Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 16 2009, 10:22 AM

There's been a few things coming out of UEFA lately, like the spending caps, 6+5 rule, etc and I didn't kno where to put them without going OT in another thread in Football Discussion. Lock if you don't feel it'll be used enough.

Anyways, something else from UEFA.

In my opinion, this will single handedly destroy the competition in football, it's sickening to read, at least when applied to the EPL anyway.

The way I see it is this. Being in the top 4 gives you so much more money, this is what helps turn a team into a super power, consistant CL qualification. Who are the biggest threats to the CL teams? Using comon sense that would be the teams in 5th and 6th, the places just outside the CL positions. With this new proposal, it pretty much guarentees that the teams in 5th and 6th have no chance of breaking the top 4. The new proposal wants teams in Europe to be capped, with the restriction in spending being based on their income. So the teams that had the best chance of breaking the top 4 are now being restricted in what they can spend, not only this, but they will be able to spend LESS than the teams in the CL as it's based on income! So this will make the gap between 4th and 5th even bigger. Generally, teams outside of Europe are 1. so far away from 4th place that they aren't a worry to the CL teams and 2. don't have the spending power to bridge the gap. It seems that finishing in a Europa League places makes you the most disadvantaged team in the league, you hardly get any revenue from the competition and then you are restricted by how much you can spend.

Thank God for Man City right now, otherwise there would be no hope of anyone breaking the top 4 in this country. Ridiculous, poorly thought out idea from Platini and the money greedy UEFA.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Sep 16 2009, 01:04 PM

Are you sure this report of your has included everything in it?

For instance, I'm guessing the amount they would be allowed to spend:

Transfer fund = Total Income - Obligations (like debt payments, wages etc.)

I think this would ensure a fairly level field.

But you're right. Billionaires could technically invest x amount of money even then, since it needn't be considered a loan.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 16 2009, 01:52 PM

I think the plan would be fair had it been something more strict, but when you're using income it goes some teams such a big advantage over others. I think teams need to be given an eact limit on how much they can spend for that year. Something like:

CL Teams: £25m net
EL Teams: £40m net
The rest: £50m net

I'd wish for something like this, but UEFA don't have the balls to oppose Europes biggest clubs.

I also think in regard to the HG quota that will be introduced next season, they need to have requirements for the 11 onfield players, rather than just squad requirements.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Sep 16 2009, 06:33 PM

I agree. 8 HG in a squad of 25 is pathetic. At least half that number ought to be HG. What's the point in it being a football club, if it isn't the least bit local.

Posted by: Tennie Sep 16 2009, 06:34 PM

$$$

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 16 2009, 07:15 PM

I completely agree.

Obviously everybody feels there club does things the right way, but I really feel Villa do. We have 24 HG players according to the new rules, we have 5 or 6 in the current squad that were born in Birmingham or it's surrounding areas. We have arguably got the best academy in the country, certainly in the top 3 as we regularly do well and we regularly bring players through to the first team. We have also spent more money on English players than any other club since MON took over and have produced more England internationals than any other club in the country.

We're an English club from Birmingham and I want our squad to show that. It gives the club an identity and the fan/player interaction takes a boost as a result. We love the players and they love us. Despite only 1 being born in Birmingham, the way the lads celebrated on Sunday you'd have thought al XI were Birmingham born and bred, its fantastic.

It might mean nothing to some people and it means nothing in terms of success. But it's certainly something I'm proud of.

Posted by: Tennie Sep 16 2009, 07:24 PM

You SHOULD be proud of it, Kurt.

Villa are a good club built in what I think of as the right way (emphasis on local, attention to the academy, etc). You have a sane owner who doesn't mind some (but never insane crazy money) spending and who, unlike some other owners, has NO DEBT on the books. You've got a coach who's good and who's wildly entertaining to watch on the sidelines.

I think most everyone knows I don't particularly like a lot to do with the sport in England, but I do definitely appreciate and admire Villa (and it's NOT just because of the flashing antlers).

Posted by: Danny Sep 17 2009, 01:54 PM

Platini has some good ideas, but many misguided ones. He's a very left wing PC-minded liberal whose ideas are wishy washy hippy-esque equality nonsense.

You'll never have parity in football - if you did, the standard would dip dramatically. Yeah, it might be more competitive, but it's hardly entertaining to watch Bognor Juniors V Averstein Rovers - they are equal though...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 17 2009, 04:20 PM

I agree with every word of that.

Posted by: Bluesummers Sep 20 2009, 10:31 AM

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 20 2009, 03:36 PM

Platini is so naive. Like I said before, Man Citys owners will just sponsor Man City for *enter however much they want to spend on transfers* and it will be considered income. It'll basically help City more as their rivals won't be able to spend as much as they do now.

Idiot.

Posted by: dst Sep 20 2009, 04:05 PM

He must have looked into that. We should check the whole thing.

Posted by: LaPalma Sep 20 2009, 04:45 PM

The guys at UEFA can't be that stupid. Even a smart 10 yo could come up with that solution. I'm sure they think of some arrangements to prevent this.

Posted by: Bluesummers Sep 20 2009, 07:44 PM

obviously they will audit and keep a close eyes on club. They probably will want a statement proving how much they earn and where the money comes from etc and i'm sure they will rule out such donations that the owners could provide.


However, I wonder whats going to happen to clubs with big debt? Do they get penalised and have to pay it off first before spending or what?

Posted by: Tennie Sep 20 2009, 08:24 PM

I think I've read that it depends on the kind of debt they have. Capital debt (ie, owing money to the banks because they're building new stadiums) won't count. Debt for buying expensive players (like the 100+ million Real owe to Spanish banks) will.

Posted by: Protagonist Sep 20 2009, 09:40 PM

Perhaps, this would level the playing field from here on. Restrictions on the extravagant spends; like taking a mid to bottom table team and soaking it with unlimited funds to make it a contender in no less than two years is not what football is all about.

Manchester C is exactly the reason why clubs have raised the issue to UEFA. But I do not think that those clubs that raised the issue to UEFA will benefit from it more than those that do not make it to the top four kurtsimonw, logically those clubs competing for a top four finish would have higher wages to deal with, than say a mid to bottom table team. So it would all be in proportion I guess.

Discrediting UEFA, if I may, does blur the idea further. And makes it look like a controversy is being cooked to benefit the likes of Man U and us.

ps On the issue of club presidents putting their own money into their clubs, isn't that why UEFA came up with this solution in the first place?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 21 2009, 12:08 AM

It wouldn't matter. Citys owners could change their shirt sponsor to the logo of one of their other business and pay them however much they wanted per year on the shirt sponsor deal. There's nothing wrong with that and you can't stop it, it's no different than any other sponsor, except for the amount of money. To stop it you'd need to stop shirt sponsors.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Sep 21 2009, 08:59 AM

If they're using one of their own companies, then those respective companies cannot afford to put in a lot of money. That money has to be shown to have come from the company's account. And the more money they put into Man City, they have to either show a corresponding return in business terms or have a higher bottom line profit.

On that other hand, the owner doesn't need to account to anyone. Like Abramovich, when he ploughed in 600 MM.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 21 2009, 07:17 PM

I agree with your first comment, but surely for Man Citys owners to have such huge amounts of money, one of their companies would have to be earning huge amounts of money? Then they'd just use this to sponsor the Man City shirt instead of just using it as direct transfer funds.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Sep 21 2009, 08:41 PM

Well when you rule a country, the state's wealth is your wealth.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Sep 21 2009, 09:12 PM

Oh, I just presumed they were in oil or something.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Sep 22 2009, 04:09 AM

Nope. They're the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. Sheikh in their titles remember? That's the equivalent of saying 'His Highness'.

Posted by: il_diavolo_mtl Sep 22 2009, 04:22 AM

if only italy's leader was as supportive

Posted by: Tennie Sep 23 2009, 01:08 PM

So, Swiss referee Massimo Bussaca is generally thought of as one of the better refs in Europe. But he's got a naughty streak.

First, over the weekend, he gave a one-fingered salute to fans during a Swiss league game. http://www.sportmediaset.it/calcio/articoli/articolo26708.shtml

And then secondly, while refereeing a game in Qatar, he relieved himself on the pitch while the players were positioning themselves for a corner. http://www.sportmediaset.it/calcio/articoli/articolo26758.shtml

Fishdoll tsk tsk, such bad manners!

Posted by: il_diavolo_mtl Sep 23 2009, 01:26 PM

FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 7 2009, 09:54 AM

I know you try to be as fair as possible, Jack, but sometimes your homerism comes to the front.

Carlo won 1 league title in 9 years at Juve/Milan, I've yet to see him really accomplish anything outstanding. Winning the CL is fine, it is a good achievment, but with the squads/players he's had? He's won 3 major titles with these clubs, 1 competition every 3 years. I have to say that's a prety awful record. Carlo may not have directly spent any money, but Inzaghi, Sheva, Nesta, Rui Costa, etc. were players at his disposal and they weren't exactly free.


I disagree strongly with this. Did Jose spend money? No doubt, and lots of it. But in relation to the money spend and the time they spent it, Sacchi certainly spent more. Didn't Sacchi break the World transfer record once or twice with his signings? The Milan of the late 80s/early 90s was probably the first Galactico's era in modern football! Jose didn't break World records, in fact, I don't think he broke the British record. Sheva may have come close, but then I'd even say that weren't his signing.

I think too much emphasis and spotlight is put on his time at Chelsea. It's the same with MON at Villa, we have a section of support that doesn't like him and say he'd only done well at Celtic because it was a 2 horse race, but he had ridiculous success at Wycombe and Leicester, just like Jose had at Porto.

