2006-07 Soccer Thread

[cartman]

Sounds like a HUGE deal is brewing in a three way swap between Barcelona, Real Madrid, and AC Milan. Milan will buy Ronaldihno for $100 million, and Real will buy Kaka for $50 million. This is the only English story I could find on it: hxxp://www.goal.com/en/articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=102819

[tanglewood]

lol, I will say now that that is a pile of crap. I am more than willing to look like a fool if the minute possibility of this happening is realised. But seriously, that's not going to happen.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with tanglewood. Sounds like fantasy soccer .

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

lol, I will say now that that is a pile of crap. I am more than willing to look like a fool if the minute possibility of this happening is realised. But seriously, that's not going to happen.

Agreed. In the end, for Barca, it would basically work out to them losing Ronaldinho and seeing Kaka go to their closest rivals. Granted, they would take home a lot of cash, but it doesn't matter if you don't have anybody you are planning on bringing in, and I can't see anybody close to Ronaldinho coming in at this point of the year.

[ISiddiqui]

In addition, there is the chance that Milan won't be in any European competitions and I don't think Ronaldinho would like to be a part of that (and that Milan will have the cash to pay to him).

[Critch]

Haven't seen anything about that deal today. Only rumors I've seen are Ashley Cole to Madrid in a cut price deal (either 7mil pounds or 14mil pounds less than Chelsea have offered depending on which paper you read) and Hamburg have been offered Saviola from Barcelona, and may sign Sanogo as well.

[BreizhManu]

Living in Barcelona I can tell you this is pure BS, Ronaldinho is a god here, no way in hell there selling him unless they want to be killed by the fans.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by BreizhManu

Living in Barcelona I can tell you this is pure BS, Ronaldinho is a god here, no way in hell there selling him unless they want to be killed by the fans.

I read that Ronaldinho has a release fee in his contract, it started at 130mil Euros and drops 10mil per season. He's been at Barcelona for 3 years now, so the $100mil rumor should be roundabout the release fee so it might be out of Barcelona's hands.

I'd put very long odds on the rumor being anywhere near true (although I could believe the Kaka to Real half), just saying that the $100mil amount may not have just been pulled out of thin air.

[tanglewood]

But why would he want to leave?

[Critch]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

But why would he want to leave?

Milan could offer silly money?

That's all hypothetical anyway. I don't believe there will be an offer, and I don't think Ronaldinho would want to leave anyway. I was just pointing out that the 100mil quoted may be enough to trigger his release clause so overcome Barcelona's reluctance to sell him.

[cartman]

Berlusconi doesn't have his old job as Italian Prime Minister to distract him anymore, so he might be ready to emulate Abramovich and splash his billions on his team. Rumor has it he was pretty angry that Shevchenko left for Chelsea.

[MIJB#19]

Milan recently announced they are not going to do business with Real Madrid in the near future after Madrid tried to contact Kaka behind their backs. They blamed the new people in charge at Madrid, as they clearly were not up to date with G-14 ethics.

[Desnudo]

Milan has gone from probably my (only) favorite team in Serie A to a team I will actively cheer against.

[Ryan S]

UEFA have confirmed that Milan are playing in the Champions League this season.

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL...Id=441316.html

[MIJB#19]

That statement is just a sorry excuse to tell us they didn't have the balls to exclude AC Milan. They threw teams out before, I really can't believe the 'no legal grounds' excuse. I feel like boycotting the UEFA Champions' League for this upcoming season.

[ISiddiqui]

What a bunch of total BS.

[Critch]

As soon as the Italian FA put forward AC Milan, there wasn't a whole lot UEFA could do without risking injunctions and court cases. As soon as the Italian FA reduced the punishment, it was always odds on that UEFA would accept Milan.

[MIJB#19]

As I understand the UEFA's own regulations were a problem, shouldn't it be clear that the rules were intended to include cases like this one? Teams bribing their way into the UEFA competitions should not be allowed access. It's really sad that they have to allow Milan on these grounds (and although I have a hard time believing it, their words in the statement do make it clear that they are not happy about allowing AC Milan).

Of course, in the end, the real 'bad guy' in this is the Italian football association for rewarding Milan.

