Until the top clubs in Europe get together and form a continent-wide super league (shudder!), the closest they can get to performing competitively on a global scale is with the Champions League. The four English, and one Scottish, clubs in this year's tournament are all in action either today or tomorrow.
Given the domination of the English clubs in recent years, and not to mention the money involved, they are all expected to win. By me, anyway. Man Utd should dispatch Aalborg in Denmark without too much hassle, though Arsenal may have to grind out a result against Porto the Emirates Stadium. Liverpool should beat PSV Eindhoven at Anfield, while Chelsea should have a productive time in Romania against CFR Cluj.
Of the five teams, only Celtic start as a the clear underdogs. Villarreal are currently top of the Spanish league and Celtic have had an indifferent start to the season. Gordon Strachan has done well to lead the side to the last-16 of the Champions League for two successive seasons (something never achieved by Martin O'Neill, incidentally), but the opening 0-0 draw against Aalborg at Parkhead means Celtic will have to do the unexpected and actually win some points away from hom!
All of the money is in the Champions League, to an extent, and there is a massive audience for nearly all of the games. Although some, shall we say, mercenary players probably trot out the "I moved to Club X as they offered Champions League football" instead of admitting it was for the cash - something CL clubs generally have more of! The great gap in England has also been created by the same four clubs qualifying for a few years - reaching the CL means cash, cash means reaching the CL, and the cycle continues.
What is interesting, in this meandering and possibly fairly pointless post, is the comparison between the old European Cup format and the current Champions League format. One criticism often levied is "but they aren't all champions" and "in a league system teams can lose and still go through". Well, that's quite correct, and the name should be changed. But it's still a far, far stronger tournament than it was in the days of two-legged knock-outs.
For if only domestic champions were allowed in the Champions League, it would be far less competitive. Liverpool, for instance, may have been well off the pace in the Premier League but are arguably better than any other domestic champions outside of Spain and Italy. That three English teams reached last season's semi-finals, and two contested the final, suggests that.
And does anyone really want a tournament where, in one group, are the champions of England, France, Iceland and Georgia? The English and French clubs would progress, and the only vaguely interesting matches would be two between the top two, which would determine which club would finish first and second.
However, I should stress that I don't think the Champions League is ideal and the amount of money involved is ruining the game. But it's not worth trying to fight the inevitable. Because of the cash involved, the only teams who can compete domestically are the ones in the Champions League and it would take oil rich multi-billionaires throwing cash around to disrupt the current top-four in England.
Oh, wait a minute...!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Spurs a crisis club - who next?
Of the 20 clubs in the Premier League, it seemed unlikely not too long ago that Spurs would be the next one to be handed the moniker "crisis club" - but that tag is now appearing in headlines with increasing frequency.
According to an article in today's Mirror, striker Roman Pavlyuchenko is just one of a number of players to have become dissatisfied with Juande Ramos's management at White Hart Lane. The article goes as far as claiming Spurs are "in danger of losing" the player as Ramos's "chaotic reign lurches into crisis".
Pavlyuchenko was quoted as saying: "I talked to our coach about it and I even visited him at his house. I asked him what I had done wrong, why I had been substituted. He said it wasn’t because I hadn’t been playing well enough, it was just a decision to change tactics. He told me not to bother my head with stuff like that."
Spurs are no strangers to managerial mistakes, though. The nine-month spell Christian Gross had in the hot-seat 10-or-so years ago still brings a wry grin to the lips of those who remember its farcical nature. Even so, the situation Spurs are now in is far more serious.
For no team is too good to be relegated. It's hard to imagine Spurs going down - they are one of only a few ever-present Premier League teams - and even harder to imagine Ramos will be allowed to stay beyond Christmas if things don't improve soon.
However, as with Newcastle there is no doubt Spurs have the infrastructure to shoot up the table - let's not forget, it was only a few seasons ago where they went into the last game as the favourites to finish fourth and claim a Champions League place, then literally sh*t themselves.
What is clear, though, is the problems at Spurs need to be looked at closely. For if a team who look so strong can suddenly collapse to the bottom of the table for no real reason, then "weaker" teams with more shaky foundations are in even more danger.
