EPL Talk » Transfer

Transfer Ban for United?

Adam Mikhail — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:41:06 +0000

It seems like this is all coming out of nowhere. Any fan of the game knows that the “tapping-up” allegations have always been prominent but rarely has it been so harshly punished. From United’s perspective, they were accused of tapping up Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney in the recent past and accused Real Madrid of tapping-up Ronaldo(the accusing needed not be done, Ronaldo was caught on camera). Now, we have the tapping up issue of Paul Pogba.

This morning, FIFA announced the two-year transfer ban of Chelsea Football Club for acquiring the signature of Gael Kakuta, who had signed a non-solicitation agreement with French club Lens. This evening, The Times are reporting that a similar case has been filed against United for the signing of Le Havre youngster Paul Pogba and that the situation is not yet resolved, according the club’s managing director.

In a matter of days, we’ve heard about three issues that could potentially harm English teams. First, Michel Platini singled out Manchester City’s spending and claimed they would not be allowed to participate in Europe if they could not balance the books – all the while not mentioning the actions of Real Madrid. Now there are two more issues with top English clubs that could see a serious downsizing of the English club dominance – assuming the sanctions are carried out.

Michael Owen: Am I Supposed To Hate Him Now?

Ethan Armstrong — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:07:02 +0000

As a Liverpool supporter I have a soft spot for Michael Owen.

Now, for the sake of full journalistic disclosure, I must admit I came to the party late. I’m an American who, seduced by the 2006 World Cup, went looking for an English club to support. Through the right mixture of Steven Gerrard, Peter Crouch and a childhood Beatles obsession (I see that puzzled look on your face—more on all this in an upcoming article), I fell in love with Liverpool Football Club.

So while I cannot speak for scousers who were once swaddled in LFC nappies, I am completely torn over how to feel about Owen going to Manchester United.

When I first swooned for Liverpool, Michael Owen was already two seasons gone. He was at Newcastle, a side I could never bring myself to despise. I knew they hadn’t been a threat to Liverpool’s title hopes since the first time Kevin Keegan was behind the Magpie steering wheel—later, in 2007, I’d buy the DVD of the 1996 4-3 Liverpool-Newcastle classic to help cope with my first summer of PLW: Premier League Withdrawal. (Scandalously, this syndrome is not yet recognized by the World Psychiatric Association. I’ve written a letter.)

So with Owen at Newcastle and me inhaling every piece of media on Liverpool’s back-history I could find, I developed an affection for the wayward golden boy. I wanted him to do well. Wherever he was. As long as it wasn’t at Liverpool’s expense.

But now he’s off to Manchester United. The enemy. What’s a Red American to do? (During the McCarthy Era, American Liverpool supporters were persecuted for asking such a question. Both of them were blacklisted and forced to wear away kits only.) Anyway…

Michael Owen to Manchester United: it’s Johnny Damon leaving the Sox for the Yankees… It’s Marian Hossa leaving Pittsburgh for the Red Wings… It’s Patti Harrison leaving George for Eric Clapton… It’s Captain Ramius parking his Soviet nuclear sub in Penobscot Bay… It’s my freshman year girlfriend leaving me for the singer in my band… (my fault: I shouldn’t have let the prick write ballads…)

No no no. Those things were immediate. Those things were Ashley Cole.

Unlike the aforementioned coups of the sporting heart, the Owen move to Manchester has been softened from his time in Spain and Tyneside. It’s not a direct slight.

Reasons I don’t need to hate him:

-He already “sold out” to Real Madrid. He left Liverpool to chase Champions League glory with the Spanish giants. So his leaving relegated Newcastle to chase glory with the champs is anticlimactic at this point.

-Liverpool had the last laugh: they won the Champions League the season after he left. Sucker. Although this does ressurect my Hossa Pittsburgh/Red Wings comparison. (If only Liverpool had beaten Real Madrid instead of Milan in 2005…)

-He’s going to tear something by September anyway. The Premier League is too intense for Owen to get over his recurring injuries. He’ll split his time between the injury ward, the physio room and the bench.

-Some say he’d come back to Liverpool if he could. Rafa doesn’t want him. I can’t blame him for grabbing the opportunity at Old Trafford if Anfield’s doors are closed to him.

Honestly, this has to be the last big club who will ever want him. It’s like if I was a 45-year-old (roughly the equivalent to Owen’s age in football years—and, yes, Beckham looks great at 65) and I got the chance to date a gorgeous 21-year-old again. (Note: I’m not a rich footballer.) Even if we had nothing in common and our vast cultural differences imposed crippling, uncomfortable silences on our attempts to relate, I would have to tell myself: this has to be the last chance I’ll get to date a 21-year-old! Where’s the dilemma?

And there’s already a couple of United players I don’t completely hate. Maybe I haven’t been at it long enough, but I don’t hate Giggs (longstanding great player even if his award last year came from the old man sympathy vote) and I don’t hate Vidic (he’s brilliant. C’mon, who wouldn’t adopt Vidic in a heartbeat?)

The only real stinger will be if Owen scores against Liverpool. It will be beyond devastating if one of his goals decides the season or a cup result… Will he walk off the pitch, head down, like Dennis Law in 1974? Or will he thrust his hands in the air and circle the pitch like a madman? I don’t want to think about that one.

No. The likelihood of his windows of fitness lining up with such a pivotal moment seems miniscule. But you never know.

So until he single-handedly knocks Liverpool out of the title race, the FA Cup or the Champions League, I’m choosing not to hate Michael Owen.

I think.

