronounced MEE-lan) in both Italy and many other countries around the world. That is why they are referred to here as Milan. For the same reason, Football Club Internazionale Milano are referred to as Inter in situations like this, as their colloquial name is Inter. PeeJay 12:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna tell you something, Most of the Hong Kong fans called AC Milan as AC! So why don't we change AC Milan's name as AC? Because it doesn't make sense! AC is the short term of Associazione Calcio, which means Football Club. By the way, I am not the one which using AC. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd trouble

In the game between United and Roma there were incidents of away fans assaulted by police. Shall we include them in this article ?? Illidan reules 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, It should be included. The Italian government have not make a possible method to prevent those stuff! Why there were so much incidents? Also, the incidents which held before Roma's away leg should be also included. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardising date format

The way Efil4tselaer is formatting the dates makes the text look a little screwed up when you read two dates in a row (see the Semi-finals section). I propose we leave the date format as the way I have edited it. After all, when you type in [[May 23]], it comes out as May 23 anyway. PeeJay 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing, I did it the way you say is right, but then what about this? right here you changed what I did even though all I did was just change it so it doesn't redirect, how is that wrong? --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) I see no redirect there; and b) your edit changed it to April 3/3, rather than April 3/4, so I changed it back. PeeJay 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, click on the "24 April" and "1 May" from the semi-finals section, for example. --- Efil4tselaer 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I changed it myself, so now it comes out the way you want it, and there's no redirects. --- Efil4tselaer 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World flag/EU flag?

Why is there a world flag on Man U and EU flag on other teams? Drogo 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bug only, thank you for report kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone incorrectly linked to Chelsea and Man United ...

In the place where they had semifinal berths

So I fixed it.

Just a heads up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Hook 5 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The match ball advertisement?

The below is in the current article, is it NPOV at all? It reads like an advertisement.

"Technology The Adidas Finale Athens features the successful Adidas +Teamgeist™ technology, a 14-panel configuration. It reduces the number of three-panel touch points by 60 per cent and the total length of panel lines by 15 per cent. This creates a perfectly round ball allowing great accuracy and control for Europe's elite clubs. The combination of the revolutionary panel shape, a new carcass construction and the thermal bonding technology provide this official match ball for the final with the best performance qualities ever.

Starball The design of the Adidas Finale Athens is based on the widely recognisable UEFA Champions League starball logo and is blue and white, representing the colours of the Greek national flag. The Adidas Finale Athens is available globally at a retail price of €110." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.154.254.33 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Live Score Section

The new live score section is open at the bottom of the page, and will be there at all times, but not active, it has opened for the semi final / final

First time

I don't know, but I think that an interesting fact is that for the first time, a winner of the UEFA Champions League will repeat a title victory in Athens. I mean, until this year, all the winners in the Champions League era were different teams. No one has repeated during the Champions League era. What do you think? Xbox6 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you 69.138.209.159 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Real Madrid F.C. (1998, 2000, 2002) and A.C. Milan (1994, 2003) have repeated Champions League triumphs. What can be a first is A.C. Milan winning another title in the same stadium (Olympic Stadium, Athens): 1994 and 2007. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I forgot that this team, how's its name? Real Madrid??? still plays (if you can call it playing) and that they've won the title twice in the CL era. Also about Milan, i forgot'em. Xbox6 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Team of Final

The draw result shows that Winners of Semi-final 2 (Liverpool) is the home team to play Winners of Semi-final 1. uefa.com shows that AC Milan is the home team when the respected site shows Liverpool is the home team. What's wrong with UEFA? KyleR Giggs 15:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, UEFA runs the competition, so I think maybe we should take their word for it on this matter. PeeJay 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But both versions can be found on uefa.com, that's the strange thing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was wrong. Or I should said, someone made semi-final wrong to let me confused. http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=515023.html KyleR Giggs 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA has now officialy stated AC Milan as the home team

Penalty shoot-out results

There is a comment against one of the semi-final results to the effect "Don't add penalty shoot-out results, we don't do that - see previous seasons". Why? It seems to me that the result of the shoot-out (shown separately of course, not added to the real goal tallies) is worthwhile information, more so that an awful lot of the trivia add here recently. - fchd 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think people should use the past to justify not changing something now. Maybe we should change add penalty shoot-out results for previous seasons too. PeeJay 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to see the penalty shootout results all they must do is click on the link with the knockout results, it is there, please dont add this Chaza93 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you're wrong. Results of penalty shoot-outs are valid information, and this deserves to be in the main article. There's no need to split it off into the child article at all, in my opinion. I've added it back in for now. - fchd 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it for everyone one that is listed on Wikipedia before this one. Kingjeff 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This one has the information to hand, it's current, and the outcome of the shootout was referred to several times in the radio coverage of the FA Cup final at the weekend. I'd be happy to add all the shoot-out results if I can find them. I've started a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL to obtain wider consensus. - fchd 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK but only add this IF you can find them all during the C/L era Chaza93 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all available through the history section of uefa.com, and not just the Champions League era as well, but back to the real European Cup era! (e.g. 1977-78 Round 1, Benfica 0-0 Torpedo Moskva - Benfica won 4-1 on penalties). However, before starting to add, I will wait for the wider consensus as mentioned above. - fchd 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to cite your reference too Chaza93 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout round bracket

I think only the Quarter Finals, Semis and Final should be put into any brackets like the one showing the knockout phase draw. The bracket gives the perception that these match-ups were pre-determined, and only those from the Quarters onwards actually were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.106.166 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The bracket shows how each team progressed through the rounds, and gives no such impression of pre-determination. Regardless, a note could always be added to make it more apparent that the draw was not pre-determined until the QF, SF and F stage. - PeeJay 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could remove the lines connecting the first KO round and the QF if you guys want. See Template:NHLBracket for an example with a similar format, the teams entering the Conference Semifinals are reseeded. --Howard the Duck 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to do that. The bracket is a device used to give an overview of how each team progressed through the rounds. If seeding numbers were used, I could see where you guys were coming from, but this is only done to show the progression of the knockout stage. – Pee Jay 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's a previous discussion (see #Bracket) about this.

Actually the 1st KO round in the bracket could be arranged randomly since their opponents are absolutely unknown until the draw for the QF are made. Also, there's some sort of "seeding" involved since the group winners are in another pot separate from the runners-up.

Another analogy would be on the FA Cup, if there would ever be a bracket, the cells shouldn't be connected by lines, except on the SF->Final. --Howard the Duck 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Issues"?

"Early issues" and "late issues"? What is the deal with that? How come nothing for any other year's Champions League page? Some bitter Liverpool fan trying to beat "the system" by bringing up the Italian scandal in some half-assed, masked, Wikipedia-intellectualized (aka amateur) fashion? What a joke. Wikipedia you've done it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.44.66 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no similar section for any other Champions League season as either no one has been bothered to write such material for them, or no material exists for them. – Pee Jay 00:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]