Last night's Champions League games (those involving English and Scottish teams, at least) went as expected - although Arsenal's 4-0 hammering of Porto at the Emirates was impressive.
Manchester United did what they had to do against Danish champions Aalborg, but will be disappointed to lose both Paul Scholes and Wayne Rooney to injury. Scholes was stretchered off during the 3-0 win with suspected knee ligament damage, while Rooney also hobbled off.
Celtic, described yesterday as the only underdogs, tried their best to hold off Spanish league leaders Villarreal, but eventually lost 1-0 to ensure their run of not winning away from home in the Champions League continues.
Tonight's games will also be interesting - in terms of the European football balance, if not performances on the pitch. Liverpool should dispatch PSV Eindhoven without too much trouble (the Dutch league is in a bad way), while Chelsea should have no problems away at CFR Cluj.
If Liverpool and Chelsea manage to win by at least three goals, then the four English clubs would have put the ball into the net 13 times in Europe this week - and it would take a brave punter to bet against it happening. Although this year's tournament is still young, there is little to suggest the English domination of the tournament won't continue.
Which, of course, means more cash for the English top-four and a bigger gap in front of the other teams domestically. Sure, it won't worry Manchester City as they will throw money around no matter what, but it will add even more pressure on the other clubs.
Perhaps that is why Mike Ashley is holding out for a top price for Newcastle (if he is, and £300million is still a top price, even though it represents a cut!). The more the top clubs rake in the cash, the more money is needed to try and break their stranglehold. It is possible that Ashley wants new owners who can prove they have mega-money, but who knows?
Showing posts with label Liverpool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liverpool. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Day of the Big Money (or Champions) League!
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...!
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...!
Monday, September 29, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Cesc Fabregas favourite to join Man City
I've been away for a few days and, following the ups-and-downs of the final week (or should that be day) of the transfer window, that was no bad thing. But some things don't change, and the talk is still of Manchester City and their Middle Eastern owners. Anybody would think there was nothing else going on in the sports entertainment world of football.
According to an article in today's Mirror, Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas is the 9/2 favourite to be the next player to join Man City. Liverpool's Fernando Torres and Barcelona's Lionel Messi are joint second-favourites at just 11/2. Disturbingly - for anyone who cares about football, that is - the odds are short.
So does this mean Man City will actually manage to sign such players? Possibly, but it's unlikely. While they humped Portsmouth 6-0 at the weekend, the did look decidedly ordinary during their loss against Chelsea. Of course, if they beat all but the so-called top-four, they will be doing well and will be in a good position to sign more top-names in January, and then even more in the summer.
But would any self-respecting player on the level of Fabregas, Torres or Messi really leave a top club in favour of a big money move, especially when it's obvious it would be a big money move? The answer, sadly, is probably yes.
According to an article in today's Mirror, Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas is the 9/2 favourite to be the next player to join Man City. Liverpool's Fernando Torres and Barcelona's Lionel Messi are joint second-favourites at just 11/2. Disturbingly - for anyone who cares about football, that is - the odds are short.
So does this mean Man City will actually manage to sign such players? Possibly, but it's unlikely. While they humped Portsmouth 6-0 at the weekend, the did look decidedly ordinary during their loss against Chelsea. Of course, if they beat all but the so-called top-four, they will be doing well and will be in a good position to sign more top-names in January, and then even more in the summer.
But would any self-respecting player on the level of Fabregas, Torres or Messi really leave a top club in favour of a big money move, especially when it's obvious it would be a big money move? The answer, sadly, is probably yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