And the longer Spurs spend floundering around the lower reaches, the harder it will be for them to catch up with teams they should be outperforming - such as Portsmouth and Aston Villa. They can also forget trying to reach the level of Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and, sooner or later, Man City, too...
According to an article in today's Mirror, striker Roman Pavlyuchenko is just one of a number of players to have become dissatisfied with Juande Ramos's management at White Hart Lane. The article goes as far as claiming Spurs are "in danger of losing" the player as Ramos's "chaotic reign lurches into crisis".
Pavlyuchenko was quoted as saying: "I talked to our coach about it and I even visited him at his house. I asked him what I had done wrong, why I had been substituted. He said it wasn’t because I hadn’t been playing well enough, it was just a decision to change tactics. He told me not to bother my head with stuff like that."
Spurs are no strangers to managerial mistakes, though. The nine-month spell Christian Gross had in the hot-seat 10-or-so years ago still brings a wry grin to the lips of those who remember its farcical nature. Even so, the situation Spurs are now in is far more serious.
For no team is too good to be relegated. It's hard to imagine Spurs going down - they are one of only a few ever-present Premier League teams - and even harder to imagine Ramos will be allowed to stay beyond Christmas if things don't improve soon.
However, as with Newcastle there is no doubt Spurs have the infrastructure to shoot up the table - let's not forget, it was only a few seasons ago where they went into the last game as the favourites to finish fourth and claim a Champions League place, then literally sh*t themselves.
What is clear, though, is the problems at Spurs need to be looked at closely. For if a team who look so strong can suddenly collapse to the bottom of the table for no real reason, then "weaker" teams with more shaky foundations are in even more danger.
And the longer Spurs spend floundering around the lower reaches, the harder it will be for them to catch up with teams they should be outperforming - such as Portsmouth and Aston Villa. They can also forget trying to reach the level of Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and, sooner or later, Man City, too...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Nigerian group submit Newcastle bid
BBC Sport are reporting that the Nigerian consortium linked with buying-out Newcastle have now submitted a bid. If true, it shows how fast things can move in the world of Premier League football!
According to the report, the bid was placed on Friday (Sep 26) evening and is the only one currently on the table - although several other parties are thought to be interested in buying the club from the disenchanted, and under-fire, Mike Ashley.
It's not clear quite how much cash the Nigerian's have, though it's clearly nowhere near the amount available to Manchester City (though they are arguably the richest club on the planet, so that's not surprising!). Earlier reports have suggested a bid in the region of £350million.
Chris Nathaniel, the UK businessman fronting the bid, stressed a lot of work needs to be done on the club's infrastructure and the secret bidders do not want to blow all their money on the purchase and have nothing left to finance other areas, such as transfers.
When asked how much the bid was for, Nathaniel told the BBC: "We can't at this stage, that's confidential between ourselves and Newcastle, but a bid was put in on Friday evening. There's been no timeline given by Newcastle but we hope it will be sometime soon.
"What they don't want to do is spend a load of money to buy the club and have no money to buy players and to work on what is a quite a troubled infrastructure."
Newcastle declined to comment and the identity of the Nigerian bidders remains top-secret. This may just be the opening shot in a bidding war, but at least (for non-Newcastle fans, that is) this group do not seem to have enough cash to buy anything more than a couple of league places.
However, as I mentioned earlier, Newcastle remain an attractive target for potential investors and, given the current football climate, it would be no surprise whatsoever if another, far, far richer group now step forward and show their hand.
According to the report, the bid was placed on Friday (Sep 26) evening and is the only one currently on the table - although several other parties are thought to be interested in buying the club from the disenchanted, and under-fire, Mike Ashley.
It's not clear quite how much cash the Nigerian's have, though it's clearly nowhere near the amount available to Manchester City (though they are arguably the richest club on the planet, so that's not surprising!). Earlier reports have suggested a bid in the region of £350million.
