Liverpool-Football's dram queen.Article (written by a Chelsea fan)

ciaran76

I didn't add this to the Liverpool thread as I thought it was half Chelsea and half Liverpool so started a thread on its own.
I copied this from an e-mail going around the job at the moment.


LIVERPOOL - FOOTBALL'S DRAMA QUEEN

There is some very interesting news coming out of Liverpool.

I am not referring to Sheikh Maktoum, he of DIC, the Dubai
Investment Behemoth, having showed an interest in buying the club, now seeming
to have changed his mind; something we are obviously devastated about.
No,
I refer to something else.
There has been a new FIFA/UEFA directive sent down from up high, and
this has some serious ramifications for all of us. "Order" is being
returned to football.

One player may not play for two clubs in one period, and then sign
for
another one within a certain time period. The rules are there to
prevent moves like the Javier Mascherano one, but for some reason, the rules
are bent to accommodate Liverpool. We are not told that there are
extenuating circumstances, or any reason why the rules should be
broken,other than they have been so that Liverpool could get their player.
But who are we to argue? We are just a small club in West London with no
fans or history. Had we tried to get the undoubtedly talented young
Argentine hardman, we would have been told where to go by UEFA, as
we are ruining football, and it would be crassly wrong to allow us to
ruin Mascherano`s career by never playing him. Quite right too. We can
only applaud UEFA`s flexibility. It really does speak volumes about an
organisation so willing to listen to and accommodate its favourite
fourteen sons.

In the not-too distant past, Liverpool did not qualify for the
Champions League as they had not finished in a qualifying position in the
League the previous season. Had it had been us we would not have played in
the Champions League that season. But they let Liverpool in at the
expense of some other team who had qualified, but obviously didn`t have the
class or history that Liverpool had. Everyone here at Vital-Chelsea
rapturously applauded UEFA their grace and foresight to include
Liverpool. For a club that size, it shouldn`t matter if they
qualified or not. Ok, the rules over who gets to play in the Champions League
or not have been around for years, and have been set in stone, but
Liverpool have not been inconvenienced by them before. It wasn`t all
plain sailing across the Mersey however. As many people in Liverpool
pointed out, it does beggar belief that they should have had to play
through the preliminary stages. Against the cacophony of nasal
whining from the Liverpool fans, we were amazed, and frankly very
disappointed, that they were not put in the knockout stages. It was, we were told by a steaming multitude of Scousers, a disgrace that a club of
Liverpool`s stature should have to play in the preliminaries.

Can we expect a weighting system for next season`s Barclay`s
Premiership? Having a team that wins the league because it has the
most points is clearly absurd. It does not take into account history,
class,dignity, or fanbase. This means that any old team can just come
along and win the title instead of the teams that should rightfully be
winning it. This is of course totally unacceptable. A weighting system will
mean that Liverpool can finally have their trophy back, as lets be honest
here fellow Chelsea fans, we have absolutely no right to be winning
really.

Then there was the Michael Essien issue. The player made a poor
tackle that could have injured Dietmar Hamman badly. He was booked, and was lucky to stay on the pitch. FIFA rules state that once a player has
been booked, that that`s that. He cannot be punished further. Unless of
course Liverpool are involved in which case the rules do not apply
and the player should be given a lengthy ban. Nothing like it had
occurred before the incident. We all expected it to be introduced as the new
rules and be the done thing from then on. Apparently not. The old
rules still apply, but not in this case. Talk about moving the goalposts.
Some may argue that this is against the spirit if the game, but as we all
know, Liverpool invented the spirit of the game, hence, they are at
liberty to do with it as they wish.

Mind you, getting key rules "bent", byes into the Champions League,
and players signed in complete contravention of the rules about signing
players because someone thinks the rules should no apply to a huge
club like Liverpool, could also be construed as against the spirit of the
game. So indeed, could the riots at Heysel where all those Juventus
fans died, it is alleged, as a result of the actions of the Liverpool
fans.
Not really in keeping with the spirit of the beautiful game. English
clubs kicked out of Europe for a few seasons as a result. Doesn`t
leave
a pleasant taste does it? Liverpool fans robbing their own dead at
Hillsborough, according to the red-tops of the time I would contend
is probably not what UEFA has in mind when promoting the international
universal language. Demanding bowing and scraping, countless
minute`s silences and reverential deference from every other team in the
league for the aforementioned tragedies, and then scrawling disgusting
graffiti referring to the equally tragic Munich Air Disaster all over Old
Trafford - hardly the stuff of boyhood football dreams. Hurling
human excrement at opposition fans, and attacking the ambulance carrying
the broken-legged Alan Smith in a recent game against Manchester United
at Anfield - not exactly jumpers for goalposts is it?

