Talk:UEFA Cup Winners' Cup

message: I have noticed in the table of past finalists that the clubs from the former East Germany (FC Magdeburg, Carl Zeiss Jena) have old East German flags next to them but the clubs from the former Soviet Union (Dynamo Kiev, Dynamo Tbilisi, Dynamo Moscow) have their current national flags (Ukraine, Georgia, Russia) instead of the old Soviet flag.  Could this be consistent?  Either the current German flag should be used for the German teams or the old Soviet flag for the former Soviet teams.  Seeing as the teams represented these former Soviet bloc countries at the time of their victories, I think the old flags should be used throughout, but I thought I'd try to get a consensus, if anyone is interested.Largo1965 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, the flags should be those of the countries the clubs represented when they won the trophy. Perhaps in the list of all-time winners and stats the individual flags of Ukraine, Georgia etc can be used, but I don't think they should be for the individual final results. When Dinamo Kiev won the CWC in '75 and '86, they represented the Soviet Union as Soviet cup winners, there was no professional Ukrainian cup, so it's misleading to use the Ukrainian flag, some readers could wrongly conclude that Kiev won the CWC as Ukranian Cup winners. In the list of all-time winners, perhaps its acceptable to use the flags of the independent states, but it shouldn't be for the list of finals. MarkB79 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FLAGS

message: In the notable teams section, the article states that the Dinamo Tblisi vs Jena match was the least-attended final. However, there are numbers that put the 1974 AC Milan vs Magdeburg final even below this, at some 4,700. Can anyone city any proof for either number, because I cannot. --Madcynic 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard before that the 1981 Tbilisi-Jena final had only around 3,000 spectators but according to the RSSSF stats website here , the attendance was actually 9,000. Furthermore, the site also claims that the 1974 Magdeburg-Milan final attracted only 4,000 spectators and the 1964 Sporting Lisboa-MTK Budapest final in Brussels only 3,000 (though bizarrely the replay in a much smaller stadium in Antwerp then attracted 19,000). RSSSF tends to be regarded as the definitive stats website but they have changed a couple of their attendance figures for CWC finals over the years, the 1985 Everton-Rapid Wien final has had different attendances listed on there, from 38,000 to 50,000. Seems that nobody really knows for sure how many people attended some CWC finals but RSSSF is probably the most realible source online. MarkB79 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance record (negative) 

message: Strange that, on reflection, both of the common names for this tournament were ambiguous. UEFA Cup Winners' Cup could be for winners of the UEFA Cup while European Cup Winners' Cup could mean that it was for winners of the European Cup. I'm not sure there's any point to my post - it was just something that occurred to me. --Jameboy (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tournament name

message: As there is occasionally confusion as to Everton's "failed to defend the cup". I hold it does not matter whether they were banned - they did not defend the trophy period. Of course, one could argue Everton are not one of the "major names in European football"... --Madcynic (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I disagree entirely and with respect I think you’ve misunderstood the whole point of that paragraph and the meaning of ‘failing to defend the trophy’ (not merely not defending the trophy) in this context. If you talk about teams failing to defend a trophy in the context used in this article it strongly suggests that a team has tried and failed to defend it. People often make a point of the seemingly strange phenomena that nobody ever successfully defended the Cup Winners' Cup (the CWC jinx or whatever) which is why that paragraph would have been put in the lead in the first place but they are talking about teams who tried to defend it, not those who were banned or entered the European Cup instead. The listed teams are considered notable because they are thought to be major names who made a failed attempt at retaining the CWC. In the case of Everton, they were not only banned from defending it (UEFA’s page on the 84-85 CWC makes this clear, stating that the club were denied the chance to defend the trophy), they would not have tried to defend it anyway as they would have entered the European Cup in the 1985-86 season. Most people reading that paragraph would quite reasonably assume that Everton made a failed attempt at retaining the CWC having re-entered it in 85-86. And why on earth should it be considered notable that Everton didn’t retain the competition if they couldn’t do so and wouldn’t have wanted to even if they could? Rangers were repeatedly added and removed by other users in recent months in a similar conflict. Their name has now rightly vanished from the list for some time. If we want to include Everton, we will also have to include Juventus – they are a bigger name than Everton, and they failed to retain the CWC in ’85. That’s hardly surprising given that they entered the European Cup instead and actually won it but since Everton would have entered the 85-86 European Cup without Heysel the situation is the same, so we might as well make ourselves look really silly and start making a note of the fact that Juventus ‘failed’ to successfully defend the CWC even if the reason is that they were too busy winning a stronger tournament instead. The paragraph in question originally only included sides who had a lost a second consecutive final as holders (the CWC jinx) and has since been expanded, personally I think it was better the way it was originally. As for Everton possibly not being a major name in European football, well very funny but actually I’d agree that there is an argument about that, it depends by what criteria you define a “major name in European football” – they are historically a big club in England with one of the largest honours list but they haven’t won much in Europe. However once you go down that road you have to start debating whether about half the names on the list deserve to be there. Atletico Madrid and Fiorentina for instance? They are big names in their own countries and most football fans abroad know of them, but they’ve done little of note in Europe and in fact have won less domestically than Everton I think. Paris-Saint Germain are a ‘big name’ but precious little else – they’ve won very little of note at home or abroad. In any case, I think Everton should be removed as soon as possible – having them there makes no sense and is going to mislead many readers (and make us look fairly stupid in the eyes of others) and given that they would not really have to be in the list anyway even if they had genuinely failed to defend the trophy (they are certainly not a huge name comparable with Milan for instance) I don’t see why it's even worth the conflict anyway. MarkB79 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everton failing to defend 