Chris Nathaniel, the UK businessman fronting the bid, stressed a lot of work needs to be done on the club's infrastructure and the secret bidders do not want to blow all their money on the purchase and have nothing left to finance other areas, such as transfers.
When asked how much the bid was for, Nathaniel told the BBC: "We can't at this stage, that's confidential between ourselves and Newcastle, but a bid was put in on Friday evening. There's been no timeline given by Newcastle but we hope it will be sometime soon.
"What they don't want to do is spend a load of money to buy the club and have no money to buy players and to work on what is a quite a troubled infrastructure."
Newcastle declined to comment and the identity of the Nigerian bidders remains top-secret. This may just be the opening shot in a bidding war, but at least (for non-Newcastle fans, that is) this group do not seem to have enough cash to buy anything more than a couple of league places.
However, as I mentioned earlier, Newcastle remain an attractive target for potential investors and, given the current football climate, it would be no surprise whatsoever if another, far, far richer group now step forward and show their hand.
There's no point in hating Man City
Graham Fisher has penned an interesting blog entry over at 4sportsake.com, where he admits to hating Chelsea following their takeover by Roman Abramovich, but having no such feelings about Manchester City.
It's an interesting thought. Perhaps, without wanting to put words into somebody's mouth (or should that be without forcing their fingers towards a keyboard?), it may be because the Chelsea takeover was the first mega-money takeover and those that have followed have been caused by the first.
Sure, takeovers are nothing new. But the Chelsea deal marked the first time somebody came along with the attitude of "hey, I'm a billionaire, I don't care about making a profit, let's get some trophies in any way we can". And, of course, Chelsea and Roman achieved their aim..
Those who own Man City clearly have far more cash than Roman - though when it comes to these sorts of sums, does comparing bank balances really make any difference? Probably not, as their modus operandi appear to be similar - ie spend, spend, spend, win, win, win!
Other traditionalists may not even hold anything against Roman and Chelsea. For it is quite possible to point towards the Sky takeover of English top-flight football - for that's what it was, for all intents - and argue the door had already been opened at that point for the mega-money men.
As soon as the Premier League, backed by Sky (or is that "controlled"?), offered a platform for the super-rich to get one over other super-rich people, and on a global scale, it was only a matter of time before it was exploited. They buy bigger and bigger yachts, give more and more money to charity, do whatever they want to win a big-money piddling contest, and football club ownership is just the current fad.
So is it worth hating Man City? Is it worth hating Chelsea? There are probably reasons to do so, but few have anything to do with money. If they remained the same clubs they were 10-15 years ago, there is no doubt two other teams would be in their position.
From a sports entertainment viewpoint, something top-flight football has been for years, it will certainly be interesting to see how much damage the two clubs, and their owners, do to each other during the upcoming few transfer windows. Interesting until it leads to the death of football, of course...
It's an interesting thought. Perhaps, without wanting to put words into somebody's mouth (or should that be without forcing their fingers towards a keyboard?), it may be because the Chelsea takeover was the first mega-money takeover and those that have followed have been caused by the first.
Sure, takeovers are nothing new. But the Chelsea deal marked the first time somebody came along with the attitude of "hey, I'm a billionaire, I don't care about making a profit, let's get some trophies in any way we can". And, of course, Chelsea and Roman achieved their aim..
Those who own Man City clearly have far more cash than Roman - though when it comes to these sorts of sums, does comparing bank balances really make any difference? Probably not, as their modus operandi appear to be similar - ie spend, spend, spend, win, win, win!
Other traditionalists may not even hold anything against Roman and Chelsea. For it is quite possible to point towards the Sky takeover of English top-flight football - for that's what it was, for all intents - and argue the door had already been opened at that point for the mega-money men.
As soon as the Premier League, backed by Sky (or is that "controlled"?), offered a platform for the super-rich to get one over other super-rich people, and on a global scale, it was only a matter of time before it was exploited. They buy bigger and bigger yachts, give more and more money to charity, do whatever they want to win a big-money piddling contest, and football club ownership is just the current fad.
So is it worth hating Man City? Is it worth hating Chelsea? There are probably reasons to do so, but few have anything to do with money. If they remained the same clubs they were 10-15 years ago, there is no doubt two other teams would be in their position.
