QUOTE
CONCERN is growing across Europe over a proposal gaining momentum at UEFA which could put more obstacles in the way of smaller clubs contesting the Champions League.
If those promoting the modification of the regulations are successful, clubs competing in Europe's premier tournament will be required to play at stadia with a minimum capacity of 30,000. This could be a serious hindrance to the prospects of numerous clubs in many countries, including Scotland.
David Taylor, the SFA chief executive, expressed his anxiety yesterday, highlighting the possible consequences of such an amendment for certain Scottish organisations. "It would have no effect on Celtic or Rangers, of course," said Taylor. "Nor would it be too much of an inconvenience for Hearts and Hibs, who could at least play matches in their own city, with Murrayfield available in Edinburgh.
"But what if the day came, for example, when Aberdeen made the Champions League? They would have to re-locate to Glasgow or Edinburgh for matches they should be playing at home. It would deny them the advantage any team should enjoy from playing at their own ground.
"The same would apply to a club such as Dundee United, or any other from outside the central belt who might one day reach the Champions League. This is a move that once again clearly favours the biggest and wealthiest clubs and it is causing concern among many UEFA members.
"I know there is also concern among a number of professional leagues in Europe, who see this as another step towards their being marginalised. It will appeal to a few at UEFA from a commercial and marketing point of view, as it seems to diminish the chances of smaller clubs progressing, but it does get further away from the sporting ethic of the tournament."
Stewart Milne, the Aberdeen chairman, was also unimpressed by the possibility of his, or any other, club one day having to play European "home" matches on what would be, for their team, foreign soil. "I can see the need for certain standards to apply to a tournament as prestigious as the Champions League," said Milne. "But I would have thought that comfort and safety should be the primary concerns, rather than capacity. And a minimum of 30,000 seems ridiculous.
"Stadium fitness is the sort of thing, in any case, that should be organised and monitored by the national association. This seems clearly to be yet another step towards making sure the elite, rich clubs stay in the tournament, say, beyond the group phase.
"If the proposal is adopted, it's not going to be healthy for quite a number of domestic leagues, including ours. The last thing you want is burdening clubs with stadia that are basically too big and unaffordable."
Taylor emphasised that the proposal, which is not yet officially on the agenda, is some way from making the statute books. But it is taking a strong hold on the finance-driven instincts of those who represent the elite countries and clubs at UEFA. As part of the club licensing programme, the European body wants to grade stadia like hotels, granting stars from five down to one. Five stars, which Hampden, for example, already has, would apply to a stadium with a 50,000 minimum, with four meaning upwards of 30,000, and so on.
The fact that the smaller countries outnumber the larger in terms of UEFA membership would have little or no bearing on the decision to implement the proposal, since it is in the power of the executive committee, with no requirement for ratification by the annual congress.
Of the present 17-man executive, only five represent countries that would be affected. Of those, only two, from Turkey and Norway, would be likely to raise objections. The others are from Malta, Cyprus and Iceland, countries whose clubs' relationship with the Champions League have traditionally ended at the pre-qualifying stage.
However, even some of the big countries have clubs who would be inconvenienced. Bayer Leverkusen, finalists as recently as 2002, when they lost to Real Madrid at Hampden, play in a ground that holds only 23,500.
Villarreal, Rangers' opponents in this season's last-16 round, can take only 23,000 at the Madrigal and would have to move, probably to Valencia's Mestalla.
If those promoting the modification of the regulations are successful, clubs competing in Europe's premier tournament will be required to play at stadia with a minimum capacity of 30,000. This could be a serious hindrance to the prospects of numerous clubs in many countries, including Scotland.
David Taylor, the SFA chief executive, expressed his anxiety yesterday, highlighting the possible consequences of such an amendment for certain Scottish organisations. "It would have no effect on Celtic or Rangers, of course," said Taylor. "Nor would it be too much of an inconvenience for Hearts and Hibs, who could at least play matches in their own city, with Murrayfield available in Edinburgh.
"But what if the day came, for example, when Aberdeen made the Champions League? They would have to re-locate to Glasgow or Edinburgh for matches they should be playing at home. It would deny them the advantage any team should enjoy from playing at their own ground.
"The same would apply to a club such as Dundee United, or any other from outside the central belt who might one day reach the Champions League. This is a move that once again clearly favours the biggest and wealthiest clubs and it is causing concern among many UEFA members.
"I know there is also concern among a number of professional leagues in Europe, who see this as another step towards their being marginalised. It will appeal to a few at UEFA from a commercial and marketing point of view, as it seems to diminish the chances of smaller clubs progressing, but it does get further away from the sporting ethic of the tournament."
Stewart Milne, the Aberdeen chairman, was also unimpressed by the possibility of his, or any other, club one day having to play European "home" matches on what would be, for their team, foreign soil. "I can see the need for certain standards to apply to a tournament as prestigious as the Champions League," said Milne. "But I would have thought that comfort and safety should be the primary concerns, rather than capacity. And a minimum of 30,000 seems ridiculous.
"Stadium fitness is the sort of thing, in any case, that should be organised and monitored by the national association. This seems clearly to be yet another step towards making sure the elite, rich clubs stay in the tournament, say, beyond the group phase.
"If the proposal is adopted, it's not going to be healthy for quite a number of domestic leagues, including ours. The last thing you want is burdening clubs with stadia that are basically too big and unaffordable."
Taylor emphasised that the proposal, which is not yet officially on the agenda, is some way from making the statute books. But it is taking a strong hold on the finance-driven instincts of those who represent the elite countries and clubs at UEFA. As part of the club licensing programme, the European body wants to grade stadia like hotels, granting stars from five down to one. Five stars, which Hampden, for example, already has, would apply to a stadium with a 50,000 minimum, with four meaning upwards of 30,000, and so on.
The fact that the smaller countries outnumber the larger in terms of UEFA membership would have little or no bearing on the decision to implement the proposal, since it is in the power of the executive committee, with no requirement for ratification by the annual congress.
Of the present 17-man executive, only five represent countries that would be affected. Of those, only two, from Turkey and Norway, would be likely to raise objections. The others are from Malta, Cyprus and Iceland, countries whose clubs' relationship with the Champions League have traditionally ended at the pre-qualifying stage.
However, even some of the big countries have clubs who would be inconvenienced. Bayer Leverkusen, finalists as recently as 2002, when they lost to Real Madrid at Hampden, play in a ground that holds only 23,500.
Villarreal, Rangers' opponents in this season's last-16 round, can take only 23,000 at the Madrigal and would have to move, probably to Valencia's Mestalla.
http://sport.scotsman.com/football.cfm?id=285722006
What is the point? I understand stadiums needing to be up to a certain standard regarding safety but what does size have to do with it? It stinks of the elitism I've come to expect from UEFA and the so called big clubs in recent years. I know you could play your games somewhere else but the nearest stadium of over 30,000 to Aberdeen (I know Aberdeen reaching the Champions League is a long shot but its the best example I know of) is Murryfield, all the way down in Edinburgh.