I can hear the howls of derision from here already. No doubt we will
get hundreds of letters and emails denying that any of this ever
happened and questioning our parentage etc. Apparently none of it did. Essien
should have got a longer ban and they were doing the footballing
world a favour. Chelsea and Millwall fans were responsible for the Heysel
riot.
The Liverpool fans were minding their own business. Alan Smith was
clapped off by the Kop. Everything else is just a Murdoch-media
crusade, tissue of lies, to undermine and blacken the Liverpool name.

We aren`t exactly angels ourselves.

We`ve seen racism, fascism, anti-Semitism, and an awful lot of
organised violence over the last 102 years at Chelsea. We are not much
different to most big clubs, but we have moved on, accept and freely admit to our past, and are almost all glad those days have gone. Yes we`ve tapped
players up, and yes I`m sure we`ve been involved in our fair share
of bung enquiries over the years. Everyone has done it, and we are no
different.

The laughable misnomer that Liverpool Football Club is somehow
better than us, that they are the best, most knowledgeable football fans in
the world is nauseating. What has this huge club done to be given such
special treatment by the footballing powers-that-be? Could it be the
fact that the club and its fans love to be victims, and are
footballing Drama Queens without compare? We certainly would not be given the same breaks - of that there is no question. Why do they deserve to be
treated that way, and us not? Are they better than us? For all their
arrogant bluster and "amusing" banners, no. They are no better than the rest
of us and most certainly do not deserve their preferential treatment by
UEFA.
Nobody, other than the usual blinkered, rabid dribbling
obsessives we get on here would argue that.
it raises the question - to what extent will UEFA or FIFA move the
goalposts to accommodate Liverpool? What further "bending" of the
rules are we going to see, so that the Scousers may benefit? Arbitrary
points awards for having 'the bestest player in the world ever, ever`? How
far will they go to ensure Liverpool`s success?

Certainly something to ponder on.

Benedict XVI

It brings to mind something that was said on TV shortly after Liverpool won the Champions League in 2005.
On Sky when Phil Thompson was asked ‘Why should UEFA allow Liverpool into next seasons CP’ his only reply was ‘Cos we’re Liverpool Football Club’

A bit arrogant I though.

HashSlinging

my eyes hurt.

Nalz

what a load of cornflakes

Ardent

I'm not going to comment too much on the rantings of a bitter, jealous Chelski fan, he's clearly a total assh0le reading that.

I just want to say regarding the Alan Smith incident - yes, as mentioned sarcastically, he was indeed clapped off the pitch by the Anfield crowd. And yes, there was a minority who attacked the ambulance but you get d*ckheads in all walks of life. That's no reflection on the majority.

One word for the rest of the article - pathetic.

Edit: oh, and the comments re: Hillsborough and Heysel... just shows you the mindset of this weirdo.

Ardent

Benedict XVI wrote:

It brings to mind something that was said on TV shortly after Liverpool won the Champions League in 2005.
On Sky when Phil Thompson was asked ‘Why should UEFA allow Liverpool into next seasons CP’ his only reply was ‘Cos we’re Liverpool Football Club’

A bit arrogant I though.

Phil Thompson is a spanner of the highest order, and that's coming from a Liverpool fan.

PHB

In all fairness, the entire stadium was in shock and horror when Alan Smith broke his leg, and he was appluaded off the pitch.

Aside from that, I think it's absolutely hilarious that a Chelsea fan is complaining about Liverpool breaking the transfer regulations :rolleyes:

RE*AC*TOR

There are other players who have played for 3 teams in one season. Its not unique to Liverpool.

As for the post in general, I think a lot of it is in poor taste. Its certainly very bitter. I guess Chelsea fans are feeling a bit vunerable at the moment. After a two-season blip it looks like business is returning to normal in the Premiership.

Kimbot

Also when did you ever hear of a team not allowed to defend their trophy??

Thats why liverpool were allowed into the champions league again!!