From a sports entertainment viewpoint, something top-flight football has been for years, it will certainly be interesting to see how much damage the two clubs, and their owners, do to each other during the upcoming few transfer windows. Interesting until it leads to the death of football, of course...
What's best for Newcastle?
What more can be said about Newcastle United? Probably quite a lot! While they are struggling and have become something of a joke, the situation at St James' Park is no laughing matter, as they will not be the last team to suffer.
Newcastle, for too many years, overspent in order to try and compete with the so-called "big boys". They have a massive, rabid fanbase of truly knowledgeable football lovers (which is a good thing, no doubt about) but have seemingly lacked restraint in terms of spending money.
It's understandable, football is in a boom period and has been for some time. So why not throw cash around in order to try and please your fans - they do, after all, deserve some sort of success. Sadly, though, the boom in football appears to be skewed and now the divide between sections of the Premier League is more pronounced than ever.
But what does the future hold for Newcastle? Can they recover and go on to actually achieve something in the modern game (not a dig, it's proven by the trophy cabinet!)? I honestly think they can - but it won't be in a way I could approve of.
When the Middle Eastern billionaires, or trillionaires, took over Manchester City, they did so after reportedly considering a move for Newcastle or Arsenal.The story goes that Arsenal didn't want to sell and the super-rich group opted for Man City. That Newcastle were mentioned is not surprising - and logic suggests there will be other interested parties out there.
Now, a takeover of Newcastle by a group with mega-money would turn the club into a true footballing force far easier than the Man City "project". Newcastle, as mentioned, have the fanbase, the stadium and - crucially - a proven track record in attracting decent players to the club.
Man City have the stadium, decent fans (full credit to the tens fo thousands who turned out to back them in the third-tier not too long ago) but they lack the proven track record in signing top players. Hence having to throw silly money around in the summer, a pattern that will surely increase until enough mercenaries improve their reputation.
Newcastle, may I be so bold as to suggest, would be genuine top-four challengers very soon after such a takeover (a hypothetical one, of course) and could go all the way. When Liverpool are taken over by Sheikh Mohammed, or a consortium, they will be poised to go all the way. Man City, when things settle, will potentially be able to go all the way.
So, as things stand, it's feasibly that within two or three years, Newcastle, Man City, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea (Arsenal are a puzzler) could all be challenging for the title. It would be wide open, albeit a fake version of football driven by billions and billions.
The only question is whether an owner would want to buy into Newcastle when four other teams are already challenging. For once a group of five mega-money teams start competing, there will be no way back for football. A sporting and spending Cold War will have begun.
So what is really best for Newcastle? Their fans would surely disagree, but I would suggest relegation. Spend a few years in the Championship while the money in the Premier League causes an explosion - then Newcastle will be perfectly placed, with their deserving fanbase - to stroll back and dominate, unaffected by the top-flight fiasco.
Newcastle, for too many years, overspent in order to try and compete with the so-called "big boys". They have a massive, rabid fanbase of truly knowledgeable football lovers (which is a good thing, no doubt about) but have seemingly lacked restraint in terms of spending money.
It's understandable, football is in a boom period and has been for some time. So why not throw cash around in order to try and please your fans - they do, after all, deserve some sort of success. Sadly, though, the boom in football appears to be skewed and now the divide between sections of the Premier League is more pronounced than ever.
But what does the future hold for Newcastle? Can they recover and go on to actually achieve something in the modern game (not a dig, it's proven by the trophy cabinet!)? I honestly think they can - but it won't be in a way I could approve of.
When the Middle Eastern billionaires, or trillionaires, took over Manchester City, they did so after reportedly considering a move for Newcastle or Arsenal.The story goes that Arsenal didn't want to sell and the super-rich group opted for Man City. That Newcastle were mentioned is not surprising - and logic suggests there will be other interested parties out there.
Now, a takeover of Newcastle by a group with mega-money would turn the club into a true footballing force far easier than the Man City "project". Newcastle, as mentioned, have the fanbase, the stadium and - crucially - a proven track record in attracting decent players to the club.
