Recent blog posts

Posted by on

Sometimes 140 characters are just not enough.

Yesterday I tweeted along these lines. Patrick Bamford to C Pal. The P Lge should ban loans.

As ever it prompted the usual tirade of abuse from the keyboard cowards. How many of you clowns would actually have the courage to address the people you abuse face to face?  It's pathetic. Twitter and other social media outlets are great fun. They allow right minded people, happily the majority, to engage in debate, ask questions, both of which I love, and of course, the various sites can be a terrific way to gather information.

I didn't intend to go down this route, but let me just warn the 'cowards'. For some time now I have employed investigative 'on line' staff and we know who you are - despite your attempts to hide - and we know which company funds your work. Yes, company. For the rest of you - it won't surprise you when I reveal all.

Anyway, back to the argument I'm making. It's simple. Loaning/borrowing players to and from each other in the P Lge distorts the competition and shouldn't be allowed.

The Chief Exec of the Lge, Richard Scudamore, was very strong this week when pointing out that it's not his job to help build a successful England team. He says it's only his job to create the best and most successful league in the world.

Ok. Follow that theme just for a moment. The argument for lending players to each other in our top league is that it allows them to gain experience. Let's take Bamford as an example. Some argue that he's not good enough to hold down a regular place at Chelsea, so he should be out on loan gaining experience, and that will be useful as grows his career and blossoms into an international footballer.

Really? On what basis do we believe a season on loan at Crystal Palace will turn him into England's next No. 9? If he's not good enough at Chelsea right now, how is it he'll be good enough to play for England? And even if that happened, why is it the P Lge's business if you follow Scudamore's argument?

I accept that getting first team football is important. Of course it is. Bamford is at a stage where he needs it. Playing for Chelsea's under 21's every week isn't going to help his development now. Don't get me started on the inadequacies of the U21 league - that's another story! 

So, there are 2 options. Get him out on loan into the C'ship or elsewhere in Europe, or sell him. 

It's scandalous that Chelsea now have the best part of 50 - yes 50 - players out on loan. Why? Simply because they can. It's wrong. My message is this - play them because you believe in them, or sell them. Don't collect them. That's where the problem really lies.

There isn't a team in the P Lge now that can't afford both fees and wages so 'loaning' shouldn't be an option on that basis either, but here's the biggest reason why it shouldn't be allowed - it distorts the competition. 

I've said any times that Mourinho doesn't miss a trick. Remember him sending Lukaku on loan to Everton? Why? Did he care it was good experience for the player? No. He never fancied him. Lukaku was never going to be a Chelsea player under Mourinho.

The reason he was on loan at Everton was simple. Mourinho knew he was 'decent' and could inflict damage on his title rivals. He could play against them all. But who couldn't he play against? Correct - Chelsea.

The same goes for Bamford. Patrick is a nice lad, and a goalscorer. He'll never play regularly for Chelsea, but he'll be doing the next best thing next season - playing against their title rivals. This distorts the competition.  

There is actually no sensible argument for the system. If Bamford was good enough to play for Chelsea then he would. He isn't. 

The system is wrong. It's being abused - and so are players bought by the big clubs and hoarded. This doesn't allow the progression they need. It thwarts it. 

Now, I'm happy to enter into sensible debate on the subject, but if you've only got banal insults to offer, please, take yourself off somewhere else. Preferably kindergarten.

A couple of other things. Love West Ham's second choice kit this season - the one that instantly brings back memories of Bobby Moore - the light blue with the claret chest band. That's a proper Hammers kit.

As City are linked with Kevin de Bruyne Mourinho tells us he sold the player because 'he told me it was not in his personality to be competing for a place in the team'. Ouch! You don't think he's got 'character' then Jose? A warning to City perhaps? Or is he running a little scared? Here's one that Mourinho can't control and he might end up looking a mug.

Tim Sherwood has lost his tongue, as well as his best two players, so I'm not surprised. Unless he can get some decent replacements in Villa are in for another struggle. I wonder if he knew Delph could walk away for such a pittance when he took over? 

And why did it take so long for Benteke's move to Anfield to get done? When a players' medical takes as long as his did alarm bells always ring for me. I made a few calls and I think I may end up being right on this one as well. It'll be interesting to see how many games Benteke plays this season. 

De Gea? I still think he'll end up at Real Madrid this season  

Benitez and Ronaldo? This has no chance of working. My best guess is that Ronaldo will be at PSG this time next season. And Zidane will be in charge of Madrid.

Posted by on

My goodness, Fabian Delph has come in for a shed load of criticism hasn't he? I know how he feels, it was my turn last week when I suggested Villa had been negligent allowing him to slip away from Villa Park for just £8m - then he did his much publicised U-turn and Villa fans turned on me spewing their often childish bile in my direction.

'See. Keys. Hairy hands, you don't know what you're talking about. He's staying'. Three things wrong with that often repeated statement. 1. I don't have hairy hands. 2. I do know what I'm talking about. 3. He's gone.

My point all along was that somebody at Villa has a lot to answer for. How could they let Delph trigger an £8m 'escape' clause?

'Ah. If he didn't have an escape clause he would never have signed that deal in January' was the theme of the argument. 'Then he would've left for nothing'.

Let me tell you this - £8m in today's market, for an English player of his quality is 'nothing'. Who are Villa going to replace him with for that paltry money?

Of course few, if any players, sign a deal these days that doesn't have an escape clause. The principle was really started by Ronaldo and his army of advisors at United. I've told you many times about his calling Ramon Calderon at Real Madrid after he'd agreed to stay and sign a new 4-year deal. It had an £80m escape clause. Exactly one-year on the deal was done. Everybody, except the 'mugs' who put their hands in their pockets every week, knew it would be.

