The English Football Thread

right-track · 03-27-2010, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revol

Us Yorkies just hate anyone who ain't from round these parts.

err...The League of Gentlemen was filmed in Hadfield (Royston Vasey), Derbyshire. Not Yorkshire.

You do have one thing in common though...inbreeding.

right-track · 03-27-2010, 03:24 AM

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour (Man. City), face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.
Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.
In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million. The Times

While all this sounds well and good I can't help but get the feeling, that once again, Michel Platini is bending over backwards in his attempts to curb the success of English clubs in European competitions.
It'll be interesting to see how his beloved Real Madrid (of which he is an honorary director) are effected.

Unknown Soldier · 03-27-2010, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour (Man. City), face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.
Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.
In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million. The Times

While all this sounds well and good I can't help but get the feeling, that once again, Michel Platini is bending over backwards in his attempts to curb the success of English clubs in European competitions.
It'll be interesting to see how his beloved Real Madrid (of which he is an honorary director) are effected.

I greatly admired Platini as a player but since becoming president of UEFA his anti-English sentiments have become an issue and I think last season his sentiments or possible somebody else in UEFA, of not wanting another all English final, along with the disgrace in the refereeing decisions between Barcelona and Chelsea in the semis nothing short of a disgrace. My opinion of him is very low, especially now that he rubs shoulders with Real Madrid the most corrupt team in Spanish football, but none of this should be a surprise really, as he spent his time in Italy with Juventus the most corrupt team there, where it was commonly known that the inferior opposition was often bribed to give Juventus nice easy matches.

right-track · 03-27-2010, 06:38 AM

When asked why he criticised Manchester City for wanting Kaka at £120 million and not Real Madrid's disgraceful pursuit last year for Ronaldo.
He only had this to say;

"That is a good question,"
"You have embarrassed me! Why is it different? I could understand [why people were upset in England] but it wasn’t what I intended. My intention was to rationalise things.

"I didn’t know that Real Madrid would receive a loan for the transfer so we will look at that and we will see. The fact is, how can we work to protect football? I think it’s not a good thing that a player can be bought for £120million. It’s not good for football to spend £120m in the financial crisis."

No Michel, it's not good for football...unless it's good for Real Madrid.
Likewise, his hypocrisy embarrassed him further when he took issue over 3 English clubs reaching the semi-final stage of the Champions League for two previous seasons and yet had absolutely nothing to say when AC Milan, Juventus and Inter Milan did the same in 2003.
Ditto in 2000 with Barcelona, Valencia and Real Madrid.

Lets not forget, it was Platini's Juventus that played Liverpool that night at the Heysel Stadium in 1985, when "the murderers" went on the rampage resulting in the death of 39 Italians and it was UEFA who banned Liverpool (and rightly so) and ALL English clubs (unfairly IMO) from ALL European competitions for a period of 5 years, during a time when English clubs were dominating European football.
And yet the death of Leeds fans in Istanbul was dealt with the banning of Turkish fans for the return leg only!
Maybe if Turkish club teams had been a bigger threat on the pitch, as opposed to the terraces, UEFA may have acted accordingly.

Platini and UEFA's hypocrisy is a disgrace and furthermore, the F.A. bend over and take it up the arse everytime.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-27-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Likewise, his hypocrisy embarrassed him further when he took issue over 3 English clubs reaching the semi-final stage of the Champions League for two previous seasons and yet had absolutely nothing to say when AC Milan, Juventus and Inter Milan did the same in 2003.
Ditto in 2000 with Barcelona, Valencia and Real Madrid.

Not only that there was also the time the year after Liverpool won the Champions League and Everton got 4th place when it looked like there were going to be 5 English teams in the group stages.
That 2nd Everton / Villarreal game has to be one of the dodgiest games I have ever seen.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories but you could tell watching that game that no matter what Everton did there's no way they were going to be allowed to win it.

Revol · 03-27-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

err...The League of Gentlemen was filmed in Hadfield (Royston Vasey), Derbyshire. Not Yorkshire.

You do have one thing in common though...inbreeding.

And Man United are from Salford, not Manchester?

Worn any parkas today you nasal voiced scally?

right-track · 03-27-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revol

And Man United are from Salford, not Manchester?

Try again...

jackhammer · 03-27-2010, 05:02 PM

The less said about Villa today, the better. We always fall away in the latter half of the season and 4th is gone now no doubt.

Bulldog · 03-27-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhammer

The less said about Villa today, the better. We always fall away in the latter half of the season and 4th is gone now no doubt.

Yeah, that was some classic Wigan syndrome your lot went through there, as in totally caving in after going a couple of goals down.

Speaking of which, I'll be vainly hoping the latics pick up all three against City on Monday. What with Hull winning today and all, dropping points would be a pain in the arse really.

Revol · 03-29-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Try again...

My mistake, they're actually from Trafford. The only league club to come from Manchester are Man City. Implicitly you said you live in East Manchester, they're not too far from you then.

03-27-2010, 06:38 AM	#2544 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	When asked why he criticised Manchester City for wanting Kaka at £120 million and not Real Madrid's disgraceful pursuit last year for Ronaldo. He only had this to say; "That is a good question," "You have embarrassed me! Why is it different? I could understand [why people were upset in England] but it wasn’t what I intended. My intention was to rationalise things. "I didn’t know that Real Madrid would receive a loan for the transfer so we will look at that and we will see. The fact is, how can we work to protect football? I think it’s not a good thing that a player can be bought for £120million. It’s not good for football to spend £120m in the financial crisis." No Michel, it's not good for football...unless it's good for Real Madrid. Likewise, his hypocrisy embarrassed him further when he took issue over 3 English clubs reaching the semi-final stage of the Champions League for two previous seasons and yet had absolutely nothing to say when AC Milan, Juventus and Inter Milan did the same in 2003. Ditto in 2000 with Barcelona, Valencia and Real Madrid. Lets not forget, it was Platini's Juventus that played Liverpool that night at the Heysel Stadium in 1985, when "the murderers" went on the rampage resulting in the death of 39 Italians and it was UEFA who banned Liverpool (and rightly so) and ALL English clubs (unfairly IMO) from ALL European competitions for a period of 5 years, during a time when English clubs were dominating European football. And yet the death of Leeds fans in Istanbul was dealt with the banning of Turkish fans for the return leg only! Maybe if Turkish club teams had been a bigger threat on the pitch, as opposed to the terraces, UEFA may have acted accordingly. Platini and UEFA's hypocrisy is a disgrace and furthermore, the F.A. bend over and take it up the arse everytime. Last edited by right-track; 03-27-2010 at 06:48 AM.

03-27-2010, 05:02 PM	#2548 (permalink)
jackhammer Ba and Be. Join Date: May 2007 Location: This Is England Posts: 17,331	The less said about Villa today, the better. We always fall away in the latter half of the season and 4th is gone now no doubt. __________________ It be my music and film collection. “A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”

03-27-2010, 03:24 AM	#2542 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour (Man. City), face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals. Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn. Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored. Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined. In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million. The Times While all this sounds well and good I can't help but get the feeling, that once again, Michel Platini is bending over backwards in his attempts to curb the success of English clubs in European competitions. It'll be interesting to see how his beloved Real Madrid (of which he is an honorary director) are effected.