Man City have the stadium, decent fans (full credit to the tens fo thousands who turned out to back them in the third-tier not too long ago) but they lack the proven track record in signing top players. Hence having to throw silly money around in the summer, a pattern that will surely increase until enough mercenaries improve their reputation.
Newcastle, may I be so bold as to suggest, would be genuine top-four challengers very soon after such a takeover (a hypothetical one, of course) and could go all the way. When Liverpool are taken over by Sheikh Mohammed, or a consortium, they will be poised to go all the way. Man City, when things settle, will potentially be able to go all the way.
So, as things stand, it's feasibly that within two or three years, Newcastle, Man City, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea (Arsenal are a puzzler) could all be challenging for the title. It would be wide open, albeit a fake version of football driven by billions and billions.
The only question is whether an owner would want to buy into Newcastle when four other teams are already challenging. For once a group of five mega-money teams start competing, there will be no way back for football. A sporting and spending Cold War will have begun.
So what is really best for Newcastle? Their fans would surely disagree, but I would suggest relegation. Spend a few years in the Championship while the money in the Premier League causes an explosion - then Newcastle will be perfectly placed, with their deserving fanbase - to stroll back and dominate, unaffected by the top-flight fiasco.
Aston Villa: Football's best PR spinners?
Aston Villa must have one of the greatest bullsh...erm, public relations machines in the Premier League. Just a few days after only 21,541 turned out to see them humbled by QPR in the League Cup, striker John Carew has been wheeled out to praise the fans!
There is something disturbing about the system at Villa Park. It's understandable that boss Martin O'Neill has managed to make people believe he is better than he is - his media whoring has caused that - but that fans of such a traditional club fail to realise they have sold out to American gold is puzzling.
As for Carew and his words (presumably the words of the PR team, players don't actually say their own words these days - and that goes for any top-flight team), Villa appear to have turned into American wrestling of a while back, by using the logic "if we don't mention the past, it didn't happen!"
There is, of course, the chance Villa have decided to use the article on their official site to the fans who stayed away from the QPR game - perhaps even suggesting it was the fans fault the Championship side emerged victorious, and not the disinterest of the players or the tactical ineptitude of the manager.
Carew (well, it's in his name!) said: "There's nothing better than a packed Villa Park cheering us on. The players are going to need all the support they can get this season with Villa striving for success in a number of competitions."
So if that part of the article is intended as a dig at Villa fans, then I take my hat off and salute the Villa Spinners. And, incidentally, I would agree with them - real football fans don't pick and choose their games and it wouldn't happen with real (ie lower league) football clubs to such an extent.
There are still real fans left in the English Premier League, but a quick comparison of Villa's previous league attendance to the QPR debacle suggests they only account for around 50 per cent of those who attend matches - and it will be that hardcore who suffer the most when football explodes and dies.
There is something disturbing about the system at Villa Park. It's understandable that boss Martin O'Neill has managed to make people believe he is better than he is - his media whoring has caused that - but that fans of such a traditional club fail to realise they have sold out to American gold is puzzling.
As for Carew and his words (presumably the words of the PR team, players don't actually say their own words these days - and that goes for any top-flight team), Villa appear to have turned into American wrestling of a while back, by using the logic "if we don't mention the past, it didn't happen!"
There is, of course, the chance Villa have decided to use the article on their official site to the fans who stayed away from the QPR game - perhaps even suggesting it was the fans fault the Championship side emerged victorious, and not the disinterest of the players or the tactical ineptitude of the manager.
Carew (well, it's in his name!) said: "There's nothing better than a packed Villa Park cheering us on. The players are going to need all the support they can get this season with Villa striving for success in a number of competitions."
So if that part of the article is intended as a dig at Villa fans, then I take my hat off and salute the Villa Spinners. And, incidentally, I would agree with them - real football fans don't pick and choose their games and it wouldn't happen with real (ie lower league) football clubs to such an extent.
