English Football

[TheFranchise 0]

Those fans running on, great tactics by Liverpool.

[TheFranchise 0]

Well, how 'bout that.

[King Cucaracha 0]

I don't believe Gudjohnson missed. I really don't.

 

I can't make up my mind over whever Liverpool deserve it for the way they defended or don't, for the fact that they'e the 5th best team in England...and only got into the competition from fourth. I agree with what was said on Sky Sports News on Sunday...only the Champions should play in the Champions League, like the old days.

[Guest Lawlerm]

I agree with what was said on Sky Sports News on Sunday...only the Champions should play in the Champions League, like the old days.

People always say that but i'm sure they'd quickly change their tune when they had to watch quarter finals with Dynamo Kiev v Steaua Bucharest and stuff.

 

At the end of the day it was changed to this format for a reason.

[TheFranchise 0]

I don't know, we had Monaco vs Porto in the final last season.

[TheFranchise 0]

We need a OaO live thread for big matches.

 

Of course, I say this with only one league game to play left.

[The Decemberists 0]

I agree with what was said on Sky Sports News on Sunday...only the Champions should play in the Champions League, like the old days.

People always say that but i'm sure they'd quickly change their tune when they had to watch quarter finals with Dynamo Kiev v Steaua Bucharest and stuff.

 

At the end of the day it was changed to this format for a reason.

You're somewhat missing the point.

 

It should be the old style European Cup because the current American style league system fucks things up for clubs who don't qualify. It's not a coincidence that it's been since the Champions League format began that there's been a "big three" in the Premiership, with occasionally a fourth team being close. With the old knock out system not only was every game more exciting because they all *mattered* but the money in the game was more evenly spread out. Case in point being my lot of useless wankers. We finished THIRD in 1995 and went in the UEFA Cup. These day's we'd have been in the Champions League and had an enormous influx of cash which would've made it almost impossible, even with Frank Clark in charge, of us being relegated from the top flight two years later. Now as much as I don't want that to have happened, that sort of thing will never happen again, just as us winning the Premiership will never happen again, because, as well as the whole Premier League elitest attitude to domestic money, the only teams that can afford the top wages and transfer fees are teams that, as of 1993 and of the late 90s certainly, were on top then, unless you get an Chelski situation, but it's not as if they were a bottom half of the table team anyway before the Russian money went in. Man Utd will never again be in the second divison as they were in the early 70s, Arsenal will never again be a mid table team winning the odd cup like they were for a lot of the 1980s. And it's because of people like you saying "Oh, I don't want to watch Dynamo Kiev v Steaua Bucharest - I don't know any of their players!". That is not the fucking point. The point is that they would be the CHAMPIONS of their country and deserve a chance to be champions of Europe.

[Guest Lawlerm]

I agree with what was said on Sky Sports News on Sunday...only the Champions should play in the Champions League, like the old days.

People always say that but i'm sure they'd quickly change their tune when they had to watch quarter finals with Dynamo Kiev v Steaua Bucharest and stuff.

 

At the end of the day it was changed to this format for a reason.

You're somewhat missing the point.

No i'm not.

 

I was responding to the post someone else made. Your putting forward a totally different arguement to the one I was replying to. which was based around the fact he didn't think it was the 'Champions' League if the people who were in it weren't champions.

 

And I didn't say anywhere I wouldn't want to watch it and i'm fairly certain I could name more Dynamo Kiev players than you could so don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that sadly this is what most people think. And in response to teams deserving the chance to be champion of Europe - they do get the chance! The champions of Ukraine, Romania, Belarus etc are all entered into the tournament and if they're good enough they have a chance to win it. Just because other teams who aren't champions are entered doesn't mean anyone is denied a chance to win it.

[The Decemberists 0]

Well it doesn't help the Ukraine, Romanian, Lativian champs too much when they have to enter the qualifiers but the runners up in other countries get to go straight to the group stage.

 

 

Sorry if I had a bit of a go at you, but I've had a *very* bad few days, for obvious reasons.

[Guest Lawlerm]

Ye I totally agree. No-one who's not a champion should go in automatically. I agree with most of the comments you made but I just think sometimes people who support smaller clubs jump on the bandwagon of bashing big clubs.