PHB

Yeh jonny, lets go down this argument again :P

Kimbot

PHB wrote:

Yeh jonny, lets go down this argument again :P

Ah sure the point had to be raised chief!!

ciaran76

jonny24ie wrote:

Also when did you ever hear of a team not allowed to defend their trophy??

Thats why liverpool were allowed into the champions league again!!

Brazil had to qualify the normal route after they won the World Cup like any other team.

_blank_

Every single European Championships

astrofool

jonny24ie wrote:

Also when did you ever hear of a team not allowed to defend their trophy??

Thats why liverpool were allowed into the champions league again!!

(Denmark for the Euro championships... )

el rabitos

the world cup and european championships are not club competitions, thats the first difference right there and the end of that arguement

secondly, liverpools winning the champions league and not qualifying through the league was not something that had happen before so fifa or uafa, whoever made the decision had to make a call one way or another, the club involved was completely irrelevant. in the end NOT having liverpool involved the following year would have diminished the value of that years competition

maybe when chelsea under the russian and kenyon have built up a history of doing business the right way and quit bitching and crawing and whining and crying about everything, they'll have earned the benifit of the doubt as to their motivations.

either way, get over it.

Zapp Brannigan

I read up until he talked about Heysel and Hillsboro, what a kn*bend!

jesus_thats_gre

Classy guy..

mike65

Hav'nt read it won't read it. Stay Clean!

Mike.

therecklessone

el rabitos wrote:

secondly, liverpools winning the champions league and not qualifying through the league was not something that had happen before

Real Madrid won the CL in 2000 but finished 5th in La Liga. Zaragoza were entered in the UEFA Cup by the Spanish FA, with Real taking the 4th CL spot to defend their title.

~Rebel~

Wow. Its kind of disconcerting to know there are people like that out there..

The author seems quite like the people he is damning - he brings up the (absolutely horrible) graffiti at Old Trafford in one breath and in the next makes pretty tasteless comments about Heysel and Hillsborough.

On his actual legitimate arguments of Uefa/Fifa helping liverpool out, of which there are only 2 and take up a very short amount of the ranting, A tough call had to be made regarding the decision of the holder defending the title. For as long as the European cup has existed the holder has defended the title, even when only league winners were allowed and the winner had come 5th in league. They chose to allow the holder to qualify and then changed the rules for the future so the holder gets straight back into the competition proper. Sure each side would have its detractors so in the end everyone couldnt be pleased. The decision was made - case closed.

On the 3 registrations thing, well its been done before, its just that this time its high profile. So again, just cause its liverpool its being blown out of proportion. Would anyone care if it was a 4th choice defender joining a small team from a small team? Im not sure but the 3 teams thing might have even happened recently enough with both Man u and arsenal. Was Rossi registered with Man u, Newcastle and Parma all in one season? Also was aliadiere registered with West Ham, Celtic and Arsenal in one season? Again not sure about these, they just popped into my head.

The Esssien thing was a SkySports crusade, not a liverpool one. Same as the Ben Thatcher one was, with the same outcome.

Nunu

~Rebel~ wrote:

On the 3 registrations thing, well its been done before, its just that this time its high profile. So again, just cause its liverpool its being blown out of proportion. Would anyone care if it was a 4th choice defender joining a small team from a small team? Im not sure but the 3 teams thing might have even happened recently enough with both Man u and arsenal. Was Rossi registered with Man u, Newcastle and Parma all in one season? Also was aliadiere registered with West Ham, Celtic and Arsenal in one season? Again not sure about these, they just popped into my head.

QUOTE]

Your examples were loan deals, so the 3 club rule doesn't apply. In Rossi's case he's a registered Utd player and Aliadiere is a registered Arsenal player. Regarding loans if you look at the lower leagues you see plenty of players that go out on 1 month loan deals with various clubs in a season. I wonder is there a limit on the number of clubs you can join on loan in a season.

~Rebel~

Nunu wrote:

Your examples were loan deals, so the 3 club rule doesn't apply. In Rossi's case he's a registered Utd player and Aliadiere is a registered Arsenal player. Regarding loans if you look at the lower leagues you see plenty of players that go out on 1 month loan deals with various clubs in a season. I wonder is there a limit on the number of clubs you can join on loan in a season.

In that case the liverpool case doesnt apply either as Mascherano is joining on an 18month Loan deal. So either loans are included, in which case loads of these 3 club cases must apply or they dont in which case liverpools case doesnt apply.