Jose didn't leave because he wasn't doing well, hell, they didn't win the league the season before he left either. I think he was sick of being undermined by the owner.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Nov 7 2009, 10:28 AM

I don't get this part.

I can argue that Mourinho had Cole, Terry, Lampard, Makalele at his disposal too. Maybe not CL material, but definitely good enough to win the league, which Mourinho did after spending some more.

And the transfer record has really no basis.

So suppose Milan paid 94 million euros to buy Ronaldo, they've broken the world transfer record

And Real Madrid did all the purchases they did this season except perhaps instead of CR9 they buy Robinho for 20 million (coz Man City found out Robinho is gay and sold him for a discount).

Do you know what the record fee Sacchi spent was ? 6 million for Ruud Guulit. Even adjusted for inflation I doubt it would cross 25 million euros.

You can argue Capello and Lentini but Lentini's price of 13 million, would be around 40 million today. A large sum but not inordinate.

Here's the breakdown.:

WENGER:
(Year - Expense/Income)


2004/05 - £1,000,000 / £2,600,000
2005/06 - £32,350,000 / £13,700,000
2006/07 - £11,900,000 / £27,600,000
2007/08 - £13,200,000 / £9,500,000

SAF:

2004/05 - £20,000,000 / £3,850,000
2005/06 - £17,500,000 / £6,500,000
2006/07 - £35,600,000 / £15,200,000


Benitez:

2004/05 - £25,550,000 / £10,500,000
2005/06 - £36,900,000 / £9,500,000
2006/07 - £44,800,000 / £13,630,000
2007/08 - £22,500,000 / £19,900,000

MoN:

2006/07 - £24,650,000 / £3,050,000
2007/08 - £8,750,000 / £10,000,000
(He spent 44 MM the next season)

Mourinho:
2004/05 - £56,850,000 / £12,700,000
2005/06 - £92,400,000 / £20,800,000
2006/07 - £7,000,000 / £15,800,000
2007/08 - £13,500,000 / £6,000,000



I'll break it down even further. This is from an old Times article:

Manchester United’s total spending since the 2004-05 season : £116.1m

2007-08: £55 million

2006-07: £18.6m

2005-06: £17.5m

2004-05: £25m

Won: Premiership 1, Carling Cup 1



Chelsea’s total spending : £213.7m

2007-08: £0

2006-07: £66.3m

2005-06: £56.4m

2004-05: £91m

Won: Premiership 2, FA Cup 1, Carling Cup 2

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 7 2009, 10:45 AM

There's a difference though. Inzaghi, Sheva, Nesta and Rui probably cost up near £75m for the 4. Terry was a youth player, Lampard cost £10m, Cole cost £10m and Makelele was a bit more expensive, but it still doesn't compare to £70m-odd.


Prices in football aren't relative to inflation, you know that. The top end is the top end, regardless. Breaking the World record for £1m in 1960 is no different that breaking the World reocrd for £6m in 1990, it's just what the top footballers cost. I will agree that there are some exceptions, like what Madrid did this year, that kind of spending goes way and above the norm and I highly doubt you'll see many transfers surpass the Zidane/Figo prices like that agin.



I'm not intending to be awkward, I'm just having a little trouble understand some of these figures.

There's no way in hell Villa spent near £25m in MONs first season, no way. He joined the club very very late and only signed Petrov and Maloney on fees, the rest were free transfers. The combined fees for the 2 were only around £8m. We then signed Carew in swap with Baros and Young for £9.5m, so that works out to around £17m or so.

Onto Chelsea. In the Jose breakdown, you have him spending £92m and selling £20m worth, which would come to £72, yet on your 'further breakdown', the total spending for that year is £56m, how does that work out, or am I mising something?

=============================================================================

Overall, I do understand and agree with your point, I'm not suggesting Jose hasn't been given tonnes of money. But re-read my next to last paragraph on my previous post and you'll see what I mean. Everyone knows Jose won alot at Chelsea, but we know he was given the funds to do so too. I will add that on a spend-per-year basis, Ranieri spent more and won nothing, while Jose won an average of 2 trophies per season, so it shows it wasn't only the money, otherwise Ranieri would have won at least something. But I go back to his time at Porto, I doubt we'll see a CLass B team winning the European Cup anytime soon, UEFA thought they'd stopped that happening when they introduced the Champions League, but you can't stop Jose.

Posted by: dst Nov 7 2009, 12:29 PM

I agree with Kurt on the money issue, it does not guarantee success. I think Mourinho did an amazing job at Chelsea. His CL victory with Porto though is in my view the fluke of the century. La Coruna's and Monaco's achievements that season were bigger. (edit: I mean harder to achieve and more important but in the end it's of course the title that matters)

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 7 2009, 01:03 PM

You know I don't agree. I know Deportivo and Monaco beat some good team, but it's not like Jose had it easy. They did beat United, ironically they knocked out both Deportivo and Monaco too. I did feel sorry for Monaco that year though, after beating Chelsea and Madrid in the past 2 rounds, I thought it was going to be 'easy' for them in the Final.

Posted by: Bluesummers Nov 10 2009, 04:21 AM

what do you think of this guys, does madrid have the rights to stop him from going to the national team?

Posted by: Tennie Nov 10 2009, 04:28 AM

I think it's tacky. That said, if a Portugal NT doctor does go to Madrid and examines him and says he's fit to go and he still doesn't go, he'll face sanctions (ie, a ban). Madrid don't want to risk him getting hurt - and a player being too hurt to play for his NT isn't exactly uncommon among other teams (MU for example). Thing is, I don't think the Portuguese FA and their coach are willing to really play hardball. My guess is they'll back down (and I would be unsurprised if they were to get a nice cash gift from Florentino Perez for doing so).

Course, the joke'll be on them if they do this and Portugal don't qualify for the World Cup -- in which case they'll probably lose an awful lot on Cristiano Ronaldo jersey sales.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 10 2009, 06:22 AM

I've always wondered, how will anyone know if he's injured? I have absoloutely zero knowledge on the medical system, do they have technology which can find muscle tear or bone damage now or similar? Otherwise what if the Portuguese FA just give him a medical and say he's fine, just so he can play?

Posted by: Tennie Nov 10 2009, 08:31 AM

MRIs can show muscle tears, Kurt.

Posted by: dst Nov 13 2009, 09:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iki1-JHKbg8 It hurts when I look at it!

Posted by: mishie Nov 13 2009, 09:26 PM

oh my lord...will he ever talk the same again lol

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 13 2009, 09:27 PM

Ouch!!

It must be worse than breaking your leg... (EDIT: I just said a stupid thing, didn't I?)





(How do you how it hurts btw? does that mean you just solved the mystery of your sex? )

Posted by: mishie Nov 13 2009, 09:35 PM

good work inspector ZED!!!

Posted by: Bluesummers Nov 13 2009, 10:52 PM

Posted by: Maestro10 Nov 14 2009, 02:32 PM

If you have muscle tear you would know it. If you don't, then you must be paralyzed.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 14 2009, 04:16 PM

I know that, I'm not an idiot. But that's not what I asked. What if Madrid pay Ronaldo to say he's injured so he doesn't go and play with Portugal? Then do Portugal just have to take his word for it, even if he is actually 100% fine? That's why I wanted to know if there was a way to find out.

Posted by: dst Nov 14 2009, 05:25 PM

I disagree.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Nov 14 2009, 07:37 PM

All the time or some of the time? Either way... +1.

Posted by: MizNelson Nov 14 2009, 07:46 PM

Is it me, or are a lot of people PMSing on here lately?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 14 2009, 08:04 PM

No, it's just you.

You can't blame me, you practically walked right into that one.

Posted by: dst Nov 16 2009, 06:06 PM

Not a big enough name and not playing in a big enough team for people to care but another player has suffered a life-ending heart-attack...

http://www.goal.com/en/news/1663/mexico/2009/11/16/1627612/mexican-international-antonio-de-nigris-dies-of-heart-attack

what the **** is going on!?!? why does this keep on happening and why doesn't anybody do anything?????

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 16 2009, 06:35 PM

What do you mean?... it's always sad/shocking to hear such news.

RIP.

Posted by: MizNelson Nov 16 2009, 07:24 PM

A heart attack at 31? That's just insane. Is this a common problem among Latino men? I mean, Antonio Puerta wasn't even thirty when he died.

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 16 2009, 08:03 PM

Exactly what I wanted to say. apparently de la Red has a similar problem...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 16 2009, 08:28 PM

I agree, somebody should do something. It's crazy that nobody can stop people dying yet, WTF are medical scientists doing exactly!?

On a serious note, very sad news. This shouldn't be happening.

Posted by: Habitant Nov 16 2009, 09:24 PM

the best part is that fruit hernandes rolls around like he was hurt just as bad...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 14 2009, 01:02 AM

Sports Personality of the Year was won by Ryan Giggs.

I actually thought this was usually given to quite a deserving person. No offense to Giggs, I like him, but he started 12 games for United in the league last season and beats out World Champions like Jenson Button and David Haye? How fucking stupid. Lifetime achievment, sure, he's one of the most decorated players ever, but this is stupid!

I should just be thankful that Andy Murray didn't get it I suppose.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 21 2009, 09:18 PM

FIFpro World XI

Casillas

Alves
Vidic
Terry
Evra

Gerrard
Iniesta
Xavi

Messi
Torres
Ronaldo

Posted by: Zed.D Dec 24 2009, 08:28 AM

No Puyol? bah.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 24 2009, 09:04 AM

My first thoughts when I saw it, also.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jan 26 2010, 12:03 AM

Posted by: Tennie Jan 26 2010, 12:11 AM

I just posted the NY Times version of the story in the world cup thread since Cabanas is a big part of Paraguay's team.