 

I mean I remember a year or so ago Forest turned down a £3m bid for Andy Reid saying they wanted £5m and on the same day some lower league chairman was moaning about the fact the Premiership money doesn't filter through the divisions! I mean it's no wonder when teams turn down £3m for players with no top flight experience whatsoever (I know this isn't a great example seen as they got their price in the end but you know where i'm coming from).

 

I just don't think it was an awful lot different before. Even in the 70's and 80's Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. still had the most money to buy the best players and generally won the trophies.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

I think Liverpool deserved it. Gudjohnsen's miss and the low shot that Dudek saved with were the only chances Chelsea made, with Liverpool's tackling spot on from start to finish. I also think the goal crossed the line. Just. They had the worst angles, Gallas' leg was at full stretch over the line when he kicked it, and Carvalho's position was the only thing making it tricky to judge. Props to Cisse for shaving a beanie hat onto his head.

[Anorak 0]

EDIT - C. League Debate........

 

As far as Eastern European sides go those two have a proud European history. Steua won the European Cup in 86 and Kiev won the Cup Winners Cup a few years earlier. Both sides have had a tradition of producing technically excellent footballers for decades. The late 90's Kiev team were class and only missed out on playing and possibly beating Man Utd in 99 because they twice chucked a 2 goal advantage away against Bayern Munich in the semi's.

 

The same few western European countries have always been home to the wealthiest, best supported and successful teams in European competition but the modern champions league format of allowing them an extra 3 places has let them totally monopolise it. I'd rather see a Kiev or a Steua than a 4th place side from England, Spain or Italy who haven't come within sniffing distance of thier domestic title for 15-20 years. Sporting Lisbon won their first Portugese titles for some time a couple of years back and what was their reward? A place in the qualifying round.....against Inter Milan (who scraped a 4th place in Italy on a monopoly money budget). Kiev's reward for getting a whisker away from the final the previous year? Yep, you guessed it.

 

The very best players from around Europe will of course end up in the top 3 or 4 leagues but with the current format spreading the wealth so unevenly the gap is going to get just too wide. Worse still, the financial rewards being denied to the rest has a knock-on effect on the development of the game. With no money coming in or financial incentives offered you can bet there's going to be a lot less chance of a Hagi or a Shevchenko being unearthed. The sad thing is, given that the financial gap in European club football is at such a ridiculous state, they would be off to London, Milan or Madrid before they'd started shaving rather than when they were approaching the peak of their career when they had already become national team regulars or inspired thier local 'Championship Winning' sides to be a genuine threat in Europe for a few seasons.

 

The modern format has robbed us of the romance the competition once had, where underdogs could upset the big boys and great teams and achievments were possible on a more even playing field. That brilliant Ajax side of the mid 90's wouldn't have been allowed to develop as it did. The ungodly mess of the Yugoslav war breaking up the most talented group of players they ever had would have been more unbearable as they'd have likely been denied the sole consolation of Red Star's 1991 triumph. It's robbed us of great shock results like Kiev's 4-0 win at the Nou Camp happening more often. The one bright spot has been getting rid of the second group stage as the top sides don't have 5 or 6 bites at the cherry and it actually costs them if they don't fancy it on a cold night in Prague or Moscow.

 

That's why I wasn't cheering for Liverpool tonight. At least it would have felt like Chelsea belonged there to some extent after their progress this season.

[The Decemberists 0]

The reason people like me complain about money filtering down isn't all about the transfer fees (although in our defence, Reid may not have had top flight experience, but he was in the the Republic of Ireland's first team) but more to do with the television money and the way the gate money's shared out for games.

 

For example, back in the pre-Premier days Norwich played at Old Trafford in front of 50,000, say. HALF of the money from ticket sales would go to Norwich. Since the Premier started all, or at least 80%, of the money stays with Man U. Now I understand Man U's arguement of "they've came to see us" but I believe the old system was better. Over the course of the season, of course Man U would get more money than Norwich or any other team in the league with lower attendences, but the money would be evened out more, allowing a more even, exciting league.

 

Likewise, the television contract was for the entire Football League, all four divisions, and the percentage that the Fourth Divison got of the overall amount was much higher than the percentage League Two gets today for the deal for the three Football League divisions.

