Talk:2007–08 UEFA Cup

Order of teams

How were the teams ordered? Kingjeff 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In seeding order, which is the order they appear in the team ranking (unranked clubs use their country's rank). It mentions this in the article just under Teams. - MTC 06:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we order the qualifying stage by each geographical area as opposed to an overall area. Kingjeff 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's about time we added some tables for seedings and geographical region. It'd shorten it up a bit and include more info. I have an exam tomorrow so I can't do it right now. :D Aheyfromhome 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Champions League article is listed by country, it looks a lot better. Mjefm 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In the CL article I originally put them in order by country ranking, but they were changed to seeding order by another user, it may not look very nice but I realised it's more informative. In any case, if you insist on ordering them by country, shouldn't the countries be in order of country ranking rather than alphabetical? - MTC 18:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced clubs

What is Spartak Moscow doing here? They're qualified for the Champions League, not the UEFA Cup. All SMiles 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone is crystal balling here and putting teams in who they think will be eliminated from Champions League. Kingjeff 16:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Same thing with APOEL. I'd better remove those. Thanks. All SMiles 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Partizan

I don't know what happened of Partizan, could someone explain it easily? KyleRGiggs 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They appealed the decision against them. The final decision is set for August 16. Kingjeff 12:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Results

I think it needs to be clear which teams have won on away goals and NEEDS to be stated which teams won on penalties. Just having (a) or (p) next to the overall result does not say which teams progress. OK, you can work out who goes through on away goal rule, but it not clear for teams progressing on penalties --Fridge46 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though the winning club is bolded? Kingjeff 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First Round

AFAIK 80 clubs will be playing first round on the knock-out basis and the remaining 40 will form eight groups with five teams each. 84.28.167.70 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)LeftMaestro

Sentence regroup

² UEFA has expelled Partizan from UEFA Cup 2007-08 due to crowd trouble at their away tie in Mostar, which forced the match to be interrupted for 10 minutes. UEFA ajudged travelling Partizan fans to have been the culprits of the trouble., but Partizan are allowed to play the return leg while appeal is undergoing. However, Partizan's appeal was rejected so Zrinjski Mostar qualified.

Regroup it please. KyleRGiggs 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Dunfermline

Why are they in the UEFA Cup if they were relegated from the SPL. The 3rd place team from the SPL plays in the UEFA Cup. 69.121.147.208 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they a cup winner or cup finalist from last season? Kingjeff 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They lost the Scottish Cup final to Celtic last season, which gives them a UEFA Cup place as Celtic are in the Champions League. - MTC 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They will be the last runners up to participate in the Uefa Cup from Scotland as the Scottish FA will in future award this place (if the winners have already qualified for Europe) to the next highest placed team in the Premier League following the dissapoiting performances of The Pars this year, Gretna last year and other SFA Cup runners up in years gone by.Statto74 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? It may not be under their jurisdiction to do this. Kingjeff 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The UEFA Cup regulations say:

If the winner of the domestic cup qualifies for the UEFA Champions League, the domestic cup runner-up may qualify for the UEFA Cup.

Note it say "may qualify", not "will qualify", this implies it's the decision of either the SFA or the cup runner-up. The SFA are assuming it's their decision. - MTC 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiliting Winners

I suggest hiliting the winners in light green or something. It stands up better than the bold lettering. Juve2000 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

can any team stands against Bayern Munich in this tournament ?--Max Mayr 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is country protection up until a certain point. So, they can't face Bayer Leverkusen, Hamburg or FC Nürnberg in the Group Stage. Kingjeff 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was they are favourites, can anybody compete with them?Statto74 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to see what teams from the CL group stage come to the play-offs here, but if you only go on fame and old glory Munchen ofc feels like the strongest team. But there's bound to be some upsets ;) Chandlertalk 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The UEFA Cup has always been a hard comp to win as essentially the clubs have under performed the year before, as Bayern have here, also they have spent very heavily to make sure they don't fail to qualify for the Champions League the next season.Statto74 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"under performed" is not the right words especially not for the lower ranking leagues, maybe for top teams of Europe its a disappointment to miss the CL, but its everything but a disappointment for some teams just to get to the Group stages here. Chandlertalk 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hapoel Tel Aviv - Tottenham attendance.