Terribly, terribly sad.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 20 2010, 04:38 PM

Tommy Mooney was on Soccer AM this morning talking about his brief stay in Spain. He scored and smashed his nose in the process so had to go off and in the time he was off the opposition scored. When he came back on he asked the ref why his goal was disallowed and the ref said "You English, all you do is foul", then when he said something back to the ref he was sent off!

I can see why very few of our players ever go abroad if that's their treatment!

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Feb 20 2010, 06:51 PM

Now that's the catch ainnit?

I don't think your friend Mooney said something along the lines of , 'Oh I beg your pardon good sir, but I must insist you take that last statement back!'. In fact he probably went along the lines of what his surname seems to suggest.

Posted by: I_Rossoneri Feb 20 2010, 08:11 PM

Perhaps they don't go abroad because they aren't good enough? Saying they don't go because of the treatment one player received in one game doesn't necessarily mean anything IMO.

Posted by: Zed.D Feb 21 2010, 02:41 PM

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 24 2010, 08:09 PM

I agree he most certainly didn't say anything polite to the ref, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't either if my goals were disallowed due to my nationality. Mooney is far from 'my friend' either, I'd disallow all of his goals just for being him.


I think you'd be surprised at how big a factor nationality is. I also disagree with the 'good enough' claim, I hardly think Rooney plays in England because he isn't good enough to play for Malaga.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Feb 24 2010, 08:40 PM

That's a weird argument. Doesn't make much sense...if you bring the best players into it. I could conversely argue Zidane never played in England therefore none of the clubs in England are good enough for Zidane.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 24 2010, 09:51 PM

It's not my arguement, it's what I_Ross was suggesting. I think it's ridiculous, hencemy Rooney-Malaga comment.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Feb 24 2010, 09:55 PM

Well maybe they're not good enough could be replaced by they're not suited to.

Pennant sucks @$$ in Spain, yet he was considered average-above average in England. Sheva was God in Italy, yet he flopped miserably in England.

Santiago Munez needed asthma treatments and lots of gym work before he could even complete 90 minutes for Newcastle. He was so good in fact that they sold him to Madrid along with Gavin Harris.


Secondly, you claimed you would badmouth the ref if your goals were disallowed due to nationality....which is implying that the Spaniard never gets a goal disallowed in the La Liga. Not true.

The ref says (allegedly) "You English, all you do is foul!"...which means the goal was disallowed coz he fouled and not coz he was English. And considering the amount of English a Spaniard (or Spanish an Englishman) would know a, I can probably imagine that when he said, "You English", he meant "You Englishman".

Besides from your opinion on Mooney, I don't think he's the type whose jersey is pristine clean when he comes off the field.

Lastly, Owen and BEcks...two players who didn't have any problems with the refs in England.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 24 2010, 10:51 PM

Becks had problems wioth refs in Spain. I think the refs are the main reason to be honest, but not because they dislike a particular nationality. It's always why I don't think England will win the World Cup in my life time, we're allowed to get away with more in terms of physicality over here than we would elsewhere.

Posted by: Zed.D Feb 25 2010, 06:15 PM

Exactly what I thought.
It's "you [or 'hey'] Englishman! all you do is foul". I can imagine it being said in a friendly way even.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Mar 21 2010, 02:40 PM

Anybody know what the deal is with Juve's attendances? I was looking at some attendance figues and such and I noticed they have a lower average attendance than sha and Hull!? There's some commentary on FIFA10 that suggests the reason the fans don't go is because the stadium is horrible or something, but I just can't see that being the reason. Anyone know why? Just over 20k average is horrible for a regular CL team.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Mar 21 2010, 02:49 PM

Their performance for one. Second, they're not playing at their old stadium. It's some temporary arrangement till the new one comes up.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Mar 21 2010, 03:00 PM

Ah that makes sense. Though their poor attendance figures seem to go back a few years, even when they were in the SDA and winning titles.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Mar 21 2010, 03:05 PM

Juventus aren't the "team" of Turin. That's Torino. Juve have more supporters in the south of Italy, I think they actually had more fans at Palermo-Juventus than Juventus-Palermo this season, or something like that.

Posted by: Fishdoll Mar 21 2010, 03:23 PM

The Olimpico in Turin is a small stadium and seats...prolly not more than 30k tops anyway. And, well, what Jack said. They've got more fans outside Turin than inside.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Mar 21 2010, 03:24 PM

Posted by: Fishdoll Mar 21 2010, 03:53 PM

Oops? I'm a hungover fish, sorry Locke! Went out nightclubbing last night and only had time for a nap in my bowl before the game!

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Mar 21 2010, 05:15 PM

OOOOOOHHH!! Was the guy cute?

Posted by: Fishdoll Mar 21 2010, 08:39 PM

Sorry to disappoint you Jack, but I don't swim that way. You're mistaking me for dst.

Posted by: dst Apr 3 2010, 08:17 PM

Zidane and Enzo Francescoli are going to star in a new football-related reality show called Football Cracks... what the f___?

Posted by: Zed.D Apr 3 2010, 08:20 PM

LOL, seriously, wtf?

Posted by: dst Apr 9 2010, 10:50 PM

and you guys complain about our forwards... see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWddrYfA9uc&feature=player_embedded before you talk again!

Posted by: servbot Apr 10 2010, 03:50 AM

Safe to say I would even score there, and I've never played ANY organized football!

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 10 2010, 04:35 AM

It annoys me when I see things like that. That guy probably has an easy life with the money he makes from football yet he can't even score that..

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 13 2010, 06:31 PM

(No link, read it in the Daily Mail today)

The guy is an idiot. I think it's hilarious that he actually believes he's that good anyway. I doubt he would make my top 1,000 list. He played in a **** league and played International football at a time where all but about 10 countries were still at ametuer level. I think Jack could have scored 1,000 goals in the games Pele played!

I think he's just annoyed that an Argie at the age of 22 is better than he ever was. To say a player has to score 1,000 goals to be as good as him is stupid. Romario has done that anyway, while actually playing against opposition that play football.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 13 2010, 09:00 PM

I think Pele in Brazil was pretty much like Messi in Barca. It was such a freakishly good team. And you're just saying he's shite, since there's not a lot of videos available of him. But pundits don't just hype up a man for nothing.

Of course the fact that he's mostly mouthing crap doesn't help his case.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 13 2010, 11:07 PM

Nout to do with lack of videos. There's not an awful amount of videos of any pre-late 80s, but I'll still say Maradona or whoever else is great. It's the fact that he never proved his skills against anyone.

Some very average footballer could drop a few leagues, bang in the goals for fun year after year and then say he thinks he's the best ever because nobody scores at the rate he does. No different to what Pele did.

Posted by: dst Apr 14 2010, 09:18 AM

Kurt man... I hate Pele as much as the next guy... but he can't have been that bad... you've gone extremely biased here.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 14 2010, 05:41 PM

He can't have been anywhere near as good as people make out either. He is by far the most overrated sportsperson of all-time.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Apr 14 2010, 05:52 PM

I love you Kurt. I don't always show it but I really do.

Anyway, I can actually think of quite a number of players who I seriously believe were better than Pele... Maradona, Messi, Di Stefano, Cruyff, Baggio, Van Basten, Bergkamp and Batistuta for starters.

Posted by: Danny Apr 14 2010, 06:17 PM

Winning the world cup 3 times isn't proving your skills?



Funny how no one else ever has. Apart from Ibrahimovic.

Your view is extraordinary.

Mind you, I always considered Zidane totally over rated so my view was in the minority as well.

So I know how you feel.

Posted by: Danny Apr 14 2010, 06:19 PM

Yeah, Pele's detractors, such as Kurt, see nothing but the absolute garbage the man comes out with and automatically, and understandably stigmatise him against it as a result.

Pele is not a smart cookie, he included Diouff in his top 100 players of all time ffs.

But he was a special player and there's good reasons it's him and Maradona who vie for best ever rather than Cruyff and Maradona, or Van Basten and Maradona.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 14 2010, 08:29 PM

I also don't think a cr@p league would throw up players like Jairzinho, Tostao, Garrincha etc. It just doesn't happen.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Apr 14 2010, 08:42 PM

And what is the one thing they all have in common?

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 14 2010, 08:50 PM

They're all football frickin legends. That's what they have in common.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Apr 14 2010, 08:59 PM

That too. But theres another thing. I'll give you a hint... position.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 14 2010, 09:06 PM

Brazil has always been known for it's offensive players. I'll give you Carlos Alberto if you demand it.

Even now little has changed. Ronaldinho, Kaka, Robinho, Maicon.

It's the way the country's mindset is. As a kid learning to play football,if you're in a society worshipping it's attackers an attacker is what you want to be. Esp. since a large majority of Brazillian players hone their skills on the street and only later in an academy.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Apr 14 2010, 09:26 PM

Exactly my point. And won't you agree that in a country with that sort of mindset, it will be easier for a striker to look far better than he really is than it would in, say, Serie A.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 14 2010, 11:23 PM

Agreed.





I've gone over it a few times on here. I've watched tape and whatnot to form an opinion of International football before the mid/late-70s. I'd say the majority was ametuer, the defending was totally embarassing. Obviously Brazil had to beat other decent countries, but there were so few. It was the same dozen teams reaching the last 4 everytime the competition was played and the rest of the games were pretty much blowouts. I'm not taking away the acheivment at all, I just think scoring goals was easy, even the top nations didn't have great defenses, so a team like Brazil whod id have good attacking players found it easy.