message: The section that lists "notable finals" is a bit too complete, I think. It lists 21 finals, out of the 39 finals that were actually played out. It also includes all the 1980s finals...
Aside from that, only the minority of the entries (such as the 1971 Leeds entry) actually deal with a notability that is related to the final, other entries get their notability from some other competition that the winning team also managed to win the same year, or even the following year.
Any ideas how to arrive at a more reasonable "notable finals" list? Madcynic (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, just noticed that the wording says "notable sides [...] and notable finals" - which renders my second paragraph less accurate, but I still think that this list is -too- extensive. Madcynic (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aberdeen beating Real Madrid in the 1983 final must be notable for giant killing?! Rangers get a mention for their fans invading the pitch in 1972.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.1.107 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aberdeen need to be mentioned here for beating Real Madrid in the 1983 final - surely that goes down as one of the biggest giant killing feats of all time, therefore making it a very notable final.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.18.186 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable finals 

message: The article states that the trophy was permanently awarded to FC Barcelona because they were the most successful team. However, in this  article, it says that the cup was awarded to Lazio because they were the last winners and because no other team fulfilled the requirements for permanently keeping the trophy.
The article states that in 1961-62 all teams that qualified for the tournament accepted their invitations.  This is not true. Tottenham Hotspur rejected their invitation because they had also qualified for the European Cup (Champions Cup) by winning both the English League Champioship and the FA Cup in 1961. Stating that they could not compete in both competitions, they would compete in the European Cup only. UEFA tried to get them to change their minds by promising to schedule the two tournaments to avoid schedule conflicts. Spurs responded by saying it would involve too many fixtures and restated their intention to play in the European Cup only.  UEFA finally accepted Spurs position and invited FA Cup runners up Leicster City to replace Spurs in the 1961-62 CWC. Spurs won the FA Cup again in 1962 and did accept teir invitation for the 1962-63 CWC, which they won.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.31.200 (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information 

message: I've tried to tidy up the 'Notable Finals' a bit, including dropping some which had poor claims to notability, it still requires some work, but I'd like to hear opinions on the following before I continue:
* Is it necessary to mention Tottenham winning the double when it's not related to their participation in the cup?
* Is the West Ham final notable for having players who would go on to win the world cup? The Bobby Moore fact is interesting trivia, but IMO doesn't make the final itself particularly notable, and would be better on his own page.
* It's stated that Rangers were unable to defend their title due to the ban - did the winning team usually get a place in the following years competition? If so the wording needs to reflect this.
* I've tried to make the Leeds-Milan final more neutral sounding - Leeds fans who know more of the subject may wish to add reliable sources that justify the refereeing being one-sided so it can be reworded to reflect more on the ref than the fans reaction.
* KV Mechelen won the trophy in their debut season in European competition - I feel this is more notable to them than to the CWC, so I'm not sure it belongs, but I've left it in for now.
* There were a few finals that sounded as if they were written by fans of the winning team - if there's a case for inclusion please present it on the talk page first, because despite cutting, 13 finals is still about 33% of the total finals, which seems a large percentage. BulbaThor (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It says: "City became the first English club to win a domestic trophy and a European trophy in the same season.". This is not accurate because Leeds won the Fairs cup and the league cup in the 1967/68 season Ben200 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Finals 

message: In the second paragraph of the article, someone had made an "impressive" asseveration about the "sporting level" of this competition, without any mentions at all to prove that (in bold):
"the Cup Winners' Cup was regarded as the second most prestigious European club competition out of the three major tournaments, behind the European Cup/UEFA Champions League and ahead of the UEFA Cup, although for a significant part of the specialized press, its sportive level was less than that of the UEFA Cup"
Of course, it's a very subjective assertion to be taken seriously. The Competition was an high profile sports event: half of the winners of UEFA Supercup were present holders of Cup Winners' Cup at 1999, where it was finally disbanded. Furthermore, after that, the winners of UEFA Cup/Europa League have a worst share win in the SuperCup.
Tangopolis (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt that UEFA formally regarded the CWC as the second-rank and the UEFA Cup as the third rank, but the general public need not agree with the official decree of the governing body. To state that by 1968 the CWC "had firmly established itself as Europe's second most prestigious club competition" is excessive, and sourced only to a dead Youtube video. jnestorius(talk) 15:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some citations to that effect. I seem to remember that a team which won its domestic cup and the UEFA Cup once asked UEFA to defend the UEFA Cup but were forced to play in the CWC instead. If verifiable then that would also be worth stating. jnestorius(talk) 08:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about a team asking to defend the UEFA Cup, but both Chelsea and Stuttgart asked prior to the 1998 CWC final to be allowed to enter the following season's UEFA Cup rather than defending the CWC.  (Both had already qualified for the UEFA Cup domestically.)  In the event, UEFA said no, Chelsea won the final and were forced to enter the following season's CWC, and Stuttgart lost and were allowed to enter the UEFA Cup.  This was well into the era of internet news articles, so should be easily citable through Google. Binabik80 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  An asseveration about the level of the competition: a nonsense 

message: I can understand the colloquialism of "cup" when chatting about a competition but what the words represent sort of gets lost and confusing in an article you use the award to indicate the action which is actually a tournament or competition then go on to indicate the award at the end such as the title of this article. It gets awkward when reading and deciding just what is it that is being said particularly for someone that thee subject is not in their natural orbit. WP is really not meant for those that know a subject but for those that need to learn about a subject otherwise there would not be links, see other or see main topic?2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of using "cup" for what you are awarded but not what it is 

message: Slovan is a Slovak club from former Czechoslovakia, but the link is connected to the Czech Football Association. Pls correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.255.29.112 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovan Bratislava - wrong flag and association