[Critch]

For me the real bad guys are Juventus. The other teams involved were minor cogs in the scheme, plus there's very little evidence to link AC Milan to the scheme at all. The strongest evidence I've read about it that a minor member of the AC Milan backroom may have asked an assistant referee for help.

If it wasn't for the whole Juventus scandal, AC Milan probably wouldn't even have been this harshly dealt with. Same goes for Fiorentina.

[Neuqua]

Anyone play EPL Fantasy football? Any recommendations?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

Anyone play EPL Fantasy football? Any recommendations?

http://fantasy.premierleague.com/

[PilotMan]

Berlusconi is a crook and the only likely reason that his team wasn't involved was that he was the head of the govt for so long that they were already top notch about making things disappear. He is a corrupt man, and that has to bleed over to the way that he runs his team.

[Katon]

But if you're going to argue that way, then suddenly his "I could do better than that" defence actually becomes halfway credible - he's the Prime Minister, he's capable of making all the evidence of Milan's involvement disappear, they've got one of the best squads in Europe (better than Juve, judging by the CL), and the best he can fix is second place?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Katon

But if you're going to argue that way, then suddenly his "I could do better than that" defence actually becomes halfway credible - he's the Prime Minister, he's capable of making all the evidence of Milan's involvement disappear, they've got one of the best squads in Europe (better than Juve, judging by the CL), and the best he can fix is second place?

Hold on a second. You can't seriously say that Milan had a better side because of the Champions League. I guess that means that Chelsea have a crap side since they tend to stumble in the CL, and since Liverpool won the CL a couple of years ago, they must be better than Chelsea.

Some squads are built for the CL and some are built for their domestic leagues. Milan might be better equipped to play in the CL, but that doesn't automatically make them better than Juve.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Katon

But if you're going to argue that way, then suddenly his "I could do better than that" defence actually becomes halfway credible - he's the Prime Minister, he's capable of making all the evidence of Milan's involvement disappear, they've got one of the best squads in Europe (better than Juve, judging by the CL), and the best he can fix is second place?

Yes, because Juve was also trying to fix matches.

[Katon]

Two semis in three years is "tending to stumble"?

Your basic point is valid, though. I'll rephrase: Milan have a squad which is clearly on the same general level as Juve's (and does better in competitions where Moggi isn't meddling with the refs, though as you point out that's probably mostly because they're a better cup team), and Berlusconi is more influential in Italy than Moggi. If he's this super-conspirator who can make all evidence of Milan's wrongdoing disappear, why can't he wrongdo effectively enough to win them a title?

Milan have essentially been stripped of the last two Serie A titles, as well as having points deducted for this season and having to go through the qualifying rounds for the CL. I think you have to have solid evidence of something significant before doing anything more to them, and there's been no sign of anything like that.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Yes, because Juve was also trying to fix matches.

But why is Moggi better at it than Berlusconi? If you're going to say Berlusconi is sneaky enough to make all evidence against Milan disappear, then given that he was the Prime Minister for a lot of the period under discussion the same level of competence ought to be enough to fix at least one season successfully.

Also, I originally said that Berlusconi's argument was 'halfway credible'. That's a fairly low standard. It's not that I entirely believe it; it's just that it's plausible enough that you really need some evidence before you declare him to be irredeemably guilty (of this particular crime, anyway).

[Desnudo]

Because influencing the refs is not a guarantee that you'll win, just an insurance policy? It sounds to me like they tried to do something that would help them win, but they felt would fly below the radar in terms of being too suspicious.

I don't think Berlusconi's argument is credible, because anyone with enough money can attempt to fix matches, often successfully based on prior history. It's the getting away with it that's the hard part, which is probably why they only tried to influence, rather than arrange.

Point being that sure he could have fixed it so Milan won the title, but probably would have gotten caught because it would have been too obvious. So you're left with trying to influence rather than fix, which is more random in outcome.

[Katon]

Possibly.

But, again, they've been denied the last two Serie A titles because of their involvement, they've got a points deduction for next year, and they have to play Red Star to qualify for the CL (which with Nesta out and Sheva still not replaced isn't an automatic win). What exactly is the argument for punishing them more heavily than that without any significant evidence?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Katon

Possibly.

But, again, they've been denied the last two Serie A titles because of their involvement, they've got a points deduction for next year, and they have to play Red Star to qualify for the CL (which with Nesta out and Sheva still not replaced isn't an automatic win). What exactly is the argument for punishing them more heavily than that without any significant evidence?