There are still real fans left in the English Premier League, but a quick comparison of Villa's previous league attendance to the QPR debacle suggests they only account for around 50 per cent of those who attend matches - and it will be that hardcore who suffer the most when football explodes and dies.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Well done East Stirling - a real team!
With all the money floating around at the top of football, and the very really danger the game will (at the top-flight, at least) disappear up its own backside sooner than later, it's easy to forget there are real teams and real players trying to ply their trade at the lower levels.
East Stirlingshire, of the Scottish Third Division, are one great example. They huff and puff every week, but are usually on the wrong end of the result. Their players, who may not even be paid enough to buy a round of drinks, are not household names and they certainly don't earn millions of pounds a year in sponsorship.
But East Stirlingshire are no less a team than Manchester United. And Colin Cramb is no less a footballer than, for example, Cristiano Ronaldo. The fans who watch the team - there were 352 yesterday - are arguably far more "real" football fans than those who watch the so-called "big" teams.
Thankfully, those 352 fans (okay, perhaps a handful were watching the other team) were given a treat yesterday as East Stirling thwacked Elgin City 5-2. The fans deserved such a game, as did the players and everyone associated with the club.
And while few people who don't follow the Scottish Third Division will really care, the result did bring a smile to my lips - a smile that real football is still alive somewhere. Perhaps, once the top-flight is culled, real clubs, real players and real fans will be able to rise to the surface.
I certainly hope it happens - there is still too much good in the lower-tiers of the game for it all to implode when the "top" clubs go bang.
(For a little more on East Stirlingshire, who were once managed by no less a figure than Sir Alex Ferguson, take a look at the Wikipedia article. Which may or may not be 100 per cent accurate...!)
East Stirlingshire, of the Scottish Third Division, are one great example. They huff and puff every week, but are usually on the wrong end of the result. Their players, who may not even be paid enough to buy a round of drinks, are not household names and they certainly don't earn millions of pounds a year in sponsorship.
But East Stirlingshire are no less a team than Manchester United. And Colin Cramb is no less a footballer than, for example, Cristiano Ronaldo. The fans who watch the team - there were 352 yesterday - are arguably far more "real" football fans than those who watch the so-called "big" teams.
Thankfully, those 352 fans (okay, perhaps a handful were watching the other team) were given a treat yesterday as East Stirling thwacked Elgin City 5-2. The fans deserved such a game, as did the players and everyone associated with the club.
And while few people who don't follow the Scottish Third Division will really care, the result did bring a smile to my lips - a smile that real football is still alive somewhere. Perhaps, once the top-flight is culled, real clubs, real players and real fans will be able to rise to the surface.
I certainly hope it happens - there is still too much good in the lower-tiers of the game for it all to implode when the "top" clubs go bang.
(For a little more on East Stirlingshire, who were once managed by no less a figure than Sir Alex Ferguson, take a look at the Wikipedia article. Which may or may not be 100 per cent accurate...!)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Man City aim to expand and expand
Manchester City's new owners reportedly want to buy the area around City of Manchester Stadium and turn it into a hotel and leisure complex. Oh, and increase the capacity of the stadium to somewhere near that of Old Trafford.
It doesn't come as any surprise - once the initial surprise of litlte Man City becoming the richest club on the planet wore off - but it's clearly not a good thing, if only because it suggests the new Middle Eastern owners are in it for the long run. That may have been a reason to celebrate in the past, but now it means they will probably be around for long enough to help inspire the death of football.
According to the Daily Mail, "It is understood that new City owner, Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nayhan, is ready to pay Manchester City Council the £50million it would take to buy the ground that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and is leased to the club for £2m-a-year. Sheik Mansour wants eventually to expand the 47,000-capacity stadium and take it towards the capacity of 78,000 currently enjoyed by neighbours Manchester United."
Of course, £50million is no money to them at all. The owners earn more than that in interest each day (making some very basic assumptons there, but even if that figure is incorrect, it's close enough). But they clearly are not going to be content with slowly progression. Heck, they don't look like they will be content with progression at the pace of Chelsea - Man City's owners want it all, and they want it now!