As for his club record, like I said, anyone could go play in a crap league and bang in 1,000 goals in a 25 year period. But the fact is, they don't want to, they have ambition to play in the top leagues. Now whether Pele was told he couldn't leave Brazil or not is irrelevant, the fact is he didn't/

I think Zidane is one of the best ever, but it's just an opinion, there's no fact when it comes to judging a player so while you may be in the minority, you're just as correct as we are really.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 15 2010, 04:17 AM

Well for one, all the players I've mentioned were proven at the world cup. All of them easily beat defences of other countries as well. So it's not a pan-Brazilian phenomenon.

Secondly, even if it was just Brazil, there would still be a bunch of strikers scoring buckets of goals by your logic. And yet only these people stand out. Not to mention some of their goals are known for being simply brilliant pieces of teamwork and skill. Pele's got a few awards for most beautiful goal scored as well.

That Guti no-look backheel which people are harping about..these blokes used to do it all the time.




Brazil vs Uruguay 1970.



Brazil vs Italy 1970..

In a time when the grounds were not smooth as silk, and boots and jerseys didn't have 1030138012380129329743 billion dollars of research. When footballers were not the medical royalty of today, it's even more appreciable I think.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 15 2010, 12:55 PM

The point is, Jack, that the defenses of those days were probably no better than what you'd see at any average club. You criticise Spanish defenses now, but even average sides now are better than some of the best now. It's understandable given the training they're allowed, but it's still the case in my opinion.

Posted by: dst Apr 15 2010, 01:15 PM

You guys should relax... and laugh at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtkKEJLuADM&feature=player_embedded guy!

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 15 2010, 01:22 PM

That's just so awful.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 15 2010, 01:28 PM

First of all, you're again guessing, when you cite 'probably'. Secondly, you can only beat the team in front of you. I doubt given the same constraint under which the old teams operated in those days (bad airlines, less medical assistance, no magic spray etc, sometimes no hot water)...your current teams would perform as well.

Do you think all those crunching tackles are gonna be in vogue when you know there's no benefit of physios and magic sprays to take care of.

And by the same yardstick are you also suggesting that the England World Cup is not worth the brass/silver/cr@p it's minted out of. Since at 'that' time the competition in general was crap. They should probably tear down Bobby Charlton's statue while they're at it, and erect one of Wes Brown or something. I'm sure he was more competent.

@dst: Cute. We should sign him. He'd sell jerseys.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 15 2010, 01:43 PM

Yes, I do think that we won the World Cup in an era of poor International football. Though in Englands defense our opponents were Mexico, France, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal and West Germany. But it doesn't change the fact that defenses were poor. Hurst scored a hat-trick in a World Cup Final against one of the best Interntional defenses in the World. That would never happen now even if a very average country made the Final.

It's a Bobby Moore statue, and what did Wes Brown ever do?

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 15 2010, 01:51 PM

Sorry. Bobby Moore. Shame on me.

But exactly. Wes Brown has done nothing..except play in a much more competitive era. Therefore he has to be greater than Moore, who played in a sub-standard time against sub-standard teams.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 15 2010, 01:57 PM

Not really, my arguement was about strikers being able to score easily, not sure why you're dragging defenders into this.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Apr 15 2010, 01:57 PM

Coz you said strikers score easily, because defenders were not as good then.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 15 2010, 02:07 PM

Yes, but that doesn't autmatically mean all defenders now are better than all defenders then. It just means that players like Messi now would have no problem at all replicating what Pele did (nd much more).

Posted by: dst Apr 27 2010, 10:52 AM

Hey Kurt... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQNbjnclkss&feature=player_embedded guy too is making a fortune from football...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Apr 27 2010, 11:21 AM

That's horrible.

Malouda missed an open goal from 2 yards at the weekend as well, can't find a video though.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 27 2010, 03:16 AM

So.. the ruling to destroy football forever has been passed.

Under the new financial fair play ruling teams have to make a profit after all debt payments and transfers activities have been completely.

So it basically just gives a huge advantage to the rich clubs as they can bend the rules, their owners can just donate money to their club to put them into profit. If teams fail the test, they aren't allowed into Europe (which is where alot of lesser teams make money to compete).

I personally don't care all that much, because European competition has been a joke for nearly 2 decades now. The problem is that I support a fan friendly club and as such we make a loss every year because we don't make all that much from ticket prices, but spend big on transfers. So basically, to make Europe, we have to charge silly prices for tickets?

**** off Platini, you cancer.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow May 27 2010, 04:39 AM

Erm no...the owners can't donate money....I've obviously read a different article then.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 27 2010, 05:11 AM

No, you probably didn't, that was just an assumption I made.

They can't stop Citeh being sponsered by one of their owners other companies though for a ridiculous sponsorship deal, so the stupid rich teams will still be fine.

It's just Platini's way of keeping the big names where they are. CL teams earn more and can therefore spend more and can then make it back to the CL and repeat.

It is in conspiracy, even Scudamore had a slip of the tongue a few years back by saying having the same 4 teams make the CL every year was financially perfect for the EPL.

Posted by: Fishdoll May 27 2010, 05:17 AM

Actually Kurt, clubs like United, Real, and Liverpool may end up having a real problem now, as I understand it. I'd need to read the technical details to be sure tho. All those clubs have massive debts - United is at the point where they have to go far in the CL just to cover debt payments and even that wasn't quite enough and they sold their best player last year. Arsenal's got capital debt (they're paying off the construction of their stadium) which is a little different than owing money to banks because you got a loan to buy players (which Real did this past year).

When I'm awake and have time, I'll look at the details.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 27 2010, 05:21 AM

I thought that at first, but so long as they can pay their interest payments they're fine. The article I read was pretty much only talking about EPL clubs, but said only Chelsea of the big 4 have anything to worry about, apparently Uniteds turnover is more than enough to pay off their interest payments.

Admittedly I've only read 2 articles on it, so I will have to have a good look into it. On first impression it looks like disaster.

Posted by: Fishdoll May 27 2010, 05:22 AM

I'll take a look when I'm more awake.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow May 27 2010, 07:03 AM

This is what I read:

Posted by: Linkman May 27 2010, 10:30 AM

I'm no economist, but I think in the long term, such a reduction shouldn't have such a big impact on football as a whole. Since teams will be forced to go without debt (and of course, owner investment should be also regulated), what will happen is that things will remain as they are, but player prices and wages will be reduced considerably. If today a decent player can be worth 15-20 million euros, we will probably see similar players sold at 5 mil. Clubs will continue to sell players (in order to maintain their finances), but the buyers will no longer be up for exorbitant Madridesque prices.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 27 2010, 07:46 PM

It just goes back to what I said in the UEFA Cup thread. It's not a fans game anymore. Platini seems to be intent on making sure it's a game for the rich.

Posted by: Fishdoll May 27 2010, 07:51 PM

how do you get from clubs being forced (albeit gradually) to live within their means to compete in europe to Platini making sure it's a game for the rich?

Posted by: servbot May 27 2010, 08:13 PM

Has UEFA ever considered just having a straight salary cap for squads? It seems that would be the most simple and fair solution.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 28 2010, 02:31 AM

Because of its start point.

If you can only spend what you earn, where do you think that puts every club except for United, Cheslea, etc? They have CL football which gives them a head start on revenue, they also have a much, much bigger fan base which ultimately = more £££.

How can other teams compete? Literally the only thing they can do is push up ticket prices, it's really the only choice they have. People nowadays simply can not afford it.

He could have easily introduced a spending cap which would solve an awful lot of problems, including teams not needing to push up prices. But this is Platini we're talking about.

Posted by: Dracoris May 28 2010, 02:48 AM

I think a salary cap would've been the best option. That way you can't just buy 8 WC players b/c they will all want WC salaries, which the cap would not allow. So it indirectly causes the transfer prices to go down because teams will only have access to one Ronaldo type player. Demand for players like that goes down because of the inability to buy them, Supply would stay the same (or go down because some players who make that kind of money now would not make that kind of money and might not be considered WC anymore) and thus this means price will go down as well.

Perhaps what Platini has organized will work well also, only time will really tell.

Posted by: Fishdoll May 28 2010, 03:03 AM

You really do seem to have it in for Platini, Kurt.

I think a cap would've been a good idea but I think the EU would've quashed it (labor rules). Even if the MUs and Scousers of this world have big fanbases, they also have crushing debts so that they must go far into the CL to make their loan payments especially if bailouts are now not going to be allowed to the extent that they have been (Chelsea's really going to have an issue). Inert are really going to be hosed.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 28 2010, 03:36 AM

Yeah, a salary cap wouldn't be accepted. I don't think it's something Platini would want either, that's the impression I get from him regarding his politics.

I wouldn't say I have it in for Platini, I just have zero time for FIFA/UEFA. It just so happens I don't agree with an awful lot he wants to do.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow May 28 2010, 04:25 AM

I think even if the big clubs have 100% more revenue...they also have 100% more debts and wages to pay.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 28 2010, 04:57 AM

I think their revenue massively outweighs the debs they have to pay.

You do realise most teams in the EPL don't even make a profit BEFORE transfers? Whereas United and Chelsea have huge markets to sell into. Alot of clubs will literally have to sell every year just to break even. The EPL, at least, is going to become a CL monopoly, but one even more difficult to break into than usual.

Posted by: Fishdoll May 28 2010, 11:41 AM

Actually, Kurt, I've had a look at United's financial statements. They wouldn't have made a profit at all last season had they not sold Cristiano Ronaldo.