 

And yes, you're right. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool have always been "big" clubs who won a lot, and that's always the way it has been and probably will be. But they never had the monopoly the big clubs have these days. Take the 70s;

 

League Champions

1971 - Arsenal

1972 - Derby

1973 - Liverpool

1974 - Leeds

1975 - Derby

1976 - Liverpool

1977 - Liverpool

1978 - Nottingham Forest

1979 - Liverpool

1980 - Liverpool

 

Now clearly, that's Liverpool dominence in the League. But I would then point out the FA Cup winner over the same period;

 

FA Cup Finals

1971 - Arsenal 2 - Liverpool 1

1972 - Leeds 1 - Arsenal 0

1973 - Sunderland 1 - Leeds 0

1974 - Liverpool 3 - Newcastle 0

1975 - West Ham 3 - Fulham 0

1976 - Southampton 1 - Man U 0

1977 - Man U 2 - Liverpool 1

1978 - Ipswich 1 - Arsenal 0

1979 - Arsenal 3 - Man U 2

1980 - West Ham 1 - Arsenal 0

 

In those ten finals, the best team in the decade, Liverpool, were in three of them. Sunderland were famously in the second divison when they beat Leeds in the 73 Final, and the year before Man U lost in 76 they'd won promotion from the second division. This to me shows a far more even playing field than what we have today. If we take the last the ten years, from 1995 to 2004 we get this;

 

League Champions

1995 - Blackburn

1996 - Man U

1997 - Man U

1998 - Arsenal

1999 - Man U

2000 - Man U

2001 - Man U

2002 - Arsenal

2003 - Man U

2004 - Arsenal

 

FA Cup Finals

1995 - Everton 1 - Man U 0

1996 - Man U 1 - Liverpool 0

1997 - Chelsea 2 - Boro 0

1998 - Arsenal 2 Newcastle 0

1999 - Man U 2 - Newcastle 0

2000 - Chelsea 1 - Aston Villa 0

2001 - Liverpool 1 - Arsenal 0

2002 - Arsenal 2 - Chelsea 0

2003 - Arsenal 1 - Southampton 0

2004 - Man U 3 - Millwall 0

 

This shows that the best team in the country, Man U, were in four Finals, one more than the Liverpool team of the 70s, but Liverpool won two European Cups in that time compared to Man U's one. But also Arsenal, the second best team in the country were in four as well. In the 70s there was no "second best" the way the Arse clearly were in the last decade.

 

 

Anyway, I know you were just making a small point and I've gone on way too much about it as it really isn't important, but I've tried to show that, yes, it was an awfull lot different back then. No team could go from a stuggling Championship team to win two European Cups within five years like we did, Derby County will never again win the League, even in Franchise tells you otherwise, if any none Premier teams reach a Final then they'll get thrashed like Millwall instead of winning like Sunderland.

[Anorak 0]

Some bloke summed it all up years ago on a financial football programme. Actually, I think I ranted in a similar way about the same thing last year.

 

It was basically (the tv bloke) Morrissey's point in shorthand really. Something like 'there's always been/will be the have and the have-not's in football, but if the gap gets too big........well it's not fair system and everything gets fucked up basically.

[Guest Lawlerm]

I wasn't criticising eastern European clubs. I know Steaua made 2 finals in the mid-late '80s I was just pointing out the chances of ITV splashing out megabucks for the rights to screen it would be pretty much nil and public interest in such a match being live on TV would be equally low. On a side note its a shame all people remember about that Red Star team is the shocking final. No-one ever talks about their semi against Bayern or anything.

 

I'm not trying to suggest everythings OK because obviously it could be improved but I just think people are sometimes too quick to claim that everything was rosey before. Obviously the gap between the Premiership and the rest is far too big and has stopped the chances of pretty much any club coming up and staying up but sheer bad management at many clubs is equally to blame. Forest are where they are now as much through appointing David Platt (a man with no managerial experience other than anchoring Sampdoria at the foot of Serie A) and letting him spend millions of pounds of your 'parachute payment' on substandard Italians as they are through the way football is governed. Had they not flushed all that cash down the toilet they may have got back into the Premiership.

 

As a Celtic fan I know what it's like trying to compete on an even footing with clubs raking in 10 and 20 times what we are in TV money and so it's hard to justify giving up 50% of our gates receipts to help Motherwell and Kilmarnock when we're struggling to compete in Europe as it is, even though I can see the smaller clubs point. The only way clubs will ever agree to it is if every country follows the same rules as it's never going to happen in a sinlge country as those clubs would no longer be able to compete on equal terms in Europe.

