Talk:2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League

CONCACAF as a source
CONCACAF is not a reliable source in this. The same thing happened for the Cup Winners Cup, the Giants Cup, and the Champions Cup of 16 teams which CONCACAF created documents of similar status as the above one and we all know how it ended up. Not to mention, there are media elements talking of a change of slot allocation due to the US's bad performance so far.

That is why it is best to wait and see what does CONCACAF say FROM THEIR MOUTH, not some online book. - unsigned contribution by User:SuperSonicx1986 10:59, 3 October 2008
 * Then put the article up for AfD then. Once a prod has been removed, your not allowed to reprod. Doing so will get you blocked. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that the 2009-2010 season will take place. Heck, some teams have already started ticket sales. Nfitz (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the page blanking and proposed deletion because it has been contested. —Borgardetalk 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Sections
Putting Saprissa as Costa Rica 1 in the group stage is incorrect as we do not yet know if they will be Costa Rica 1 or Costa Rica 2 until the end of the Verano season, similar situations apply to Communicaciones, Arabe Unido, etc. The purpose of the the seedings of 1 and 2 is to distinguish between group stage and prelim stage for some countries and for Panama which pot a team will be in. We are misleading the readers of the page if we place Saprissa in the Group stage section when that is not a fact yet. If the purpose of wikipedia is to present facts, not presumptions, we should not place a team as Costa Rica 1 for example when that is not yet decided. Perhaps instead underneath the table that says what teams are in the group stage, and pots A and B in the prelim stage there should be another section that lists the teams that have qualified but seeding is not determined. But that would seem useless as the teams are already listed at the beginning of the page in qualification. Most of all, I just don't think its right to place incorrect information on the page. NeilCanada (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag of CARICOM
I don't believe that this flag ( CARICOM) is appropriate for the CFU representatives in this competition. The CARICOM isn't the same organization as the CFU and their membership is not the same either. If any flag icon should be used it should be the logo for the CFU. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is no opposition I will remove the flags. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying
I'm still unclear on a number of things about this "simplified" qualifying.

Will this comparison of records be only for the regular season, or will it include points and goals from the playoffs (or liguilla or championship or finals or whatever term you want to use)?

What about Panama where the apertura and clausura are in the same calendar year, but the Champions League spot is supposed to be the split season (the Clausura of the first year and the Apertura of the second year)?

What about Nicaragua which usually plays a championship match between the winners of the split seasons anyhow? Shouldn't that team get the Nicaragua slot? Lot to mention how might the different formats that Nicaragua has between the two mini-seasons affect the outcome?

And then I'm completely confused about what is going on in Belize. I read that Ilagulei won the season, but I also read that the season has been postponed in late april after 3 rounds???

Can anyone clarify any of this???

Thank you. Gecko G (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I know for sure is that countries that there is usually a match or series between the Apertura and Clausura winners it will continue to take place (for example Costa Rica)NeilCanada (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ah, thank you. I looked through the last couple of years at RSSSF really quick and didn't see any such playoffs for Costa Rica, but after your message I went back and looked closer. I hadn't seen any listed because Saprissa has won both short seasons for the last several years in a row.  Are those (Nicaragua & Costa Rica) the only two?

Here's what I've been able to find on the remaining spots:

Champions League 2009-10 remaining spots:

Central American Qualifying

 * Costa Rica: All spots finalised.


 * Honduras: All spots finalised.


 * Guatelmala: All spots finalised.


 * 🇸🇻 El Salvador: All spots finalized.


 * 🇵🇦 Panama: All spots finalized.


 * 🇧🇿 Belize: Spot taken away due to lack of an adequate stadium.


 * Nicaragua: Spot taken away due to lack of an adequate stadium.

North American Qualifying

 * 🇲🇽 Mexico: All spots finalised.


 * 🇺🇸 USA: All spots finalised


 * 🇨🇦 Canada: Toronto (MLS) & Vancouver Whitecaps (USL)are still in contention.  Next Match June 18 (Toronto vs Montreal in Montreal) If Toronto wins 4-0 they win the Championship, if they win 3-0 or any result worse than that Vancouver wins the Championship).

Caribbean Qualifying

 * Carribbean: All spots finalised.

Gecko G (talk)