Liverpool have agreed an 18-month loan deal with the Argentine international, with the option of a permanent move after an unhappy spell at West Ham.

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=445432&CPID=8&clid=14&lid=&title=Masch+excited+by+Reds+chance

sharkman

I fell asleep once I got to the word Chelski !!!:D

Guy:Incognito

Nunu wrote:

Your examples were loan deals, so the 3 club rule doesn't apply. In Rossi's case he's a registered Utd player and Aliadiere is a registered Arsenal player. Regarding loans if you look at the lower leagues you see plenty of players that go out on 1 month loan deals with various clubs in a season. I wonder is there a limit on the number of clubs you can join on loan in a season

Can we all read the rules. The issue is about PLAYING for 3 clubs, not being owned by 3 clubs. It may well go hand in hand but as far as I'm aware its the actual playing so FIFA may have made their decision based on the fact that MAscherano has barely played.

mike65

8 mins of first team action is'nt it?

Mike.

~Rebel~

That would make sense SteKelly, would also be why Aliadiere would have been allowed to seeing as he didnt play much for any of Celtic West Ham or Arsenal that year. (to be honest im not 100% sure he was even registered to arsenal in that year, but the other 2 were short loans so i assume he must hav had some time at arsenal again after). I dont know if Rossi played any compettive first team games this year, he played friendlies pre season alright.

Another obvious one is Jon Stead, who would probably have been allowed again due to only a handful of games at sunderland at the start of the season.
http://home.skysports.com/player.aspx?plid=14177&clid=49&cpid=8

Its funny that theres no fuss over that but Mascherano is big news and people freaking out about 1 rule for liverpool etc etc...

Thanx 4 The Fish

Not that funny ~Rebel~ people who are jealous of success will always try and knock it. And the rule is, played registered games (registered game being a game under the auspices of Uefa/fifa which is all games as they have to have a ref at least for insurance purposes) for 3 clubs, like Rossi has for example, now let's start the Rossi Furore, oh no, wait there a sec this is a chelsea rant, why let something like facts get in the way.

Thrill

ciaran76 wrote:

Everyone here at Vital-Chelsea
rapturously applauded UEFA their grace and foresight to include
Liverpool.

There seems to be a decidedly anti-liverpool slant on the Vital football sites.

Check these three Vital football links out and see what i mean

There will be uproar...
http://www.everton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=49678

Liverpool-Footballs drama queen.
http://www.chelsea.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=49896

Fifa loves Liverpool.
http://www.manchesterunited.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=50191

Nunu

~Rebel~ wrote:

In that case the liverpool case doesnt apply either as Mascherano is joining on an 18month Loan deal. So either loans are included, in which case loads of these 3 club cases must apply or they dont in which case liverpools case doesnt apply.


http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=445432&CPID=8&clid=14&lid=&title=Masch+excited+by+Reds+chance

I did a quick search on loan deals at fifa.com and found this press release. It's from 2004 though so the rule may have changed again since then. It does clarify though where the difference is in the Rossi/Aliadiere situation and Mascheranos case. It seems a player can go on up to 2 loans a season if he hasn't played for his registered club on his return from his first loan. The difference with Mascherano is his first move to West ham was not a loan deal, so it doesn't apply.

http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,104800,00.html

Zurich,19 December 2004 - At its end-of-year meeting in Zurich on 18-19 December 2004 under the chairmanship of FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter, the FIFA Executive Committee ratified the revised Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players.

There are a number of amendments in the revised regulations, with the restriction on the number of transfers per calendar year to be relaxed, thereby allowing a player to be transferred twice within the same calendar year if the contract between the club and player has been cancelled with mutual consent before the second transfer is completed. However, transfers must still take place in one of the transfer windows.

Furthermore, the provisions regarding the loan of players will also be more flexible. For example, a player who has been loaned to another club but then returns to his original club may be loaned to a second club, provided that since his return to his original club, he has only trained there and has not played in any matches for his original club

~Rebel~

Even so, it still doesnt explain how Jon Steads case merited no inquest, or even a mention. Same scenario. At Sunderland, plays 5 competitive matches, goes on loan to Derby, then sold to Sheffield. Exactly the same as the Mascherano scenario. Club A to Club B, loaned to club C.