But enough with Queen, even if Freddie Mercury remains one of the greatest showmen to ever grace this planet. Man City's apparent attempt to outdo every other club in England, and beyond, is a worry. There is no financial reason for them not to manage it, and there are enough mercenaries in the game who will move anywhere for enough cash to improve their reputation with each transfer window.
In an ideal world - which this clearly isn't - the other clubs would sit back and let City's owners have their moment in the limelight, rather than try and compete. But I can't help but feel there will be a domino effect. Fans want instant success in the modern game, so the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United will be forced to compete, or attempt to, with Man City. That can only end in tears as they haven't got deep enough pockets.
Can anything be done to stop the Man City effect destroying top-flight football across Europe? Perhaps not...
It doesn't come as any surprise - once the initial surprise of litlte Man City becoming the richest club on the planet wore off - but it's clearly not a good thing, if only because it suggests the new Middle Eastern owners are in it for the long run. That may have been a reason to celebrate in the past, but now it means they will probably be around for long enough to help inspire the death of football.
According to the Daily Mail, "It is understood that new City owner, Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nayhan, is ready to pay Manchester City Council the £50million it would take to buy the ground that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and is leased to the club for £2m-a-year. Sheik Mansour wants eventually to expand the 47,000-capacity stadium and take it towards the capacity of 78,000 currently enjoyed by neighbours Manchester United."
Of course, £50million is no money to them at all. The owners earn more than that in interest each day (making some very basic assumptons there, but even if that figure is incorrect, it's close enough). But they clearly are not going to be content with slowly progression. Heck, they don't look like they will be content with progression at the pace of Chelsea - Man City's owners want it all, and they want it now!
But enough with Queen, even if Freddie Mercury remains one of the greatest showmen to ever grace this planet. Man City's apparent attempt to outdo every other club in England, and beyond, is a worry. There is no financial reason for them not to manage it, and there are enough mercenaries in the game who will move anywhere for enough cash to improve their reputation with each transfer window.
In an ideal world - which this clearly isn't - the other clubs would sit back and let City's owners have their moment in the limelight, rather than try and compete. But I can't help but feel there will be a domino effect. Fans want instant success in the modern game, so the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United will be forced to compete, or attempt to, with Man City. That can only end in tears as they haven't got deep enough pockets.
Can anything be done to stop the Man City effect destroying top-flight football across Europe? Perhaps not...
UEFA Cup rename? Nice try, but...
The UEFA Cup and the Carling Cup have a lot in common. None of the so-called "top teams" give two hoots about either competition, yet, if they wanted to, they could win either without breaking much of a sweat.
UEFA know this. They know the Champions League is the only marketable European club competition. Sure, the UEFA Cup may be good enough for the likes of Aston Villa, but such clubs do not have genuine worldwide appeal. Heck, they don't even have continent-wide appeal!
But European football's governing body - who may or may not clash with FIFA one day as the power-balance continues to shift - are as keen as ever to make cash out of any version of the game they can, whether it be the Champions League final, a UEFA Cup qualifier, or two bunches of kids playing with jumpers for goalposts down the local park.
So it should come as no surprise they have decided to make some changes to the tournament, changes which will come into effect next season. The most amusing, surely, is the name change. Let's have a drum roll, orchestra:
The UEFA Cup will be known as the...Uefa Europa League.
Wow. Just wow. And, given the state of the current global economy, I daren't think how much money they paid the marketing-men to come up with that name. UEFA Europa League? It sounds like what it is - a cheap and cheerful, budget, light, no-frills, Tesco Value version of the Champions League.
More material changes include switching the format to a 48 team, 12 groups of four stage with each team in each group playing each other home and away, and the top-24 and the eight third-placed Champions League group teams entering a knock-out stage. If that plan took more than 10 minutes to put together, I'd be amazed!
UEFA know this. They know the Champions League is the only marketable European club competition. Sure, the UEFA Cup may be good enough for the likes of Aston Villa, but such clubs do not have genuine worldwide appeal. Heck, they don't even have continent-wide appeal!