Why is the number rounded? On soccernet and bbc.co.uk it says it's 10,000 on here it says 8,000. Is there no source for the correct attendance? Govvy 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thick green lines

I understand why Aheyfromhome removed the explanation about the thick green lines - I can't see them either. I was going to remove that explanation myself once, but I saw the source code and understood that they should be there. They show up fine on Opera, but Internet Explorer, the browser I usually use, doesn't show them for some reason... Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Crvena zvezda (Red Star)

The name of the club in the template {{UEFA Cup 2007-08}}. It should be Crvena Zvezda according to notable English language news media and the official UEFA competition site.

• UEFA Cup 2007 Club Profile
• BBC
• Setanta Sports
• Guardian Unlimited

Thanks. // laughing man 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But Sky Sports, The Times and The Telegraph use "Red Star Belgrade". – PeeJay 08:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you didnt know Crvena zvezda means Red Star before you read it, you wouldnt understand, so i think Red Star should be used so everyone understands Chandlertalk 09:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say Crvena Zvezda should stay. Because, for example, by the same logic Turkish club Galatasaray stays as it is, and is not translated to Galata Castle. And Beşiktaş playing in Champions League is not translated to Cradle Rock. Artyom (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't translate "Galatasaray" to "Galata Castle" or "Beşiktaş" to "Cradle Rock" because those clubs' English websites use the names "Galatasaray" and "Beşiktaş" respectively to refer to the teams. However, we probably should move Galatasaray S.K. to Galatasaray S.C., as the club refers to themselves as "Galatasaray Sports Club", and last time I checked, "Club" didn't start with a "K". – PeeJay 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay, UEFA who runs the competition uses Crvena Zvezda officially. Also, you're wrong about Sky Sports and The Times, as the UEFA Cup news in Sky Sports and The Times use Crvena Zvezda also. // laughing man 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is located at Red Star Belgrade, and it therefore makes complete sense to link it as that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The same BBC Sport site you listed has Bolton playing Red Star Belgrade (instead of Crvena Zvezda) in their UEFA Cup Group F match preview, though. I would think that they probably put it there for clarification sakes, but I'm not one to argue as to whether a team should be listed under the names they go under in UEFA cup competitions. Miss kat (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the common name in english? This is the standard. Bayern Muenchen are called Bayern Munich in english, Sporting club of Portugal are called Sporting Lisbon, Eintracht Frankfurt are called Eintracht Frankfurt. In this case, I think it's Red Star Belgrade. Kingjeff (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Now there are a majority of notable English language sources (given above) that are using the proper name now, as well as UEFA? Maybe in the past Red Star Belgrade was more widespread, but even Google is showing Crvena Zvezda getting more hits than Red Star Belgrade. // laughing man 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Google search test:

• Crvena Zvezda 2,040,000 hits
• Red Star Belgrade 268,000 hits

// laughing man 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

None of this debate even matters. The Wikipedia naming conventions for sports teams were laid down this week, and they say that we should use the name that the club uses on the English version of their official website. In this case, the club calls themselves "FC Red Star (Belgrade)", as you can see here (the inclusion of Belgrade in the club's name is debatable, but either way the club don't call themselves Crvena Zvezda in English. The only reason that UEFA calls them Crvena Zvezda is because clubs register with UEFA in their own (transliterated) language). – PeeJay 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I believe we should move the article, and refer to the club as "FC Red Star" as "Red Star Belgrade" is clearly not being used. // laughing man 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt Crvena zvezda only mean Red Star, not hard to get some extra hits on that. If you only Search for "Red Star" at google youll get more hits. But the thing still is, Red Star is the common name that i would say most non-Serbian speakers know it by. Chandlertalk 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Crvena zvezda" +football 303,000 hits, still more than Red Star Belgrade. // laughing man 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Top Scorers

