Go on, send us an email: firstname.lastname@example.org…
Bit confused as to how there’s no outrage regarding Cech’s announcement that he will be under employment by CHELSEA in a matter of weeks. I normally love sentimental send-offs of a great person’s career, but I now don’t want him anywhere near the first team squad for the Europa league final. Conflict of interest doesn’t quite cover it… Imagine Arsenal fan TV or Twitter for the next few months if he played and dropped a clanger in the final, only to go on and sign decent players in the summer for Chelsea now that they are in the Champions League. Why couldn’t this have been announced a couple of days after the final? (It hasn’t been announced – Sky Sports ran the story, though Cech didn’t deny it – MC)
Henry Innes AFC
Perfection only thing better than Invincibles
LP in this morning mailbox states to forget about the invincibles, the 99 treble from United and the in fact Leicester did it best.
I will admit that this is probably the biggest win of them all and an incredible underdog achievement, howver, he’s not arguing the correct point at all.
The point was who is the best Premier League team of all time?
City might play the best football of the lot, but to go a whole league campaign unbeaten, nothing tops that. I feel Pep is trying to do it better though and take a leaf out of Clough’s book: “I want to win the league, but i want to win it better”. What’s better than going unbeaten? Well, winning all your games I think. So until that happens City are still not the greatest.
Culk The Younger
…I’m going to call it now.
If Manchester City get banned from the Champions League, they will win 38 league games that season.
Cast your minds back to 2016/17.
Chelsea started a new season under Antonio Conte having finished 10th the season before and had no distraction of European football to contend with. They won the title with 93 points. They improved by 43 points on the previous season. 43.
Imagine a Pep inspired Man City, no doubt coming off the back of another title unless Liverpool finally have their year, with no midweek distraction or travel.
I’m off to the bookies.
That sneaky b*stard Kompany
There are different reasons for hating opposition players. Some dive (Neymar), others feign injuries to get players sent off (Busquets). Some are just thugs in a football jersey (Ramos). Some are arrogant so and sos (CR7) and still others are disliked because of something specific they did (Suarez – though he probably qualifies for all of the categories). But the sneakiest ones are those that always bring their A game against you, give you no tangible reason to dislike them, remain frustratingly well spoken in public, infuriatingly say all the right and coherent things all the time, and overall, really get under your skin by being all around great guys on and off the pitch. Nothing is more knicker-twistingly difficult to swallow for opposition fans. Go in peace, you magnificent b***tard Vincent Kompany. You made the Premier League a better place.
Ved (still missing Vidic) Sen
Jonny does bring up an excellent point, what would be a significant FFP punishment for Manchester City?
First off a punishment has to affect the club in a way in which they don’t just shrug their shoulders and think “that wasn’t so bad”, due to their incredible squad depth this rules out a transfer ban, yes they have some positions like the Fernandinho role that need replacing soon but they could live with a ban quite easily, similar with a points deduction, for example this season they would have had to have received at least a 29 point deduction to see them drop out the top 4, I believe Luton had the highest point deduction in history at 30 points back in 08/09 for being in breach of insolvency rules.
Removing them from the Champions League would certainly affect them not only financially but also it could cause players within the squad to have their heads turned and consider moves away, City have won everything that is on offer in English football except a European trophy, surely their players would want their hands on a Champions League winner medal more than yet another Premier League medal.
Nothing fair about FFP
FFP wasn’t brought in to ensure a level playing field–it was brought in to ensure the playing field would remain permanently tilted against traditionally non-elite clubs. By linking expenditure closely to revenue, and making major investment of non-revenue funds challenging (at least in theory), it handed a huge advantage to clubs that already had significant revenues. All the sanctimony that got talked about the rules when they were brought in was just in service of hiding that fact.
Also, the reason UEFA doesn’t hand out domestic league penalties for violating FFP is because it has no right to–that’s the province of the individual FAs and league organizations. And they, as in the case of England, have different rules.
Winston, New Haven, USA
That penalty against Portsmouth was in the first half, not a last gasp saving goal. ( Remember, Henry had to retake because of encroachment? )
You’re 100% sure that a team with Henry, Ljunberg, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira et al wouldn’t have found a way to score past Portsmouth if the match had tracked a little differently?
Doug, AFC, Belfast
…Look LP, nobody can deny what Leicester achieved that season was unbelievable but don’t knock the invincibles achievement because of one dive when Leicester won a record 11 penalties, at least 50% of which were through Vardy diving in 2015/16. Arsenal, in second place, won 2 ! Hmmmmm ?
Anyway I still think Nottingham Forest’s achievement in winning back to back European Cups in 79 and 80, a club who had come from nowhere to do so, has never been matched.
… Re LP’s email earlier ‘As for Arsenal’s invincibles, if Pires doesn’t dive for a penalty at Portsmouth, they lose relatively early in that run’
God I am sick of hearing utter shash like this.
1. Players for every team in every game dive and cheat. Do I like it? Not really. Do players from each and every team appeal for throw ins and corners etc. when they know they touched the ball last? Yes. All cheating. I’m sure no Manchester United players cheated in their treble season in 99. I’m sure this Manchester City side hasn’t cheated once this season. REALLY sure. I could go back and watch every s*dding game and point out each and every incident, but I really can’t be *rsed.
