Talk:Primeira Liga

message: Different sources give different numbers for Liedson's total goals:
www.record.pt 24, www.abola.pt 25, www.sporting.pt 26. If someone knows what the right number is, please update accordingly. 
--Jcmo 22:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the official reports (www.lfpf.pt) he scored 25 goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.139.184 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  different numbers for Liedson's total goals 

message: As the name changed again, the article must be renamed, as the "SuperLiga" was part of the sponsoring deal with Galp. However, I'm not particullary fond of renaming to Liga Betandwin.com (as no other leagues are named according to their sponsors: see FA Premier League (currently named Barclays Premiership) or Eredivisie (Holland Casino Eredivisie). So, what should be the name of the article? Primeira Liga (My favourite choice)? Portuguese football first division? I Liga ? wS;✉ 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *That settles it, then. Thanks. wS;✉ 04:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: How can Benfica in 1935/36 and 1936/37 can have 34 points if there were only 14 rounds and a victory was awarded 2 points? 14x2 = 28 = the max possible...--Serte 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benfica points 

message: I propose the merging of the List of champions with the Top Scorers. There are too many long lists/tables. Or move some of those detailed tables to another link. Ordep 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I think it's missing a records section (eg. top appearances and goals, also some unbeaten records). Unfortunately i can't find a site with this records, if anyone knows one, do tell. Ordep 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Records section

message: Three clubs have won 71 of 73 titles, wow!  Makes me wish there was a UEFA coefficient for parity.  I saw the massive difference in attendance between #3 & #4, does anyone know the difference in revenue & payroll among the various clubs?  How much of an uphill struggle is it for the other clubs to compete?   Kendanielone 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Record anual guide magazine, the budgets for the Liga clubs are:
#Porto - €40m
#Benfica - €25m
#Sporting - €20m
#Marítimo - €8m
#Sporting de Braga - €5m
#Nacional - €5m
#Belenenses - €4,5m
#Académica - €3,8m
#Vitória de Guimarães - €3,6m
#União de Leiria - €3,5m
#Boavista - €3m
#Leixões - €3m
#Vitória de Setúbal - €3m
#Naval - €2,1m
#Paços de Ferreira - €1,7m
#Estrela da Amadora - €1,5m
Joaopais 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finances

message: I have some issues with this list. 
Either you include the players when they were playing for the clubs or you don't. You can not do one for some players and the other for others.
For example you include Anderson Polga but when we won the world cup he was not playing for Sporting. Also you include several Figo's titles that he won many years after leaving Sporting.
But when you talk about players included in the "FIFA World Cup All-Star Team" you only mention Ricardo. And forget Maniche, Ricardo Carvalho and Figo, that played in Portugal.
The same for Euro 2004 (Figo, Maniche, Carvalho, Ronaldo and Seitaridis), Euro 2000 (Figo and Nuno Gomes) and Euro 1996 (Rui Costa, Fernando Couto and Poborsky).
As I said... either we consider the awards players won while playing for the Portuguese teams or we consider all of them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.139.184 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Continental Honours by Liga Players

message: :Image:Betandwin topo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Betandwin topo.gif

message: Took the liberty to tidy up the televised distribution section and added some references, what do you guys think of the new outlook? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.96.251 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Television Section

message: Why do some leagues (Portugal, Italy, Belgium) have the sponsored name of the league shown while others (England, Scotland, France) have the unsponsored name shown.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA rankings section inconsistency 

message: Unasur flag is no representative of Latin America. Unasur is an intergovernmental union integrated by 12 countries (10 Latin Americans + Guyana and Surinam). There are other 10 Latin Americans countries that are not part of Unasur. For this reason I deleted the unasur flag before Latin America broadcasting description. Also Mexico and Brazil are listed separately being part of  Latin America, however I did not deleted those entries, just added "without Mexico and Brazil". To clarify differences between Unasur and Latin America both articles can be read on wikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisgui12 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unasur

message: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuss%C3%A3o:Futebol_Clube_do_Porto#Factos_curiosos...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.3.27 (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read this: 

message: Several errors in here:
*games add up to 34612, good. wld add up to that too, good.
*adds up to 13223 wins to 13224 losses, 8165 draws. w/l hsould be equal, draws ave to be even.
*goal difference is +5, should be 0.
:The rsssf source is pretty good. It is correct until after 04/05. Can be used to correct all teams that never played first league after that. -Koppapa (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to unaccurated editions. Lot's of work. Will you do it, since you've started? If you need any help (in 2015) tell me something.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. Out of ideas to find the remaining errors. Table should definately only be updated after full seasons, to reduce creating errors. -Koppapa (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the table is ok now? Or it needs some additional corrections?Rpo.castro (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three points above still hold. gd+5 and probably one loss should be a draw for some team. -Koppapa (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors all-time table