Posted by: kurtsimonw May 29 2010, 07:24 PM

So France will host Euro 2016.

Didn't take Platini long, did it.

Posted by: Portikins May 29 2010, 07:50 PM

Who would have thought...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jul 17 2010, 05:18 PM

http://www.capelloindex.com/en/

I hope this isn't really something he created, because some of the ratings are terrible. I had a look at the England team for the World Cup and Defoe, Wright-Phillips and Gerrard were the top 3.


=============================================================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLqtng7JadI&playnext_from=TL&videos=KkasRNOYR1o&feature=sub

And seeing as I never see it in any amazing goal compilations or anything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61_quGRN6v0&feature=related, most underrated goal from last season by a mile!

Posted by: Fishdoll Jul 17 2010, 06:53 PM

I took a look at the Capello index thingy. Not sure what to make of it just yet. The statisticians at Bocconi did a lot of calculating of different kinds of things.

(X-Off!!!!! D'you know anything about it?)

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jul 19 2010, 04:02 PM

So Blatter is a liar? Who knew.

Sepp Blatter, ruining football since 1998.

Posted by: Fishdoll Jul 19 2010, 04:05 PM

He said during the world cup that it wouldn't be on the agenda til the fall meeting, Kurt.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jul 19 2010, 04:10 PM

In an interview with Sky Sports he said it will be talked about in Wales, pointing out it'd be better to sort it out before the new season. Ban the loon from British soil.

Posted by: Fishdoll Jul 19 2010, 04:15 PM

We get that you hate him, Kurt. Really.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jul 19 2010, 04:21 PM

It's not about hating him, it's about him making little (or no, in this case) attempt to improve the game of football.

Posted by: Fishdoll Jul 23 2010, 12:23 PM

So, there's a story in L'equipe this morning about the French NT and new coach Laurent Blanc. France play a friendly against Norway on August 11 and Blanc has said he's not likely to call up ANY of the guys who went to South Africa. (Serves them all right).

Posted by: nuh Jul 23 2010, 01:37 PM

other than frey and flamini whose left

Posted by: Fishdoll Jul 23 2010, 01:46 PM

Mexes. Benzema.

Posted by: X-Offender Jul 23 2010, 01:58 PM

Yeah, Blanc should start calling Flamini back in the NT. Perhaps that will make him come to senses and stop making idiotic fouls every 5 seconds.

Posted by: Zed.D Jul 23 2010, 03:26 PM

I like Blanc but that's ridiculous. Toulalan is one I'd definitely call up. I'm still not sure if Lloris is what he is made out to be, but I wouldn't leave him out for disciplinary reasons because I don't think he has done anything wrong (was one of the few who wanted to train IINM). same for Diaby.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jul 23 2010, 04:42 PM

I hardly think the players will care about missing a friendly. If he continues not to select them, then Blanc will be out of a job before Euro 2012.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Aug 16 2010, 03:57 PM

Hmmm.

This 'no draws' thing sounds very American and I don't like it. It'd also make for very boring football with bad teams playing a 10-0-0 formation and trying to win it in a shootout.

I think having a shootout after every group game (regardless of the result) to be used as a tie-breaker instead of goal-difference if teams finish on the same points would be okay. Big no to Golden Goal.

Posted by: Dracoris Aug 16 2010, 04:18 PM

Having a shootout for the fun of it after every game would just be weird. I'd rather they just leave it alone.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Aug 16 2010, 04:36 PM

Damn I hate this guy. The whole world is shouting for video tech to be implemented, and in order to make it look like he's actually doing anything useful at all he dabbles around with stuff like this.
How many years left before we're rid of him?

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Aug 16 2010, 04:52 PM

Why would introducing penalties make any difference?! So a team like North Korea would put 11 men on their goal line and wait for 90 minutes hoping they could win on penalties!

The only way to guarantee more action and attacking displays would be to like Rugby, if a team puts say a difference of 3 goals past their opposition they get a bonus point + the usual 3 points they'd normally pick up.

Posted by: servbot Aug 16 2010, 08:33 PM

I hate the idea of making any changes to the group stage. Getting a point for a draw is just fine.

I think the Golden Goal in the knockout rounds is great though. As if the stakes in extra time weren't high enough, it just ups the ante more and would be more exciting for fans. What could be more exciting than a game ending and a team progressing/being eliminated with a goal, rather than, "OK we scored, now let's play defense/stall/fake injury/play in the corner for the last 10 minutes of extra time".

Posted by: agenth Aug 16 2010, 09:06 PM

come on... if you were threatened with jail or boot camp, wouldn't you try to defend your goal with your life, too?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Aug 17 2010, 12:01 AM

You say that now, but every football fan in the US went on for ages about the bad decisions that went against you in the WC. They ultimately didn't even mean anything either, imagine being knocked out on a golden goal that shouldn't have counted? It just gives the referee's more chance of costing a team the game.

The more the game is taken out of the refs hands, the better.

Posted by: Fishdoll Aug 17 2010, 12:36 AM

As regards Blatter's idea....I can hear the buses parking from here.

Posted by: MizNelson Aug 17 2010, 12:57 AM

If that rule is implemented, it'll kill off soccer in this country once and for all.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Aug 17 2010, 01:28 AM

I think the opposite.

The main complaints from the US regarding the sport are almost certainly:
*not enough goals/excitement (shootouts guarentee both).
*"A TIE!? THEY PLAY 90 MINUTES AND NOBODY WINS!? WTF!?" (these rules would get rid of 'ties'.)

Posted by: Dracoris Aug 17 2010, 03:54 AM

The ratio of goals to ghost goals in overtime would be so small its not even worth mentioning. I think you're a little paranoid there Kurt

If anything is to change, Golden Goal would be the only thing I'd accept, though I am fine with the way things are and would prefer it remain that way.

Posted by: Bluesummers Aug 17 2010, 05:06 AM

No it wouldn't, soccer is huge in the North America. Its by far the most funded, most played sport in North America. Here in canada, where hockey dominates, the number of participants in soccer is double that to hockey and people here don't even watch soccer.



The usa is no different. The amount of participants in soccer is more than all other sports.



North America is going to be a powerhouse for soccer in the future.

MLS is starting to take shape with more teams joining in. It has a very balanced structure that ables it to maintain the league for a long time unlike europe, which is based on how patient the banks are willing to be.

NASL and USL Premiere are adding teams as well. (Thats MLS div 2) The growth in soccer in north america is huge.


--

Posted by: Locke Lamora Aug 17 2010, 01:44 PM

Huge? They can't even spell the thing properly...

Posted by: Bluesummers Aug 17 2010, 09:05 PM

Well thats a given. They probably can't even spell barack obama properly.

Posted by: servbot Aug 17 2010, 11:33 PM

First, weren't you the one going on for ages about a bad decision going against you in the WC??

Second, what difference would it make if the goal that shouldn't have counted was a golden goal, or a goal in extra time? It's still very unlikely to comeback from it anyhow, and it would eliminate one major US-based complaint, which is the injury faking and stalling, which happens more often in extra time when someone is ahead, than in regular time.

Hockey plays just fine with a sudden death OT. It's pretty exciting knowing a match could be over at any second.



Sigh. I think you're right.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Aug 17 2010, 11:37 PM

Yes? I fail to see your point? I'm the one that doesn't want Golden Goal, I want the game out of the refs hands, so I don't see what you're getting at here.


That's pretty straightforward really. If a ref makes a horrid mistake and you go out, you're out. If he makes a horrid mistake and it's just regular ET, you've a chance to comeback at the very least.


It's a completely different sport. Plus any debatable goals are reviewed, unlike football.

Posted by: servbot Aug 18 2010, 12:01 AM

You made it sound as if complaining incessantly about refs is germane to American fans.




Well the obvious answer is to review debatable goals, no? I'm not familiar with how these things work, but IFAB (?) is reviewing this topic in October, from what I read awhile back. In the very least they will come up with a goal-line ref.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Aug 18 2010, 02:17 AM

I was just using you as an example because you were 1) for Golden goal and 2) Complained about (irrelevant) decisions that went against you. The point was, how do you think you'd feel if you actually went out because of a Golden goal or other horrible decision? It's not very nice knowing you went out of a World Cup based on the stupidity of one man, I would know.


You say it's obvious, I say it's obvious, my dog knows it's obvious. But this is FIFA were talking about, the same governing body whos head came out with "Football is better with mistakes". Obvious and logic is not something they can compute.

Posted by: MizNelson Oct 12 2010, 07:18 PM

IFFHS voted - hold your breath - St. Gigi as the top keeper of the last decade. Dida finished sixth, which to me seems fair considering how up and down he was from '05 onward.

How on earth did Barthez make the top ten, though?

1.Gianluigi Buffon
2.Iker Casillas
3.Petr Cech
4.Oliver Rolf Kahn
5.Edwin van der Sar
6.Nelson Dida
7.Jens Lehmann
8.Roberto Abbondanzieri
9.Fabien Barthez
10.Rogerio Ceni

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 12 2010, 07:46 PM

Not a bad list as it doesn't only contain players from the big clubs. Still a bit poor though.

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 12 2010, 08:48 PM

Jens Lehmann?

Posted by: Bluesummers Oct 14 2010, 09:56 AM

NO ABBIATI!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! THE GREAT ABBIATI DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THIS LIST!????/



IFFHS has lost all credibilty.

Posted by: Zed.D Oct 14 2010, 10:28 AM

Peter Cech above Kahn and VdS?! I can't agree with that!

EDIT: and I'm not sure why Toldo isn't there...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 16 2010, 11:27 PM

Oh well.