The link to uefa.com doesnt show any details of the tournaments leading scorers. I cant find any details of leading scorers in the uefa cup on the uefa site. so where did whoever created the leading scorers table get the info from? and how can we update it? Willy turner (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I coudln't find any statistics page for UEFA Cup on uefa.com. However, the index page of UEFA Cup has a section at the bottom with the top goalscorers. Artyom (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sevilla FC

Why is Sevilla FC, although they have won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, totally absent form the UEFA Cup 2007-08, and its qualification rounds? --88.78.228.207 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they became 3rd in Spanish Primera last season and thus qualified for UEFA Champions League, which is a higher-class club football tournament than UEFA Cup. Sevilla has subsequently finished top of Group H and advanced to the Champions League knockout stage, which will start in February 2008. Artyom (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Club X/Club Y or Winner Match Z?

In the Round of 16 table, do people think it is better to have Club X/Club Y or Winner Match Z? Personally, I think Winner Match Z is better as it creates a bit less clutter in the table. – PeeJay 23:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Club X/Club Y for me, sans flagicons, works better. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First round incident

Please discuss the first round here. Someone made it as a redirect page - well, as I said, First Round is compolsory for every teams and it is not included into qualifying rounds. Raymond Giggs 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do really think that First round is notable enough to have its own article.  ARTYOM  18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Same idea here. Raymond Giggs 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

UEFA contradicts themselves on the first round. If you look here, on the side the First Round is a qualification round. But under Altered format, they call it the "first round proper." Kingjeff (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it. If it is a qualifying round, why don't they called "First Round" as "Third Qualifying Round"? Also, the draw of the first round is held after the CL's draw. Everything seems that First round is not a qualifying round. However, on that page, uefa.com cannot find any format to fix on it, so they put that into qualifying round. I think that is their meaning. Raymond Giggs 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get this straightened out. The UEFA Cup first round is anomalous. Some would say it is a proper round, i.e. not a qualifying round, and I wouldn't disagree, but it is the only knockout round between the qualifying rounds and the group stage. Having an entire article for a single round of UEFA's second-tier club competition seems preposterous to me. At least in the group stage there are eight different groups, each with ten matches to comment on, while the knockout stage covers five whole knockout rounds. You can argue the toss with me about this until you're blue in the face, but I still don't believe that the UEFA Cup first round is notable enough to have a whole article devoted to it. – PeeJay 11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would include the first round with the qualifying rounds irregardless of it being qualifying round or not. Kingjeff (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In what respect? For the purposes of Wikipedia, I would probably agree with you, but as we have proven, the first round is not a qualifying round. Anyways, that's immaterial right now. What amuses me more is that KyleRGiggs still hasn't replied to my comment above. – PeeJay 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a Qualifying Round. UEFA even says it on their website. Kingjeff (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in terms of statistics though. Basically, if the first round was a qualifying round, it would be called the Third qualifying round, not the first round. TBH, I think this whole business shows that even UEFA don't know what the hell they're doing. – PeeJay 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Look here and tell me it's not a qualifying round. Kingjeff (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that page. However, I still think that if it really was a qualifying round it would be called the "Third Qualifying Round". Either way, it's not worthy of its own article. – PeeJay 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because most of the teams are not notable enough? Raymond Giggs 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because the round itself is not notable enough to have an article all by itself. I'm happy to have been proved wrong that most of the teams are notable, but I really don't think it's appropriate to have an article on one round of the competition, especially when said article would not expand on the information in UEFA Cup 2007-08 that much. – PeeJay 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's count the games numbers