2. It’s almost like people have no understanding how football works. The penalty was in the 40th minute. If he didn’t dive for the penalty, yes; we *could* have gone on to lose. EVERYTHING that happened after this event in the game would have been different. Chaos Theory, the butterfly effect and all that. It’s really a very simple concept. The next kick of the ball would have been from the spot of the dive, not the penalty spot (and subsequently the centre spot). The goal keeper could have fluffed the kick straight to Henry who could have scored. He similarly could have launched it into the Arsenal net from 80 yards. We’ll never know. Thus It’s also entirely possible we could have drawn/won the game in a different fashion.
It’s all academic.
He did dive. We did draw. We went unbeaten. The trophy is gold. Get over it.
Ian Dorren, Essex Gooner.
Ps. Why does everything have to be a ranking? A p*ssing contest, a ‘my dad is harder than your dad’. United and City’s trebles etc are all amazing achievements.
…Been reading a lot recently about “financial doping” and what should happen to city should they be found in breech of the rules. I have noticed that most of this has come from supporters further up the food chain, it’s almost as if the closer you get to winning the league the more outraged you are when someone raises a question over the fairness of the league winners.
My point is why are we seemingly in agreement that a rich benefactor pouring billions into a club is a bad thing? The argument is that it ruins the competition as they have the best of everything from facilities through to players and managers. I don’t believe this argument for a second. Without the investment into City and Chelsea then we would have basically had Man Utd winning every year with the odd plucky challenge from arsenal with Liverpool and another fighting for 3rd and4th.
By locking out the newly rich competition is stifled, and as someone from a country with 2 teams historically head and shoulders above the rest (Scotland)I can promise you the tv money fuelling the premiership doesn’t happen.
So let’s look at the moral argument. “It’s not fair that a club with less fans and history can buy the best players and manager and buy the league” so does that mean that investment should only be limited to the traditional big teams? Should a new owner be told they can’t invest until the team has won a set amount of tournaments or has over a specific average gate? Why should an owner be prevented from investing in the business they owned? Or is it more likely that they can invest as long as they don’t win anything? How long should a ban be in place on a team winning anything and how do you work that out?
I understand an argument for source of wealth restrictions and I think that is a fine debate to have but if that is the only criteria then why do teams like the Red Bull owned teams in Europe get so much hate on the continent, last time I checked there was no human rights violations involved in selling energy drinks. It seems universal that supporters of the teams displaced or under threat from newly minted clubs seem to be the ones with the biggest issue.
If a club is run as a business but without the perfectly legitimate owner stimulus then this is applauded…..for a while, then the calls come to open the wallet and invest in some players. (Spurs) if it is run like a business and the owner takes money out or maximises revenue then the owners are denounced (Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal). If an owner puts some personal money in to set up a decent infrastructure but the team doesn’t trouble the big boys too much then the owner is almost canonised (wolves is a prime example)
So it seems the constant is that fans of the historical big teams in any country call foul if someone can regularly beat them and if that someone isn’t a traditional powerhouse then something has to be done.
There is nothing wrong with investing in your business, there is nothing wrong with taking a corner shop, chucking billions at it and turning it into a powerful supermarket chain giving people jobs and choice, if that were to happen I guarantee the only people complaining would be the current big supermarket chains.
By investing in their clubs the owners have provided jobs, improvements to their community, supporters hope and joy, opened up the league to make it more attractive to broadcasters and let us not forget driven up the quality in the league.
The whole thing reeks of entitlement and jealousy.
FFP should be about making sure clubs don’t over extend and collapse (Leeds) and I would agree some rules need to be in place to ensure if an owner left there would still be a club, perhaps an escrow account with funds covering all existing contracts or some other system but it should not be there to say that you are too small to win anything. The argument is totally immoral and reeks of an oligopoly boarding on a cartel.
As mentioned I do not live in England, I don’t support and English team, I really don’t have a dog in this fight but am an interested onlooker. I just wish we could get to a position of not continually trying to put an asterisk in the record books to try and taint achievement, after all if chucking money at the problem solved it no questions asked then why the hell are Man Utd stinking the place out? Man City have set new standards in consistency, Liverpool pushes them hard and should be applauded. Why can’t we appreciate that and ask the questions about upcoming European finals or even ask the questions about how next season can possibly maintain these standards. Instead we are bitching about not filling stadiums and the winning team being “smaller” so obviously cheating
How nasty of UEFA to only choose the location of the final after the semi-finals were played, if only Arsenal had some prior notice of where it would be they could have decided to not make it their no. 1 priority…
Steve (not Baku)
Keep it light
I generally skip the mailbox contributions which were about Net Spend, Plastic Fans or VAR. But now I get left with Human Rights, Humanitarian Crisis’s, FFP sanctions, Financial Doping and the ensuing debate around appropriate sanctions. The mailbox is certainly committed reading nowadays.
Nick (#PogOff) J
I was inspired by Andy (MUFC)’s comments in this morning’s mailbox and begun wondering if there was mileage in a fantasy fans competition. Then I realised a) there isn’t and b) I really should be working. But I do think it’s time for another ‘who’s your favourite celebrity fan’ conversation. Are there any MUFC fans who are genuinely happy with Mick Hucknall? Tranmere fans, do you feel a bit like Sp*rs when Mike Dean celebrates your goals? Aston Villa/West Ham – do you wish there was a David Cameron lounge at your ground? Citeh fans – should the Gallaghers have bought the club (probably not!)… the list goes on and on. As an Arsenal fan I’m mildly happy with Alan Davies, pretend not to know about Ainsley Harriott and have a sneaking suspicion the Queen is a Gooner. Let’s hear your tales of unexpected celebrity fans (F365 feature anyone??)… gotta be a better topic on a Wednesday afternoon than City buying the title or Livepool never winning anything.
Graeme (hoping for a 6th for Liverpool)