Russia 2018 it is.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 22 2010, 07:21 AM

http://www.iffhs.de/?20e22b04ff3700e46b55a76917f7370eff3702bb1c2bbb6e0f

It's a pretty terrible list.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Oct 22 2010, 09:25 AM

Scolari and Benitez above Carlo. Wenger on top??

Posted by: Bluesummers Oct 22 2010, 10:11 AM

that list is just plain stupid. I'm not going to say mourinho should be at the top but wenger? What is based on transfer market performance history?

Posted by: CHU-LIP Oct 22 2010, 10:21 AM

+1

Not even the spelling is accurate.

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 22 2010, 11:43 PM

Wenger?? OMG! The guy hasn't won sh!t in the last five years! Pathetic.

Posted by: Ry4n Oct 23 2010, 12:33 AM

Posted by: Locke Lamora Oct 23 2010, 12:42 AM

Brian Clough hasn't managed for nearly two decades sweetie.

As for the list... does anyone actually take this seriously? It's IFFHS guys...

Posted by: Bluesummers Oct 23 2010, 12:42 AM

brian clough wouldn't be included because its from 2000-2009

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 23 2010, 12:51 AM

pwned.

Posted by: Ry4n Oct 23 2010, 12:52 AM

my bad im gunna go sit in the corner of my room now later

Posted by: Ry4n Oct 23 2010, 12:52 AM

yep

Posted by: Ry4n Oct 23 2010, 01:00 AM

and hes passed away sadly

Posted by: Locke Lamora Oct 23 2010, 01:06 AM

Noticed that, did you?

Posted by: Ry4n Oct 23 2010, 01:08 AM

just thought i'd add it to the end of your text....smart ***

Posted by: Fishdoll Oct 26 2010, 11:58 AM

(from eurosport)

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 26 2010, 12:50 PM

Nooooo!

Posted by: Zed.D Oct 27 2010, 03:47 PM

So... what do you guys think about the Ballon d'Or nominations?! I'm surprised that it hasn't been discussed yet (or has it?).

I just can't wrap my head around one thing: what were the idiots at France Football thinking when they decided Milito had not done enough to be on the list?!

Ballon d'Or just lost a bit of its credibility as far as I'm concerned...

Posted by: CHU-LIP Oct 27 2010, 03:49 PM

It depends... feel bothered to share that list? I mean, if you want us to discuss it...

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 27 2010, 04:19 PM

World Player of the Year nominees:

Xabi Alonso (Spain), Daniel Alves (Brazil), Iker Casillas (Spain), Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal), Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast), Samuel Eto'o (Cameroon), Cesc Fabregas (Spain), Diego Forlan (Uruguay), Asamoah Gyan (Ghana), Andres Iniesta (Spain), Julio Cesar (Brazil), Miroslav Klose (Germany), Philipp Lahm (Germany), Maicon (Brazil), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Thomas Muller (Germany), Mesut Ozil (Germany), Carles Puyol (Spain), Arjen Robben (Holland), Bastian Schweinsteiger (Germany), Wesley Sneijder (Holland), David Villa (Spain) and Xavi (Spain).

World Coach of the Year nominees:

Carlo Ancelotti (Chelsea), Vicente del Bosque (Spain), Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester United), Pep Guardiola (Barcelona), Joachim Low (Germany), Jose Mourinho (Inter Milan/Real Madrid), Oscar Tabarez (Uruguay), Louis Van Gaal (Bayern Munich), Bert van Marwijk (Holland) and Arsene Wenger (Arsenal).

I was also surprised at the absence of Milito. I guess being benched in the Word Cup and the awful start of the season with Inter payed their part. As for the winner, I'm undecided between Sneijder and Iniesta. I think Sneijder deserves it more for what he's done this year, but the milanista part of me wants Iniesta to win. Coach of the year should go to Mourinho, no doubt.

Posted by: CHU-LIP Oct 27 2010, 04:27 PM

Too long list to leave out Milito for sure, yes. Mourinho and Sneijder IMO.

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Oct 27 2010, 05:35 PM

Yep, agree. It was Inters year.

Posted by: han2503 Oct 27 2010, 06:34 PM

I think the WC win will overshadow Inter. So it can easily be a Spanish player and Del Bosque going home with the titles

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Oct 27 2010, 06:39 PM

Which one? If it goes to a Spanish player, I just can see Iniesta or Casillas winning it.

Posted by: CHU-LIP Oct 27 2010, 06:51 PM

Mourinho won the treble though, that's really strong. Same goes for Sneijder who played also the WC final - and played a key role during the WC, that's very strong.

Posted by: Bluesummers Oct 27 2010, 09:32 PM

"Diego Maradona" Twitter Account:“I am happy your psychic octopus is gone, it's your fault we lost the World Cup,”

-twitter

Posted by: LaPalma Oct 27 2010, 09:47 PM

Classic Maradona

The award will go to a spanish player for sure. It's an unwritten rule that it goes to a World Cup winner.

Posted by: Zed.D Oct 27 2010, 09:53 PM

In that case I'd give it to Xavi...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 27 2010, 11:19 PM

Toss up between Iniesta and Villa, in my opinion. Think it'll go to Iniesta.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Oct 28 2010, 12:22 PM

In unsurprising fashion, The Sun seemingly feels England shuld just stop football altogether seeing as for the first time ever we had nobody selected for World Player of the Year.

They're putting too much stock in it really, because there's too much of an emphasis on the World Cup. Rooney was outstanding in the league, but was terrible at the World Cup. Yet a player like Klose who couldn't outscore Emile Heskey at league level last season, but because he had a few half decent World cup games, gets in the list.

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 28 2010, 02:11 PM

It looks like Paul the Octopus has been dead since 9 July, and that the Germans replaced him with a sosia when predicting the final. So, after all, it looks like Paul wasn't that much of a guesser, but simply all cephalopods are attracted to the red color.

http://www.sportmediaset.mediaset.it/calcio/articoli/articolo45413.shtml

Posted by: Zed.D Oct 29 2010, 11:37 AM

Agreed.

It's ridiculous how they completely ignored the league and CL performances (particularly) and chose the nominees based on a couple of world cup performances - especially when you think the quality level of world cup was arguably way below the CL.


I don't understand Italian and am not in the mood to google translate it. is this a conspiracy theory?

Posted by: X-Offender Oct 29 2010, 11:45 AM

Learn Italian and you'll find out.

Well, a Chinese guy is making a movie about Paul titled "Who killed octopus Paul?", and he came up with the theory that Paul has been dead since July. The Germans never told the truth because otherwise people would think that cephalopods are just attracted to the red color, and Paul didn't have any "special powers".

Posted by: CHU-LIP Oct 29 2010, 11:56 AM

Diego Maradona

Posted by: Zed.D Oct 29 2010, 11:58 AM

I will, only after I've learned French

A Chinese guy? not sure why I'd want to believe him anyway unless he comes up with good proofs. I don't think Paul had any powers. he was just a puppet doing what his owners wanted him to do. credit to the person or the team that predicted the results though!

Posted by: servbot Nov 19 2010, 06:58 PM

Worst miss of all time????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyNdt9yVugk

Posted by: William405 Nov 19 2010, 07:11 PM

Omy,what Nani did was genius with respect to that.

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 20 2010, 01:40 PM

Without a shadow of doubt thanks for sharing!

Posted by: arivanjj Nov 20 2010, 01:52 PM

wow i dont think anyone has ever had a miss that close to the goal! unbelievable stuff

Posted by: X-Offender Nov 20 2010, 04:14 PM

The miss is unbelievable, definitely the worst in football history, but what the goalkeeper did wasn't less moronic.

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 20 2010, 05:01 PM

Even the best GKs have had their moments... hell, even Casillas made a similar (well, almost!) mistake last season when we played them in the Bernabeu.

Posted by: X-Offender Nov 20 2010, 06:51 PM

Oh come on, even Dida's worst howler can't compare to what that goalie did there.

Posted by: Zed.D Nov 20 2010, 08:13 PM

Of course, but there must be a difference between Dida or Casillas and some unknown Uzbek GK!

The miss by that striker though, is unexplainable. even the biggest footballing retard should be able to score from, what was it, 1 meter from the goal line!

Posted by: kurtsimonw Nov 24 2010, 05:23 PM

Not long until the 2018 and 2022 World Cups are announced. I would be more confident, given that we have the best bud, but FIFA have already proven to be corrupt so I think it'll go to Russia.

2022 should undoubtedly go to Oz or Qatar, but it won't, because moneys involved.

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Dec 6 2010, 01:49 PM

Messi, Xavi & Iniesta for the FIFA Ballon d'Or. A sweetener for the Spanish not getting the WC perhaps? Surely Sneijder deserved to have a shout.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Dec 6 2010, 02:10 PM

I would have voted Sneijder with Xavi second. To quote the great Didier Drogba, this is a f@cking disgrace.

Posted by: dst Dec 6 2010, 03:16 PM

I think Sneijder was the best but in any case he should be among the top 3. It's funny how it's become a standard though and we just don't give too much importance on the fact that Barcelona have 3 of the top 5 players in the world!

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Dec 6 2010, 03:47 PM

Why should I? I support Milan. I've been there done that with every single player on the Ballon d'Or roster being Milanista!! MvB won that year.

Posted by: CHU-LIP Dec 6 2010, 05:26 PM

Wow, so I guess it's true you need to win the World Cup to win FIFA Ballon d'Or (edit: oh Messi of course is not Spanish, he just plays for that Spanish team). Sneijder deserved it most, if not, he should be runner up. Messi? Wtf did he do? Iniesta (oh I hate him) to win, I suppose...