Suarez is another high profile example. He was ALWAYS leaving Anfield a year after signing his 4-year deal. Those close to the game ALL knew that. Those who claim that not to be true aren't close enough.

Benteke will complete his move this week - for £32.5m. That's a blow for everybody connected with Villa, but at least its good money.

In Delph's case it's not. I can guess why they didn't do business earlier. He was coming back from a bad injury - his contract was running down - and nobody was sure if he'd be the player he was before the injury when he returned to action. He wasn't. He was better. Villa caught a cold. Now the contract had only months to run and they'd handed him and his representatives all the cards. Big error.

The time to do the deal was when he was fighting back from that injury. Show the lad some 'loyalty' - give him a pay rise and include a decent sum of money that would trigger his escape route - £20m minimum. He would've signed. When tight fisted Villa finally did a deal it was too late.

 I don't blame Delph for walking out on Villa. In any walk of life who isn't going to take a better job for more money if it's offered? I blame Villa's hapless PR dept for the original daft statements in January and  for jumping the gun last week. He was always going to leave - either opting to change his mind about City, or for another of the big clubs once they knew they could include a 'home grown' star in their C Lge squads for just £8m. And I said as much last week in one or two replies.

If I was a Villa fan, who'd already bought a season ticket based largely on us keeping our two best players, I'd be furious. I'd also want to know what Villa knew about the impending departure of both - and when they knew it. Check back on my tweets and discover the date I told you all about Benteke going to Liverpool.

On that subject. What does Rodgers do now to accommodate his new signing? Starved of a supply line under Paul Lambert, Benteke's goals dried up. Tim Sherwood got him scoring again by getting balls into the box. That will require a complete re-think from Rodgers, bearing in mind what he said about playing with a 'big man' when he turfed Andy Carroll out of the club. More on that another time.

I'm delighted to see Gary McAllister back in football. He's been unlucky with most of the jobs he's had so far, but he did give Villa their last 'top half' finish, after taking over from Gerard Houllier the season the Frenchman fell ill. I hope Rodgers draws on McAllister's knowledge and that he hasn't been taken back to Anfield just to be a 'token' X-pro.

Best piece of summer business so far? James Milner. Fantastic signing. I can't see better being done between now and the end of the window. Great pro. Unfussy. Good lad. He'll give 100% every week. He ticks all the boxes.

Elsewhere, Rodgers has spent big. He'll have to start well or he could yet be first out of the door this season.

United keep spending. There's more to come yet. Remind me, how many of you told me Fergie's last title team was 'fit for purpose'? It wasn't. I've never wavered from that line. Check for yourselves how many of the team he last picked are still at Old Trafford. He left a club in steep decline and got away with it. Van Gaal has been busy plugging the gaps but he hasn't done anything David Moyes hadn't recognised. Van Gaal also needs a really good season. (a) to get beyond the 18 month limit I gave him and (b) to justify the spending. He's got to be a serious title contender.

And finally, Claudio Ranieri? Seriously? I don't know who comes up with these ideas. He won't last a season at Leicester. And they'll be lucky to survive a 2nd season in the top league. My 'hits' and 'misses' for the upcoming campaign the nearer to the start we get.

Posted by on

Well that was certainly a 'blaaaast'. The best part of a month in Miami covering the Copa America for beIN Sports. I Ioved every minute of it.

It's as true today though as it always was - the U.K. and the U.S. remain two mighty nations divided by a common language!

'Blaaaast'. A well struck shot. 'Tap of the bax'. That's the 'edge of the box' to most of us! 'Across the 6'. I soon got to grips with that one. 'Rainbow ball'. A chip. 'Dagger ball'. I think that's a raking incisive pass. 'Passing lane'. Not sure! 'Transition'. We've adopted that one already! I could go on, there's loads.

I'm not criticising by the way. I love the American spin on 'our' great game. And I mean 'our' in every sense because the game truly is a global phenomenon now.

I'm told 20m watched the Copa America final. It was seen in Australia, the Middle East and North Africa, Spain, France and the America's on beIN Sports. It was a simultaneous broadcast in Arabic, Spanish, French and English. No broadcast operation had ever undertaken anything like it and it was a privilege to be part of it.

Congrats to the hosts Chile in a job very well done as Argentina choked again. That's seven successive tournament 'finals' defeats now and perhaps Messi will never win anything with his country?

Having said that, they're doing it all again next year in - America! Why? Because it's the centennial competition. Why in America? I don't have the answer to that - perhaps the FBI can look into it and give us some answers!

Sixteen teams will be in, rather than the 12 this year and I suspect they'll sell out in every arena they've got in this mighty country.

That brings me back to the point I originally wanted to make. When the WC came to the U.S. in 1994 there was barely a domestic game to speak of. When the award was made in 1988 there was uproar. How could FIFA be so daft? was a question asked time and again

As it turned out it was a phenomenal success and the legacy is still being felt today. Look at MLS - vibrant and growing. Not top class by any stretch of the imagination, but 1994 WC inspired a generation. You see 'soccer' pitches everywhere. Youngsters have replaced basketballs with 'soccer balls'. You see the game being played in all the parks.

So, as I've argued for a long time, can anyone give me a real reason why the Middle East, specifically Qatar, shouldn't host in 2022. Why Russia shouldn't in 2018? It's only right that football can be enjoyed the world over. Why shouldn't people in other regions/countries be able to touch their hero's? It's a 'World' cup after all - not an 'English' cup, or a 'European' cup.

In closing, let me congratulate  the Lionesses on a wonderful effort at the Women's WC. Obviously my attention has been elsewhere for the majority of the tournament, but I've been following it, of course.

Third place is a terrific achievement. Let's hope it inspires at home as the WC did here in America.