First Round: 40*2=80

Group Stage: 1 Group=5*4/2=10, 8 Groups=10*8=80

Final Stages: 16*2(R32)+8*2(R16)+4*2(QF)+2*2(SF)+1(Final)=61

Well... Raymond Giggs 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see an argument why the first round, as a single round all by itself, deserves its own article. The group stage article covers eight different groups, and is more conducive to its own article as it has regular breaks. The first round, however, would be split into "First leg" and "Second leg", and that's it. What's the point? – PeeJay 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop using this link please, you made me sick! Who the hell doesn't know there is some problems about UEFA. To check if it is a qualifying round, you can see Article 6.01 of the regulations. Qualifying phase only included first qualifying round and second qualifying round only. You are just arguing if the first round is a qualifying round only. PeeJay is arguing about another thing! Raymond Giggs 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally I get what you mean. However, it is not very important to determine the first round. The group phase system is introduced since 2004. Before 2004, there is no any group stage in the UEFA Cup phases. So what kind of article should be made before that year? I wondered. Raymond Giggs 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps before 2004-05, you should create one article for the early rounds (First Round, Second Round and Third Round) and one article for the final rounds (Fourth Round, Quarter-finals, Semi-finals and Final). The only problem with that is that the articles on the early rounds would be absolutely massive, which suggests to me that perhaps only articles on the later rounds should be included. – PeeJay 10:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... make two articles only? It is too big for the article of the early rounds... well... Raymond Giggs 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that the UEFA Cup is only UEFA's second-biggest club tournament, right? Anyway, the main articles for each UEFA Cup season prior to 2001-02 should be sufficient, as UEFA.com has no records of goalscorers in each match from the 2000-01 season backwards. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, second-biggest club tournament. You are right. I don't think it is compulsory for making any sub-article if it is not a biggest club tournament. I'd like to ask those contributors who created the sub-article s why they created them. Raymond Giggs 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Current scores

So are we not having current scores in italics on the table? Whocantucan 14:00, 21 February 2008

Nope. Never have, and never should. – PeeJay 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It gets too messy because of the number of games being played. Kingjeff (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template Request

Anyone would like to work on Template:Round32-UEFACupformat? Raymond Giggs 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't really thought that suggestion through, have you? A bracket for 32 teams would be bloody massive, and would vastly overshadow anything else on the page. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. – PeeJay 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to comment your opinion. I could say partly correct. A bracket for 32 teams and 2 legs would be too big. But it would be the best summary for the stages. Raymond Giggs 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The 32 team bracket would be a good summary of the final knockout stage. Kingjeff (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. Raymond Giggs 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to go all out on brackets, here is an example. Of course something like this would require another page. Kingjeff (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. If this Round of 32 template were to be created, where do you plan to put it? The main page or the knockout stage page?

I'm just asking because both pages seem to have enough information about the matches in the round as is (more so in the knockout stage) without the template you are proposing (the tables and the reports from UEFA's official site, for one) and I would hate for someone to think that the template is just a waste of space on the page. Miss kat (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page only. I don't know why some people put the bracket in the CL knockout stage article. Raymond Giggs 11:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The brackets are currently incorrect. The Munich-Getafe winner plays the Leverkusen-Zenit winner next round. The semis are set up wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.125.244 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. – PeeJay 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the 37th edition, not the 50th

The UEFA Cup began in 1971-72 season, it was a new tournament organised by UEFA. It was based on the format of the later years of the Fairs Cup and the latter is obviously considered its predecessor, but it is not the same tournament - while many people assume they are the same tournament simply under a different name they are not, according to UEFA themselves. The Fairs Cup was endorsed but not organised by UEFA and is not even considered an official European tournament by them, let alone their own UEFA Cup under a different name. UEFA even assert that the Fairs Cup should not be included in clubs honours lists as part of their European record. UEFA's attitude towards this can be read about here [1]. While its reasonable to see the Fairs Cup as a forerunner of the UEFA Cup and you can personally consider them to be essentially one and the same competition if you like, it is UEFA who decide the official status of the competitions and they certainly would not agree that the Fairs Cup years are part of their UEFA Cup competition or that Newcastle United and Ferencvaros have won the UEFA Cup (before it even existed!). This is exactly what is stated on the main UEFA Cup article on here and just about everywhere else relevant on Wiki so I don't see why this page is any different. Given that UEFA won't even allow these clubs to claim they have won a major European honour due to their Fairs Cup wins, there is no way we should be trying to make out in the opening paragraph that there have been 50 editions of the UEFA Cup rather than 37 when the organisers themselves say otherwise. It just makes us look silly to any knowledgable readers. MarkB79 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki project idea

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.