Posted by: amancik Dec 6 2010, 06:05 PM

Messi scored a sh!tload amount of goals.

Posted by: CHU-LIP Dec 6 2010, 06:06 PM

I was thinking about the World Cup.

Not only Sneijder, but also Villa I miss.

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Dec 6 2010, 06:58 PM

I think people have forgotten that Barca didn't even win the CL last season, at least FIFA seem to have. Messi had a great season but in the WC he was as big of a flop as all the other superstars (and had a far superior team around him to appear good in).

Sneijder has to be up there, what with his domestic form. Inter winning the CL, and his WC performances.

Just another example of just how clueless FIFA have gotten in recent times.

Posted by: dst Dec 6 2010, 07:37 PM

this actually has nothing to do with FIFA, they do not have a say in this... but journalists are involved... and most of them are clueless anyway!

"In practical terms, the new FIFA Ballon d’Or award will represent a fusion in terms of voting procedure as well. Votes will now come from the coaches and captains of international teams – as was previously the case for the FIFA Player of the Year – and also from journalists, who used to nominate France Football's Ballon d’Or winner."

take from http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/news/newsid=1302657.html

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Dec 6 2010, 07:52 PM

FIFA still overlook it, I wouldn't put anything past them after the debacle last week. Especially as they snubbed the World/European Champions bid.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 6 2010, 11:34 PM

Yusef Ahmed should have won it, no question. Either him or Pavlyuchenko. Giving it to players from Spain or Argentina just show they only care about football and not the money, what a joke.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 7 2010, 04:10 AM

Sneijder should have definitely been in the top 3, but seeing as he's been a walking dead from September onwards, I'd give the award to Iniesta.

Posted by: Bluesummers Dec 7 2010, 06:14 AM

xavi deserves to win it. Messi won it last year.

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Dec 7 2010, 08:30 PM

The thing is the players around Sneijder both for club and country are a lot lower quality than the ones around Iniesta. I'm not doubting Iniesta, he is clearly a class player but I do think the players around them should be taken into consideration within this instance and Sneijder hardly did too badly in winning the CL and getting to the final of the WC.

The fact that he didn't get in the top 3 is a farce. I'm 110% sure he would have been in it if he was in the Barca team.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 14 2010, 10:34 PM

Mazembe 2-0 Internacional

Now that's a surprise. Let's see how Inter do tomorrow.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 18 2010, 08:13 PM

I see you were all very interested in the Club World Cup.

Posted by: CrazyMilanFan Dec 18 2010, 08:36 PM

little interest was gone after the first game

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 19 2010, 11:33 AM

It is a pretty stupid competition, I have no idea why European sides even bother turning up.

Posted by: Fishdoll Dec 19 2010, 12:47 PM

It's a trophy.

So, anyone catch Benitez's postmatch comments/ultimatum?

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Dec 19 2010, 01:20 PM

Prestige. It's not the competition, it's the title that sounds important and big.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 19 2010, 01:24 PM

No, what did he say?


Yeah, I suppose. Just seems more of an inconvenience than anything.

Posted by: Fishdoll Dec 19 2010, 01:34 PM

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/855599?cc=5901 for english translation.

This fish suspects the ultimatum will go over like a lead balloon with Moratti.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Dec 19 2010, 01:39 PM

The guy is simply unbelievable. His side, the strongest Inter side for half a century (which he is busy turning into a mid-table team), has just beaten a Congolese side and he has the nerve to set ultimatums... he demands, that's right, demands four-five new players asap, and threatens to leave if this ultimatum is not met.
It's basically Liverpool all over again: he makes a huge mess out of it, blames it on anyone but himself and the solution is always the same, he needs new players.

I can't imagine how anyone would want to hire him after this.

Posted by: Fishdoll Dec 19 2010, 01:42 PM

Indeed.

PS to Locke -- Chickens rule, donkeys drool.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 19 2010, 01:51 PM

Thanks.

I've no idea why Inter hired him, just a bad, bad coach.

Posted by: acid911 Dec 19 2010, 03:33 PM

Corrected. He's not even a coach, you'll believe this if you follow his pre-and-post match comments. The man is a stupid dud, and got really lucky winning the 2005 CL final and the world thinks he is a coach. Sure there may be worse coaches than him, but Rafa is at the very bottom of the pile when it comes to top flight football.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 19 2010, 03:52 PM

I think it's a decent competition, all the continental club winners clashing for a final global trophy. I see nothing stupid about it. Inter this season, and Milan in 2007, had quite high regards about it.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 19 2010, 04:09 PM

I just think it's a joke. For starters it affects the league schedule, it's not really a prestigious tournement, it's been going for, what, 5 years? It's not competitive and it's incredibly dull. It's just as pointless as any other similar thing like the community Sheild, Italian Super Cup, European Super Cup, etc. FIFA are just seemingly desperate to do anything to please the Eastern World lately.

I'd rather Milan not enter it or send the U18s team.

Posted by: Fishdoll Dec 19 2010, 04:21 PM

Part of it is Blatter's desier to make Fifa competitions as popular as UEFA competitions, I think. But the competition itself, in one form or another, has been around at least a couple of decades -- until a couple of years ago, it was played in Japan.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 19 2010, 04:24 PM

The competition has been going on for decades, Kurt, not five years. Only the format and name has changed. And teams aim at winning it more than any of the trophies you mentioned.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 19 2010, 04:26 PM

Yeah the Intercontinental Cup has been around for a while, between Europe and South America (which was still pointless anyway), but then to ake a new competition just to add more teams into it and try and make a big deal of it the way they're doing. Eh, I just don't see the point in it.

Not true, X-Off, it's a new competition. The Intercontinental Cup officially finished in 2004 the Club World Cup is a new competition. Which is why you will find that both the Club World Cup and Intercontinental Cup both happened in 2000 - because they aren't the same thing.

Posted by: X-Offender Dec 19 2010, 04:35 PM

On the paper, yes. But generally speaking, the Club World Cup is simply a continuation of the Intercontinental Cup. I don't care of the differences, really, as long as the winner is crowned 'Champions of the World'.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Dec 19 2010, 05:35 PM

The Donkeys did quite a job pegging back the Hunchback Zebra earlier today, I seem to recall...

Posted by: Fishdoll Dec 19 2010, 05:38 PM

They did and I awarded a cookie for their efforts! The chickens didn't exactly do badly, playing 10 men for most of the game and drawing against the men in pink.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 23 2010, 10:44 AM

(quoted here as to not go OT in the Leo thread)

I think Jose is right and this is why individual awards are both stupid and full of bias, always have been.

VDB getting Spain to win 7 games is better than Jose getting Inter to win 3 trophies spanning over 60 games? Yeah, okay. This isn't me being bias towards Jose, any coach that wins the treble has to get the award and this goes for any team in any league.

Posted by: dst Dec 23 2010, 09:16 PM

I agree and besides any current Spain NT coach has the best midfield in the world ready for him as a gift from Barcelona (the irony) while JM created his own team at Inter to win what he did.

Posted by: Brian Birkin Dec 25 2010, 01:14 AM

I believe there is an importance in the world cup, not the least for being crowned world champions, it also presents the time to play against teams and in locations that is rare. I believe the purpose has always been the same with the cup, to crown a world champion, even back when only 2 continental teams participated.

about Mourinho, did he ever become allenatore dell'anno in Serie A? i know Allegri got the award two seasons. Mourinho is often mentioned, but he has not yet won the world cup (for club and national team) and he has yet to win the european super cup.


it is now official, the new manager of inter. is he "cazzo" now? on bright side, Real Madrid report that Kaká door to inter is closed.

http://www.milannews.it/?action=read&idnotizia=41607

http://www.milannews.it/?action=read&idnotizia=41581

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 25 2010, 10:17 AM

Jose has never even managed in a WC or CWC, the latter and the ESC are glorified friendlies anyway. I'd rather win the domestic league cup or EUFA Cup.

Posted by: Brian Birkin Dec 26 2010, 02:40 AM

Yeah you are right, he has not, but he has had the chance to do it twice, with Porto and with Inter, but he chose to leave. My point is that he has not won everything. Will he ever be manager of a country? I do not know, but he has never won that world cup yet either.

I heard that when Boca Juniors lose against us 2007, the players cry, why would do that if it is bad cup?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Dec 26 2010, 11:03 AM

It certainly means more to South American clubs. In the same way that the UEFA Super Cup means more to the UEFA Cup winner than the European Cup winner. The lesser team wants to prove something.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Dec 26 2010, 04:15 PM

I don't think it's as black and white as people here make it out to be. The Club World Cup is certainly not a trophy you plan your whole season around, but after traveling all the way to Japan/Dubai, you'll want to win the thing. I think it was Pirlo who said that before the 2003 CWC, the Milan squad were talking about how it was all for a Mickey Mouse cup that no-one cared about, but when they lost the final on penalties it hurt like hell.

When you're there, facing off against another world-famous team for a trophy you may only get one chance to compete for, I think every player will do his best.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jan 11 2011, 06:28 AM

Messi wins Ballon d'Or. Mourinho wins coach of the year. Altintop wins goal of the year.

Posted by: Jack Bauer Jan 11 2011, 10:10 PM

Too bad, I wanted Xavi to win. Always liked him.

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Jan 11 2011, 11:23 PM

Who doesn't? Hell of a player.

Posted by: X-Offender Jan 12 2011, 12:49 AM

I guess nobody saw Messi winning it. Twice in a row, quite an achievement for a 23 year old.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Jan 12 2011, 04:54 AM

Platini again trying to push through the 'no debt' thing. While his intentions are good, it'll hurt football more than help it in the long run.