message: It isn't explained exactly why Boavista was promoted to Primeira Liga.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.58.1 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit. Interesting story, didn't know before. -Koppapa (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It still doesn't expalin why and Boavista didn't come back last season but this season. Why was the first division extended because of Boavista not only for this season but also for the next seasons if Boavista is already promoted (i.e., in the next seasons the first division should have 16 teams again)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is/should be in 2014-15 Primeira Liga and not in this article. Anyone can edit thes articles. Do it yourself or stop complaining.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you? Stop complaining? It wasn't I who edited this page and I only want to know why Boavista was promoted...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it was increased, probably to no have to relegate an additional team. Don't know if they eventually revert back to 16. -Koppapa (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make any sense. It couldn't have 17 teams so it was extended to 18, I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The reason why Boavista was promoted is in 2014–15 Primeira Liga and 2013–14 Segunda Liga (as it should be). About the increase, it was an election promise from the former Liga CEO/President to the smaller clubs, who wanted the return to a 18 teams League (as used until a few years ago). With the administrative (court) promotion of Boavista it was agreed to increase to 18 teams only if Boavista could get registered in the Primeira League (financial issues). If it failed to fulfill the registration, the League would remained with 16 teams.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't understand. It only says that it was a court decision but it doesn't say the reason why the court promoted Boavista. Why should that Segunda Liga page mention Boavista? It wasn't thanks to the former President of the League (in spite of his desire to increase it) that the Primeira League was extended but thanks to the court's decision. He simply had the luck to have that court's decision. I don't know why there was a poll to increase the Primeira Liga to 18 teams afer the court's decision, though (the poll gave reason to the extension of the League). And it was said that if Boavista couldn't be registered in Primeira Liga even after the court's decision the League would still be extended to 18 teams (with another team replacing Boavista). I suppose that next season the League will have 18 teams again thanks to that poll that shouldn't even have been made since the court had already extended the league.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt a court is able to extend the league, it just said "reinstate them to first league", not how. But I'm not into Portugal, so don't care. You seem to have more interest, why don't you find some sources? There should be plenty if you also speak Portuguese. In my head the vote probably went this way: Teams, you have two options, 1st: We reinstate Boavista and there will be one additional team relegated in 13/14 to make room for them. 2: We extend the league, no additional relegation and one more promotion. Teams then of cause went for option two. I don't know. -Koppapa (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the court has to say why Boavista was reinstated. It wasn't that way because the First League was extended to 18 teams and not 17 and the top 2 teams of the Second League are still promoted and not a third. In the previous season no team was relegated to the Second League thanks to, in part, the extension of the First League. There was also (in the previous season) a promotion/relegation play-off between the 15th placed team of the First League and the 4th placed team of the Second League, which was won by the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The IP looks to know everything, so I suggest again him to improve the article with the proper sources. If he/she only wants to discuss football, maybe he/she should go to another place since WP it's not a forum.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you just described yourself. This is a important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

text: To Koppapa, the small clubs wanted a return to 18 teams, the League president won with that promisse, tried to increase the league but found lack of support from the big ones (in fact it was an institutional warfare between major clubs and League in a very unclear process). With the court decision of reinstating Boavista (and intercession of Portuguese Football Association, it was possible to reach a consensus between all clubs: 18 clubs if Boavista reach a financial agreement with its owns creditors (required for taking part in Primeira and Segunda Liga), mantain the 16 clubs if not (the sources are in portuguese. This is a good one, maybe you can use google translate to understand.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know about that but I read somewhere that if Boavista wasn't promoted the First League was going to be extended, nevertheless. Probably Boavista would be replaced by the 4th placed team of the Second League and there would be no play-off, I guess (the 15th placed teamof the First League would have stayed in the First League and only the 16th placed team would be relegated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a pretention, but not attended and not the model accepted and validated in FPF General Assembly on June 2013. Look at LPFP regulations page 60 point number 2. "If Boavista faills the registration, the 94º article (increasing from 16 to 18) is not attended". In this case Primeira Liga 15th and 16 th would be relegated, and Segunda Liga 1st and 2nd (except B teams) promoted, as in seasons before.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that pretention happened in 2014, I think. What's the credibility of that document when it says in the 51st page that the 15th placed and the 16th placed teams are relegated to the Second League (ony the 17th placed and the 18th placed are relegated)? LOL Then what would happen if Boavista failed the registration after the court's decision to promote it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered aboved. End of my intervention here.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL I didn't see that. That point doesn't even talk about Boavista! Even if it talked about it what do you have to say about this, then? You still didn't say the reason why the court promoted Boavista. You don't have arguments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.77 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL That was clearly an error and only recently it was reported by LPFP but the mistake remains in the document LPFP. LOL Regarding the main subject, I think it has to do with a prescription of the decision of relegating Boavista.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.39.131 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL How come it has to do with a prescription (LOL) of that decision if Boavista was indeed relegated? That doesn't make any sense!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.82.32 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boavista's promotion to Primeira Liga