1. This is an inter-promotion thing for Wikimedia Foundation.
2. All match reports would be of the same standard.
3. The standard NPOV will be in the match reports as required by Wikinews and Wikipedia.

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) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Top goalscorers

For some reason the official UEFA site started counting the goals scored in qualifying stages for the top goalscorers. Before, only the goals from the First Round onwards were counted, as all teams participated in those stages already. I think it's unfair for the players of the bigger teams, as they start in the First Round, while some smaller teams play in the qualifying rounds, where they can also score goals. I'm not sure why UEFA changed its way of counting the goals, but I think that we should still exclude the goals scored in qualifying stage, because the goals in qualifying stages never count towards the top goalscorers statistics in any football competition.  ARTYOM  18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Only goals from the First Round onwards should be counted. – PeeJay 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, sorry, but we're not do decide what counts and what not. UEFA decided that all goals are counted? Editors on Wikipedia wont decide what counts and what not. I could say that not counting what the players scored in the early rounds is also not fair, but i wont, and i will simply say that wikipedians cant decide what is fair and what is not, and what UEFA decided is what will be here. You can call administrators and they will decide, or simply read the laws of Wikipedia. Shpakovich talk 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. UEFA does not count goals from the qualifying rounds in the Champions League towards players totals, so why have they started doing it all of a sudden in the UEFA Cup? I think someone just made a mistake. – PeeJay 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agree or disagree. UEFA decided something and we cant decide otherwise. Just read what Neil, an administrator, wrote down here. Shpakovich (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Only UEFA counts goals for UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup. We, the editors of this page, maintain this page. If UEFA counts qualifying goals, then we count qualifying goals. Kingjeff (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a solution that may solve our problem. I was wondering if we could add the template stats that keep records of the first round proper and beyond along with all the stats from all the rounds including qualifying. Kingjeff (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• (saw the thread on WP:AN/I) UEFA are the authority on this - if they say goals from the early round count, they count. If you believe otherwise, and don't want to include the early round goals, tough, I'm afraid. Neıl ☎ 10:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's not a discussion. Neil, who is an administrator, clearly explained: "UEFA are the authority on this - if they say goals from the early round count, they count". Shpakovich (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe administrators have the same power as normal editors in discussions like this, so Neil's opinion shouldn't be treated more than just a usual opinion. Regarding the goalscorers, I indeed believe that it was just a mistake on UEFA's behalf, and that the table will be corrected soon.  ARTYOM  13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Artyom is absolutely right in one point - admins don't have any special power to decide content. I'm just chipping in as a normal editor, which I also am. If and when UEFA change their table, then by all means change this one, but til then, go with UEFA's table. Neıl ☎ 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But thats the whole point, there is no argument on the content and there are no opinions. UEFA decided something? That's what says. If UEFA changes something, so are we. If not, then not. Neil gave you a link to the laws of Wikipedia. It's all written there. Shpakovich (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole list was wrong. I fixed everything according to the web site. Shpakovich (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to sound smug, I told you so. – PeeJay 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You did sound smug. Neıl ☎ 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, at least I have the fact that I was right to back me up =P – PeeJay 10:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and thats why now that's what's written here. But when i and Neil reverted you it wasn't. Actually, both versions are correct, the difference is since when you count. What enteres here is the offical version, and now it's what you supported and thats why it's here. Shpakovich (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

...UEFA eventually corrected the table, now the goals scored from First round onwards are counted, like before.  ARTYOM  17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I went to the 2 top scorers pages and fixed it. Shpakovich (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2007–08 UEFA Cup. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=564584.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=566068.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629100814/http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19070.pdf to http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19070.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2007–08 UEFA Cup. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D556360.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D512/newsid%3D564584.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D512/newsid%3D566068.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022040759/http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D551134.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D551134.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625234536/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/history/season%3D2008/intro.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/history/season%3D2008/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)