At the moment, teams that have rich owners have an unfair advantage over other clubs, which is fair enough, I agree with it. But the 'no debt' thing gives an unfair advantage to CL teams and big City teams. I've heard clubs earn around £20m for making the CL, so how the hell are teams meant to compete with that? It'll just mean the same teams qualify for the CL every year, especially if those clubs are big City teams and are likely to get more fans/sell more merchandise.

I think what the higher ups need to understand is that football is a losing business, teams rarely ever make a profit, so what's he going to do? Ban everyone from Europe?

I think football somewhat needs wreckless spenders to break the status quo. Look at City and Spurs in England, due to them spending a combined total of around £800m in the last half decade or so, they've broken the regular top 4 and it at least means there's changes near the top.

Look at leagues like Scotland and Spain now, do they honestly think it'll help? Rangers/Celtic/Madrid/Barca are easily the most supported clubs with the biggest income, plus CL money to boot. It'll just ensure nobody can compete with them if nobody else in the league is allowed to spend.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 12:12 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12355022

Not good. Easier to watch games - smaller tv deals - less money clubs - even lower attendances for clubs - very, very bad for football. Isn't the EU great? It's done nothing but destroy our country from day 1 and now it threatens to ruin our football! Yay!

Posted by: acid911 Feb 4 2011, 12:25 PM

But then again, that's always the case with unions. Rich and powerful countries will be at a loss one way or another most of the time. Not just England but any big country in Europe, they'll have to give much and expect less. And it is to be expected, whether it be football matters of financial.

Posted by: dst Feb 4 2011, 01:58 PM

Yes everyone is ruined... the world is ending...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 02:01 PM

If it means the end of the EU, good.

Posted by: dst Feb 4 2011, 02:16 PM

not just good, that would be great! the moment the EU is broken up everything will be fixed.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 02:22 PM

Does that mean Andy Murray will just disappear?

Posted by: dst Feb 4 2011, 02:25 PM

no, better, everyone will get to start their day by punching him in the face!

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Feb 4 2011, 02:46 PM

What are you two talking about? Are you serious?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 02:47 PM

Andy Murray disappearing? Not serious, though it'd be nice.

The end of the EU? I'd struggle to think of many better things that could happen to Europe.

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Feb 4 2011, 02:51 PM

Wait...you mean Britain...no...Europe...Britain...huh?
Oh, now I got it. You mean Great Britain! Like 4 centuries of world dominance wasn't enough, ha?

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 03:02 PM

Sorry, I don't follow?

I don't want Britain in the EU. I really don't see how that translates to me wanting Britain to have World domination.

Posted by: dst Feb 4 2011, 03:10 PM

Shut up man, you're obviously a megalomaniac thinking of world domination, it's clear.

and you're racist!

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Feb 4 2011, 03:42 PM

Well why should any of us pay legally for the Sky TV package, I know loads of people with dodgy cards, foreign satellite, I was under the pretence that was illegal in this country.

Well there's no chance that anyone watching foreign streams should be punished anymore.

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Feb 4 2011, 11:11 PM

Well, why wouldn't Britain pay the price once; I don't think the EU alone is a failiure. There are countries who belive in the EU, and who obviously prosper from it. Why not grant them the chance, even if it means France, Britain or Germany suffering a bit more?

One of the biggest british issues are the politicians. Ever since Ms. Thatcher there's been no qualified PM.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 4 2011, 11:36 PM

This is exactly why I don't want us in the EU. Why the heck should we suffer as a country? Madness, as before I'm just so thankful people here saw sense and voted against the Euro. At least we have a little distance from this joke.

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Feb 5 2011, 12:20 AM

Even if it helps others?

Posted by: Locke Lamora Feb 5 2011, 12:40 AM

Does it now, really? Last time I checked the UK has quite enough problems to deal with already without having to shoulder the burdens of the rest of the continent.

Posted by: Rossoneri7 Feb 5 2011, 02:17 AM

huh

And who said South American teams are second class ? They are not as rich as European, but they have teams oozing raw talent that could walk through any major European league.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 5 2011, 02:27 AM

I can't agree. I'm not getting into this again though. I think the top European leagues are far better than any leagues in the Americas, I'm sure others disagree.

Posted by: Rossoneri7 Feb 5 2011, 02:39 AM

Thank you

Posted by: X-Offender Feb 8 2011, 02:57 PM

http://dailymotion.virgilio.it/video/xgxay3_l-abbaglio-piu-incredibile-preso-da-un-arbitro_fun#from=embed

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 9 2011, 03:57 AM

Thiago Motta called up for Italy and will make his debut against Germany.

I would usually go down the 'he is not Italian!' route, but that doesn't matter. He's already had 2 caps for the full Brazilian team, how can he now go and play for Italy?

The past 12 months have really begun to put me off International football in a huge way. It's just becoming a joke.

Posted by: X-Offender Feb 9 2011, 04:24 AM

I think his parents have some Italian ties, or something like that. In fact, I think he's had an Italian passport for a long time. But yeah, the guy was born and raised in Brazil, and then developed his football career in Spain, at Barcelona. I don't really count him as an Italian.

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 9 2011, 02:30 PM

That isn't even my main issue with it to be honest, it's the fact that he's already played International football with a different country.

Posted by: Zed.D Feb 9 2011, 03:19 PM

Are you 100% sure about his full Brazil caps?! maybe they were unofficial friendlies or something and that doesn't count?


Wow...

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 9 2011, 07:36 PM

I think I read they were in the North American championships where Brazil were an invited team, so they were definitely in competitive games. I presume it's the North American equivilent of the Euros/Copa America?

Posted by: Fillipo Simone Feb 9 2011, 08:33 PM

It's a complete disgrace.

Posted by: TriniKing_CE Feb 10 2011, 12:42 AM

It was in the Concacaf | Gold Cup competition.

FIFA excuse is that Brazil's entire team was 23 and under (despite the rules admitting full string NTs)

No one told Brazil to pick an U-23 side!

Posted by: kurtsimonw Feb 10 2011, 01:02 AM

That's pathetic, even for FIFA.

It's a full International competition, therefore a full International cap. FIFA just making things up as they go along, surprise, surprise.

Posted by: X-Offender Feb 10 2011, 01:14 AM

Another episode of Kurt vs. FIFA-UEFA.

Posted by: Locke Lamora Feb 10 2011, 01:16 AM

So... the logic is that a U-23 player doesn't really have a nationality? In that case I say let's fork out some of that oil money and get Müller, Khedira, özil and Agüero. EURO 2012 here we come!

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Feb 10 2011, 01:19 AM

Is a bit of a joke.

International football has more transfers than domestic football these days.

Posted by: Rossoneri7 Feb 10 2011, 12:22 PM

Yeah ... Did you know 80% of Qatar's NT players are imported

Posted by: Milan Are Brilliant Feb 14 2011, 07:39 AM

So I'm hearing Ronaldo has retired, and I'm not talking about the spice boy.

Posted by: Jack Bauer Feb 14 2011, 08:07 AM

He's going to announce it today.

Posted by: acid911 Feb 14 2011, 11:59 AM

Oh my. The last of my "Favorite Five!"

Posted by: X-Offender Mar 15 2011, 11:51 PM

Guys, I'm looking for a link with the most popular football clubs in the world. I've been searching Google but I can't find anything. Anyone can help?

Posted by: acid911 Mar 16 2011, 05:19 AM

Well the reason for that is because no one has done a survey of this sorts, at least none that I know of. And whoever did this will probably pool a lot of different statistics together. I fail to see a group/company doing a worldwide survey in hundreds of millions across the world to determine the most popular football club. Well maybe FIFA/UEFA but that too does not seem likely any time soon. One way to gauge the popularity is check out the revenue of a club, generally the higher the sales from shirts/merchandise/tickets, even sponsorships and TV rights, the more popular a club is. And then there is the techy side of things. How many visitors the club's official website pulls from across the world. This link should get you started:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=197954

Most links you will find are plain old fans babbling and squabbling. Ask any Roma fan and he will say that his club makes the cut when it comes to top 10 global fan base. When in reality it will probably find it hard to make the top 20. The big ones are given, of course, the ones at the very top (with Milan included), just check the link above to get a bit of an idea. And keep searching.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Mar 16 2011, 06:03 AM

Newcastle. Even the japanese are screaming our name.

Posted by: X-Offender Mar 16 2011, 02:47 PM

Thanks for the effort, acid.

Posted by: acid911 Mar 16 2011, 03:08 PM

Thank yous on a postcard, please! Seriously, though, don't mention it. Glad to be of help.

Posted by: Zed.D Mar 30 2011, 10:43 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog/dirty-tackle/post/Colombian-fans-took-a-dead-body-to-football-matc;_ylt=AjiSzksc2VkWkwiwWOhD2r8mw7YF?urn=sow-wp375


What a strange country Colombia is!

Posted by: Jack Sparrow Mar 30 2011, 11:00 AM

Must have been his last wishes or something? Or maybe...it's just an empty coffin.

Posted by: acid911 Mar 30 2011, 11:20 AM

Um, weird?

Posted by: d'Arc.LP Mar 30 2011, 02:54 PM

A 17-year-old fan of Colombian side Cucuta Deportivo was shot dead while playing in a neighborhood park on Saturday -- allegedly by hired assassins. So on Sunday, his fellow members of the Barra del Indio fan group took a coffin supposedly filled with his corpse to the club's match against Envigado.

Posted by: CHU-LIP Mar 30 2011, 03:38 PM

Supposedly? So not necessary true?