Anyway, I’m not going to applaud his goals anymore. I look forward to ricochets off the bar and his face sinking at the sight of raised offsides flags. Those little moments will bring me joy. I mean, c’mon: It’s Manchester United.

Could Manchester City Send Robinho to Chelsea for John Terry?

tyduffy — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:46:01 +0000

It would be a sane Premier League week if there wasn’t an outlandish Manchester City rumor, but where is the fun in that?

This week’s circulation is a doozy. Manchester City reportedly are including Robinho in a cash plus player offer for Chelsea captain John Terry this summer. City would entice Terry by doubling his £135,000 per week salary. He would be a part of the £200m summer spree to acquire everyone the Abu Dhabi owners fancy.

As farcical as this deal sounds, it would make sense.

Manchester City need to get rid of Robinho. He kisses badges and plays to crowds but he obviously considers himself better than the club. He disrespects City with grand gestures, such as his birthday jaunt to Brazil. He disrespects them on an everyday basis through things as small as the dress code.

Despite the purported Hiddink magic, Chelsea need to revamp the squad. With Abramovich’s money clip clamped, they need to raise funds from sales. For all of Terry’s sentimental attachment, he’s aging and expandable, far less crucial to the defense than Carvalho. If Chelsea can get an elite talent, such as Robinho, and cash, (or even straight cash) they must consider this deal.

Even just getting Terry’s contract off the books would be bottom-line beneficial.

It’s sensible for City to dump Robinho and Chelsea to sell Terry. It’s also prudent to deal with each other, because they are the only available markets for the two players.

City would want close to the outrageous £32.5m they paid for the fancy dan. That rules out nearly every club besides, Chelsea and Real Madrid. Madrid obviously don’t want him back. Chelsea fought earnestly for him in September. He would be the perfect support striker with either Drogba or Anelka that Chelsea has missed.

Manchester City are also the only destination for Terry. He’s overvalued in England, preventing any European club from coming in for him. Liverpool and Arsenal have neither the need for his defending nor the money. Manchester United have two far superior players in Vidic and Ferdinand. City could use his defending, as well as his leadership ability. They also have the money.

Terry may claim to be loyal to Chelsea, but the opportunity to be by far the highest paid player in football only comes once, particularly for an aging, above-average English defender.

This deal likely will be too crazy to occur. Chelsea may deem Terry vital to future interests. Terry may decide to stay in London. City may even come to their senses, to go after someone with less star-power and more skill.

However, if this transfer does turn up, both clubs should not hesitate.

The 6+5 Rule Would Radically Alter Football, But Not in a Good Way

tyduffy — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:58:43 +0000

FIFA recently approved the “6+5 rule” in a 155-5 vote among member nations. The rule would mandate that clubs field at least six players from the nation in which they play. By targeting wealthy clubs, particularly English ones, buying foreign players, FIFA feels they would revive national teams and achieve greater parity. This policy would do neither.

The rule is unworkable. It is illegal in Europe. The European Union forbids employee discrimination among member states. Contrary to Sepp Blatter’s bleating, the EU is not going to change its laws to accommodate his whims. Upon implementation, the rule would be challenged immediately by players or clubs under European Law and be overturned.

It would cheapen the quality of the game. Managers would be forced to base tactics on flags rather than football. The rule would subsidize and promote inferior players because of their nationality. Managers with injured English players would have to call up kids from the U-18s rather than experienced foreign professionals to maintain the ratio. It would entirely alter the way matches are managed, for no tangible benefit.

The rule would exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them. The reason English clubs buy foreign players is that it is more cost effective. It makes far more sense to pick up Robin Van Persie for £2.5m than to shell out £17m for Darren Bent to rot on your bench. English players often get stifled at lower clubs because they are so overvalued (see Gareth Barry or Micah Richards). The 6-5 rule would only raise the already inflated value of English players, pricing the elite ones out from all but the top teams.

It would also hinder players’ development further by thrusting talented youngsters forward even more quickly. England’s national team is the only major European side with a slew of flawed players. Even the elites – Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Joe Cole – have obvious tactical and technical flaws in their game. The players are rushed through the system because of their talent and are not coached. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not their perceived lack of access to Premier League places (even though ten English players started for Manchester United and Chelsea in the Champions League final).

If there is no direct benefit to the national teams, the assumed intent would be to achieve parity. However, the backhanded effort does little to create parity. Inflating the value of national players may even limit cost-effective alternatives and widen the gap further.

A far more sensible policy for promoting the domestic game would be the implementation of UEFA’s homegrown player rules. It encourages clubs to invest in their youth system and player development without foisting unwieldy tactics upon managers or breaking EU laws.

A better way to police big clubs would be to directly address them by imposing spending caps, a salary crap, or some form of revenue sharing/luxury tax in domestic leagues.

Trying to accomplish both in a slapdash, ill-considered way to achieve demagogic popularity is doomed to failure.

Also just for speculation, would Cardiff have to field six English players or six Welsh players?

Samir Nasri to Arsenal?

tyduffy — Tue, 20 May 2008 05:22:26 +0000

If the papers were to believed, Arsene Wenger would have a Solomonesque Harem of young studs at his disposal. However, the rumors of OM star Samir Nasri moving on up to the Emirates seem to have some juice.

Nasri, 20, recently signed a four-year deal with Marseilles. But, the deal contains a £13.5 million buyout clause, which may be in Arsenal’s price range.

Arsenal have reportedly held talks with the youngster, and Nasri hinted that he had played his last match at the Stade Velodrome.

A versatile attacking midfielder who can play on both wings, Nasri would likely be the younger (and better) replacement for Inter-bound Alexander Hleb.