 * Gecko's got a lot of that data there so that should answer a lot of questions. I think what CONCACAF wants to do is take the winners from each league's apertura and clausura, and if it's the same team then the team with the second-best aggregate over the two halves of the year get the second slot. It's explained pretty well in the cited source from CONCACAF. There's another source from CONCACAF that breaks it down a little based on the results of the fall season that ended in December. I hope that helps to support and elaborate on what Gecko already laid out here. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That second source JohnnyP gave is interesting, It is apparently calling the July 2008 to Dec. 2008 10 team, 10 game (+ playoff) as "Belize Apertura". Is it actually called "Apertura?"  I guess the 12 team competition started in Apr 2009 but postponed due to Swine flu after the 3rd round, is the "Belize Clausura"??  Both of those seem to be called the Belize Premier Football league, but neither of them seems to match last years entry competition, the 2007/08 RFG Insurance Cup, a 9 team, 16 game (+ playoff) competiton that ran from Sep 2007 to Apr 2008 that had qualified Hankook Verdes to the 2008-09 CCL.  Are they all the same thing?  Is the Belize league growing that fast?  --Gecko G (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't really be sure about any of that. It can be very difficult to find online sources for some of those Central American and Caribbean leagues and clubs. Among such leagues, Belize is one of the most difficult to research, especially if you need some English-language sources. Based on the second CONCACAF article, it appears that Belize has adopted a split Apertura-Clausura system, but the overall champion of the two halves will be their lone representative in the CCL. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Belize had it's spot given to Honduras for the best record team not other wise qualified, that means the three Honduran teams will be: Marathón, Real España, and Olimpia, right? Since the top three teams are Real España one of the current clausura finalists, Marathón the Apertura champion, and Olimpia the other clausura finalist. If if you include the playoff records, these three teams still have the best records. So the only remaining issue is who will be HON 1, 2, & 3. --Gecko G (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly how it works, then if Real España wins the 2 legged final over Olimpia, then Real España will be HON 1, Marathón will be HON2, and Olimpia will be HON 3.
 * If Olimpia wins, then Marathón will be HON 1, Olimpia will be HON 2, and Real España will be HON 3.
 * Is that correct?
 * --Gecko G (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the two champions will be HON1 and HON2, with the higher ranked team from the aggregate Apertura and Clausura tables claiming the HON1 seeding in the group stage. The loser of the Espana/Olimpia final will be HON3 because that team will have not won a championship in the 2008–09 season. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The CRC1 and CRC2 are not yer decided, as Costa Rica is a nation that usually has the Clausura and Apertura winners playoff they are not affected by concacafs ruling to not do the same procedure as last year. NeilCanada (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pot and bids format
A recent CONCACAF article, "More teams begin to fill in Champions League field", revealed that Panama is ranked just behind Honduras as the strongest domestic league in Central America. Does this mean that PAN1 might be elevated to an automatic bid to the group stage in place of CRC1, GUA1, or SLV1? It seems logical to me that it should happen, but it doesn't mean that it will. Does anyone know if the format and pots are already permanently set, or is the graphic table on the article's main page just a presumption by an editor? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The graphic on the main page would seem to be an assumption, one that is based on the pots used for the 2008-09 tournament. It would seem that its an okay assumption for now until concrete details are released. NeilCanada (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I assumed, too, but I wasn't going to delete it or anything. I just want to know if there was any news released of which I was unaware. If CONCACAF was more organized and kept information like UEFA does, such as the UEFA league coefficients, this would be a lot easier. :) JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The order in which Central American countries will get extra spots in case of some team being excluded (for example, due to inadequate stadia) is not a ranking of the relative strengths of the leagues. It is based simply on the last year's Champions League results. In the CONCACAF CL 2008-09, Honduras was the only Central American nation to have a team in the quarter-finals (Marathon), so Honduras received Belize's failed bid as a reward. Similarly, Panama was the only Central American country other than Honduras to have 2 teams in the group stages, so Panama is next in line to receive an extra spot should Real Esteli of Nicaragua be disqualified. If further spots open up (unlikely since Nicaragua and Belize have only one spot to lose, and should any of the other countries' teams be disqualified, the spot would most likely be taken by another team from the same country), the spots would be allocated to, first, Costa Rica (as Deportivo Saprissa finished third in their group with 10 points in CL 2008-09), then El Salvador (Luis Angel Firpo finished third in their group with 8 points) and lastly, Guatemala (as Municipal finished last in its group in Champions League 2008-09).


 * The "rankings" are thus based simply on last year's performance of teams from that country in the Champions League. For all I know, Costa Rica has a "stronger" league than Honduras or Panama. However, when it comes to allocating teams to either the group stage or the preliminaries, the formula may differ from that used in awarding extra spots, so both teams from Panama might well have to qualify via the preliminary stage. I could be wrong, however, and Panama might well get an automatic spot at Guatemala or El Salvador's expense.Avman89 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua Stadium Inspections
The link to the CONCACAF article dated May 18, 2009 says that "Real Esteli has earned the chance to represent Nicaragua and could become the 17the team to qualify if its stadium meets the tournament standards when it is inspected next week". Since that would mean the inspection took place the week of 25th May, the results should have been released by now. Anyone knows whether Nicaragua got its spot or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avman89 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CONCACAF has not posted the results of the inspection on their site. That means it's probably safe to say that they get to keep their bid because it certainly would have been news had they lost it. However, we can't just assume that is the case, and the disclaimer must be listed until more is known. We may not find out until the Preliminary Round draw, which takes place on June 11. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary Round Schedule
Someone put in the article that in the prelim round the teams from pot A will host the first leg and the teams from pout B will host the second leg. This is wrong. Here is the proper schedule from concacaf. http://concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4779 I don't know how we format it on wiki though. Which team goes on the left? The home team from the first leg or the home team from the second leg?NeilCanada (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll do it now. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats
Concacaf has a new page up dedicated to the champions league, http://www.championsleague.premiumtv.co.uk/page/CL/Home/0,,12856,00.html NeilCanada (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tie-breaker scenarios
I see that the tie breaker scenarios are listed in the group stage article, but I think for next year we should put them in the main article too. That way we avoid the constant need to revert peoples edits that couldn't be bothered to understand the rules of the tournament they are editing. Either that or place a infobox at the top of the article asking people not to edit the article until they've read and understood the rules and regulations of the tournament as listed on the concacaf website. Is reading that hard? NeilCanada (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221134612/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4523 to http://concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4523
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107121009/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4514 to http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4514
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207184019/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4553 to http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4553
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612224419/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4769 to http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4769
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716174529/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4829 to http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4829
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616091208/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4755 to http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4755
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620231357/http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4779 to http://concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4779
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/page/CL/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C12813~1878256%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)