"because"

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Katon

Possibly.

But, again, they've been denied the last two Serie A titles because of their involvement, they've got a points deduction for next year, and they have to play Red Star to qualify for the CL (which with Nesta out and Sheva still not replaced isn't an automatic win). What exactly is the argument for punishing them more heavily than that without any significant evidence?

From what I read Milan was more guilty than either Lazio or Fiorentina. I believe Lazio? is the one that actually did little to nothing wrong. Considering what their punishment was, I think that being kicked out of the CL should have been just the start for Milan.

[Desnudo]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/rumourmill/

Thursday's rumours

Today's tittle-tattle is entering a world of pain

Rob Smyth
Thursday August 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited


Kuyt is certain Wenger was in Rotterdam to see him. Photograph: Christof Koepsel/Getty.

It's a good-news day for everyone's favourite Only Fools And Horses character Peter Crouch. On the front page of today's soaraway Sun, his prudish, introverted, Hoover-nosed ex-girlfriend Abigail Clancy has found herself accidentally disrobed for just the 427th time this month; to make things worse, it says in the non-WAG section that Liverpool are going to sign Feyenoord striker Dirk Kuyt!
Kuyt, whose probable purchase owes everything to the fact that his surname is rhyming slang for the merits or otherwise of much of Liverpool's existing forward line, has already been the subject of a £6m bid from Rafa Benitez, but Feyenoord want nearer £10m. "I think we need an extra striker," said Benitez, holding his nose with one hand and slipping a surgical glove on the other for a quick inspection of Crouch, Robbie Fowler and Craig Bellamy.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talking of natural charmers, Portsmouth self-publicist Harry Redknapp has been up to his usual trick of telling the world which players he'd like to sign: this time he fancies scraping together £2m of someone else's money to spend on David James. "We need another keeper and David is a very good one," he said, showing his usual respect for opposition managers. "He is someone that I would like to bring here."
Gareth Southgate wanted to bring Steed Malbranque to Middlesbrough, too. But after a fee was agreed with Fulham, Malbranque refused to even talk to Boro - the most damaging blow to the credibility of the north east since Byker Grove's Spuggy last cracked a smile. "We agreed a fee with Fulham but the player didn't fancy it and he didn't want to speak with us. We're only interested in players who want to play for us," said Southgate, somehow reasoning that he still has the power in the relationship despite being emphatically and embarrassingly blown out.

One man who might be heading into Southgate's arms is Thomas Gravesen, the poor man's Stig Tofting. Gravesen, who has been 30 for the last five years, is on his way out of Real Madrid for £3m, and Boro looked to have the deal done - but now Newcastle's lemon-sucking manager Glenn Roeder is trying to hijack it.

Southgate is also going to sign Blackburn jock Brett Emerton for £1.5m, it says here, while Roeder, adhering to the Newcastle principle of 'never buy a defender when you can buy 444 forwards', is planning a £7m move for Empoli striker Francesco Tavano. Presumably the deal-clincher will be the success of similar Serie A dark horses Massimo Maccarone (£8.15m; 17 goals in 74 games) and Corrado Grabbi (£6.75m; two goals in 30 games) in the Premiership.

Down at Wigan, Paul Jewell wants to re-sign Nathan Ellington from West Brom for £3m - and he's also after the hot young Villarreal and Ecuador winger who the Sun calls "Luis Valcencia". You'd never get a mistake like that on these pages.

And last, least and all the rest, music mogul Kevin Campbell is going to sign a one-year deal at Cardiff. You couldn't possibly care less, could you?

[ISiddiqui]

Roeder, adhering to the Newcastle principle of 'never buy a defender when you can buy 444 forwards', is planning a £7m move for Empoli striker Francesco Tavano.

Uh... did this writer look at Newcastle's squad this year?!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh... did this writer look at Newcastle's squad this year?!

Its the Guardian Imran - they always go for the funny angle, though agreed - a little misplaced here. But when your defense consists of Bramble and Boumsong, I think its always the greatest need.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

From what I read Milan was more guilty than either Lazio or Fiorentina. I believe Lazio? is the one that actually did little to nothing wrong. Considering what their punishment was, I think that being kicked out of the CL should have been just the start for Milan.