 

I think eventually they will change the way the money in England is distributed simply because the product has become so stale (oops, slipped back into WWE forum talk).

 

Hmm, that was a lot of words to sit on the fence...

[The Decemberists 0]

Oh yeah, I certainly blame Platt more than the 'system' or anything like that, and a crap manager is a crap manager, regardless of how much money the club is getting from television or the league or whatever.

 

But can't you see the benefit of a more competitive domestic league? Having four matches a season in the league which matter and are a real challenge I believe would in fact help the chances of Celtic or Rangers doing better in Europe. Just like in business, more competition means that the team would have to be better just to get into Europe, and therefore could do better there.

 

But Scotland is a special case as it's almost always been a two team and the rest league, except for an occassionally spell for Aberdeen I think, whenever that was. I'm not saying that in a negative way, as Celtic are Rangers were always going to be bigger and better than the rest, if only because they're in Glasgow which opens them up to a huge supporter base and therefore more money.

 

I don't think they'll ever change the money situation here, mainly because it'll have to be voted on by the Chairmen, and I can't see them doing it as it would mean, for the bigger clubs, a loss in revenue, and that's all they care about.

[Addy 0]

Best night of my life last night.

 

Never heard Anfield like *that* before. It wasn't just the Kop, the whole ground was rocking.

 

The pitch invaders were some Bracelona weirdos:

 

http://www.jimmyjump.com/ing/main.html

 

Look at this video from the Kop when the final whistle goes:

 

http://www.hippychik.co.uk/webstore/kop204.wmv

[Vanhalen 0]

Sunderland's went down by about 12 thousand, if you did go down and didn't bounce straight back up I can't see you filling the stadium every week.

I lived in South Shields most of my life, and I well know that attendances dropped sharply while they were having that dreadful season in the premiership, not in the championship, while we are still drawing 34,000 each week, besides its a moot point as we arent going down

[TheFranchise 0]

League Champions

1972 - Derby

1975 - Derby

Best use of smilies....... ever.

[TheFranchise 0]

Sunderland's went down by about 12 thousand, if you did go down and didn't bounce straight back up I can't see you filling the stadium every week.

I lived in South Shields most of my life, and I well know that attendances dropped sharply while they were having that dreadful season in the premiership, not in the championship, while we are still drawing 34,000 each week, besides its a moot point as we arent going down

You aren't?

 

I didn't know the premiership were only relegating the bottom two teams.

[Anorak 0]

I'd like to see one of the promoted sides stay up. Beating Southampton would be enough for Palace to be that team I think.

[TheFranchise 0]

And be the first team -ever- to be bottom of the Premiership at Christmas and still stay up.

[deancoles 0]

Plus Palace at home usually means at least 1 penalty.

[TheFranchise 0]

Absolutely.

 

Why do you think Johnson's the top scoring English player?

 

It's no coincidence he's a penalty taker..

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

I thought WBA were bottom at xmas?

[King Cucaracha 0]

They were.

 

I'm pulling for Norwich as they're the 'local team'...but also, they're good entertainment. WBA has Gera, Palace have AJ, Southampton had the Norwich and Pompey matches...Norwich have had 4 or 5 really dramatic endings to matches and some decent players. When you've got Norwich playing, there's a good chance of a dramatic match because they can't seem to defend (save for Green) but they can score now they have Ashton.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Can't see Norwich doing it now but they've been the most impressive recently.

[Anorak 0]

Similar to us last season. They can find the net themselves ok but can't cope defensively.

[Vanhalen 0]

Fucking hell, I'm so nervous about today, if we win we stay up, its for all the marbles

[Vanhalen 0]

Just to qualify this, I know its still mathematically possible but hear me out

 

you have

 

Saints 31

Palace 31

Norwich 30

West Brom 30

 

WBA are playing Man Utd so they wont get three points as 3rd place is still up for grabs

Assuming we beat palace and norwich lose away to birmingham(havent won away all season remember)

 

this puts the table as

 

Saints 34

Palace 31

WBA 30 (Relegated)

Norwich 30 (Relegated)

 

This would also give us a much better goal difference than Palace, so if we can avoid a large defeat by Man Utd(7-1 they would have to beat us by assuming Palace won their last game 2-0)

 

If we lose then its over