But European football's governing body - who may or may not clash with FIFA one day as the power-balance continues to shift - are as keen as ever to make cash out of any version of the game they can, whether it be the Champions League final, a UEFA Cup qualifier, or two bunches of kids playing with jumpers for goalposts down the local park.
So it should come as no surprise they have decided to make some changes to the tournament, changes which will come into effect next season. The most amusing, surely, is the name change. Let's have a drum roll, orchestra:
The UEFA Cup will be known as the...Uefa Europa League.
Wow. Just wow. And, given the state of the current global economy, I daren't think how much money they paid the marketing-men to come up with that name. UEFA Europa League? It sounds like what it is - a cheap and cheerful, budget, light, no-frills, Tesco Value version of the Champions League.
More material changes include switching the format to a 48 team, 12 groups of four stage with each team in each group playing each other home and away, and the top-24 and the eight third-placed Champions League group teams entering a knock-out stage. If that plan took more than 10 minutes to put together, I'd be amazed!
A statement on the Uefa website read: "The new name and logo will help underline the tournament's special character and unique sporting appeal. Uefa's ambition in making these changes is to rejuvenate the competition in the light of the new European football landscape, which has shifted significantly with the continued success of the Champions League, so that the Uefa Europa League can establish itself as a major competition."
Good luck with that!Thursday, September 25, 2008
Brighton beat the City, Villa are just sh*tty
Nobody really cares about the Carling Cup. I'm not going to blame this on foreign investment, or Sky, or Jimmy Hill as, in my view, it has always been English football's poor relation. So much so that it is the unwanted illegitimate son kept in the cupboard under the stairs and fed just bread a water.
But, even though it has always been a joke, it was still enjoyable to see Manchester City and Aston Villa dumped out of the tournament last night by lower-league opposition. And before anybody asks "Why Aston Villa?" I should explain that even if their owner, Randy Lerner, is a decent man with his heart in the right place, he is still a foreign investor (albeit one worth a piddly £600million or so!).
Of course there is a problem with one part of this equation. While Brighton and Hove Albion are a genuine lower-level club, QPR have more money than Villa - and more money than most of the Premier League clubs. Heck, don't they have a player on-loan from Real Madrid who set up the goal last night?
This is why the death of football is inevitable, in my opinion. Money is now rife throughout the game and there is a growing imbalance. Manchester City - not a true top-tier club (yet!) - can outspend every other club. QPR can outspend most, and if they were in the Premier League they probably would. Yet Villa aren't short of cash - although in relative terms they are in danger of joining other teams who are financially rag-and-bone men!
But, hey, at least he's not Doug Ellis and at least one of their directors posts on Villa fan forums. Hopefully that will make up for midtable existence until football goes "bang". And that's not a Villa thing, but something will happen to many teams; it happened in Scotland years ago. Clubs north of the border don't exist to compete or win, they exist to exist.
Sad, very sad.
But, even though it has always been a joke, it was still enjoyable to see Manchester City and Aston Villa dumped out of the tournament last night by lower-league opposition. And before anybody asks "Why Aston Villa?" I should explain that even if their owner, Randy Lerner, is a decent man with his heart in the right place, he is still a foreign investor (albeit one worth a piddly £600million or so!).
Of course there is a problem with one part of this equation. While Brighton and Hove Albion are a genuine lower-level club, QPR have more money than Villa - and more money than most of the Premier League clubs. Heck, don't they have a player on-loan from Real Madrid who set up the goal last night?
This is why the death of football is inevitable, in my opinion. Money is now rife throughout the game and there is a growing imbalance. Manchester City - not a true top-tier club (yet!) - can outspend every other club. QPR can outspend most, and if they were in the Premier League they probably would. Yet Villa aren't short of cash - although in relative terms they are in danger of joining other teams who are financially rag-and-bone men!
But, hey, at least he's not Doug Ellis and at least one of their directors posts on Villa fan forums. Hopefully that will make up for midtable existence until football goes "bang". And that's not a Villa thing, but something will happen to many teams; it happened in Scotland years ago. Clubs north of the border don't exist to compete or win, they exist to exist.
Sad, very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