It was, though. If they had been judged completely innocent, they would have been declared champions for both 04/05 and 05/06. Instead, one of those titles is vacant and the other belongs to Inter - who were almost certainly a worse team than Milan last year even under neutral refereeing. Does being stripped of two titles sound a bit more like it?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Katon

It was, though. If they had been judged completely innocent, they would have been declared champions for both 04/05 and 05/06. Instead, one of those titles is vacant and the other belongs to Inter - who were almost certainly a worse team than Milan last year even under neutral refereeing. Does being stripped of two titles sound a bit more like it?

Being stripped of two titles they didn't win is supposed to be punishment? As a Juve supporter, I can tell you that the least important part of the punishment was the stripping of the titles.

Aside from relegation, the only serious punishment that can be meted out to a club is the denial of playing in Europe. So Milan got a little slap on the wrist and will have to play qualifiers to get in. The fact that they are even in the competition is what's a complete joke.

As far as UEFA's stance that their hands are tied because the Italian FA selected Milan for the CL, who do they think they're fooling? UEFA is trying to keep everyone happy by allowing Milan but saying that they really don't want to. Yeah, I buy that. UEFA was terrified of having a CL without Juve and Milan.

And what were the circumstances with Marseille when they were denied the CL? Did the French FA keep them out, or was it UEFA?

[Katon]

Winning titles is sort of the point of playing the games (and trying to rig them). It's obviously not going to be as painful for Milan as if they'd won those titles in regular play, but denying them two titles is definitely a noticeable punishment.

The Marseille punishment was a year or two before I got hooked on soccer, so I'm not sure who exactly kicked them out of the CL. In any case, UEFA's completely capable of changing the competitors in their tournament by fiat (*cough*Liverpool*cough*), so their press release is almost entirely about saving face rather than about accurately describing the legal situation. Not that that's particularly surprising.

I don't think Marseilles are a very good analogy, though. In that case, there was evidence that Tapie had paid off an opposing team - fixing matches more directly than Moggi ever did. In this case, there's evidence that an associate director (or something like) called an official to ask for a 'fair' (read: not one of Moggi's favorites) ref. Definitely not something he ought to be doing, but I think the current punishment is sufficient for that. If you've seen actual evidence of some other crime then please point it out to me, but everything I've seen suggests that the rest of the case is mostly built on a refusal to believe that Berlusconi can be even tangentially related to corruption like this without playing a major part. There's some logic to that, but not the sort that any judicial body ought to be paying attention to. UEFA and the Italian sporting courts have to make their judgements off of factual evidence rather than speculation, and there isn't much there against Milan. Again, if I'm missing some specific allegations then please point it out to me, but general speculation/dislike of Berlusconi is not a valid reason for an official body to punish anyone.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Katon

Winning titles is sort of the point of playing the games (and trying to rig them).

I wonder if this is really true any more. Sure, you would love to win your league, but if they had to choose between winning the league or winning the CL, I think most players would choose the CL. There's more prestige involved in that. That's why certain clubs (Liverpool) are built the way they are. They can play well in Europe, but their style doesn't translate to the EPL.

Originally Posted by Katon

I don't think Marseilles are a very good analogy, though.

I wasn't trying to compare the Marseille scandal to what's going on in Italy. I brought them up because it's an instance where UEFA did kick someone out of the CL and I was curious if UEFA was denying they could do something that they've done in the past.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

And what were the circumstances with Marseille when they were denied the CL? Did the French FA keep them out, or was it UEFA?

That was back in the days when only the league champion made it into the Champions League. As Marseille were stripped of the Championship they didnt qualify, so UEFA didn't get involved in that part of it.

Strange thing about that year was that the team that finished 2nd turned down the Champions League place, so it was third place Monaco who got the French spot.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Thanks for the info, Critch. Hearing the statements from UEFA prior to the Milan decision, I was under the impression that they were the ones to keep Marseille out.

It seems like they avoided a bullet back then and they really should have changed the rules to prevent anything like that from happening again.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I wonder if this is really true any more. Sure, you would love to win your league, but if they had to choose between winning the league or winning the CL, I think most players would choose the CL. There's more prestige involved in that. That's why certain clubs (Liverpool) are built the way they are. They can play well in Europe, but their style doesn't translate to the EPL.

Depends on the player, I'd think. And on what they'd won before. On the one hand the CL is more prestigious, but on the other hand there's always the feeling that the team winning a cup competition may not actually be the best team in it (e.g. Porto & Liverpool). Any team on Milan's level is going to try to win both. It matters a great deal to Milan whether or not they win the scudetto in a given year; winning one after-the-fact by decree would take quite a bit of the fun out, but I think this aspect of the punishment is still not completely insignificant.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I wasn't trying to compare the Marseille scandal to what's going on in Italy. I brought them up because it's an instance where UEFA did kick someone out of the CL and I was curious if UEFA was denying they could do something that they've done in the past.

Ah. Looking at it on wikipedia, it seems like the match where Tapie payed off Marseilles' opponents was actually the title-clinching game, so I imagine the French FA probably stripped them of that title, in which case UEFA wouldn't've had to do anything. I'm sure they can do it, though; they've added teams in the past when a national FA's interests went against the interests of the tournament as a whole (Liverpool), and there's no reason they couldn't work the same trick the other way. I've long since given up on expecting honesty or accuracy from the UEFA press office.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Thanks for the info, Critch. Hearing the statements from UEFA prior to the Milan decision, I was under the impression that they were the ones to keep Marseille out.

I'd guess it must've been UEFA that stopped Marseille playing in the European Super Cup thing and the game where the European Champion plays against the South American Champions. They were the official reigning European champions but AC Milan played instead.

[MIJB#19]

Good evidence or not, Milan has been punished for their part of being involved in fixing games. That should be enough reason to exclude them from playing in the Champions' League. The UEFA has always had (and taken) the freedom to deny the list of teams presented by national FA's, they should have played it hard and told the Italian FA to withdraw Milan or face a nationwide suspension. With this turn of happenings, the Italian FA sends out a message that fixing isn't right, but also isn't particularly wrong. They send out the message that Italian soccer is corrupt.

Stripping title or missing out on European competitions, I think the fans care more about the former. Going by attendance figures, European competitions tend to not be so important to Italian soccer fans, Juventus has always had trouble to even fill half of their stadium for Champions' League matches. Either the people in charge don't care to get the stadium full, or the fans really don't care until the final stages have been reached. Coincidentally AC Milan couldn't get their stadium above 2/3rd full for games before the semifinals last CL season.

[cthomer5000]

I'm curious, is tomorrow's MLS All-Stars/Chelsea game being broadcast in the UK?

[Critch]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I'm curious, is tomorrow's MLS All-Stars/Chelsea game being broadcast in the UK?

It's only on ChelseaTV, a subscription service for Chelsea fans.

Sky are concentrating on the Ajax Tournament (Ajax/Porto/Man Utd/Inter) and the first weekend of the Coca Cola Championship.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I'm curious, is tomorrow's MLS All-Stars/Chelsea game being broadcast in the UK?

Check ESPN - they're showing it here (Australia) so they're taking the feed.

[cthomer5000]

Well, I'm in the US... just curious as to whether it's getting any airtime overseas. I would think that is something MLS would want, if only to show how competitive their top guys can be (in a meaningless match).

[Critch]

Looks like Aston Villa are going to announce that Martin O'Neill is their new manager. So that will be long balls, central defenders that look and act like heavyweight boxers, and midfielders who kick opponents more than they kick the ball while developing bad necks from watching the ball fly overhead.

Next season's Villa v Bolton game should be a classic.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Critch

Looks like Aston Villa are going to announce that Martin O'Neill is their new manager. So that will be long balls, central defenders that look and act like heavyweight boxers, and midfielders who kick opponents more than they kick the ball while developing bad necks from watching the ball fly overhead.

Next season's Villa v Bolton game should be a classic.

As a Leicester fan almost all of that description of O'Neill's sides is bollocks - the one bit I'll agree with is he likes the 'more physical' type of centre half: when we had Walsh, Taggart, Elliott and Prior to choose from it's a wonder any of the opposition dared to even mount an attack, let alone have a shot

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Well, I'm in the US... just curious as to whether it's getting any airtime overseas. I would think that is something MLS would want, if only to show how competitive their top guys can be (in a meaningless match).

Your post was the first I'd heard of it. It hasn't been mentioned on Sky Sports News or anything as far as I'm aware.