₦airaland Forum

dayokanu:
I think ow11 analysis is more accurate

@Nguage,

By mini league I mean points you gained from Tunisia would be removed and it would be computed based on points you gained against one another

dayo, scared of the indomitable lions  

they both scored 5 goals!

ow11:
Gabon, Cameroun and Zambia all lost to one another and finished on equal number of points and thus the much maligned 'head-to-head' rule is inapplicable in this group.

They also finish with zero goal difference and thus the defining factor is number of goals scored and Zambia scored 6, Cameroun scored 5 and Gabon scored 2.
Therefore, Amodu's Eagles play Zambia in the Q/F!

wrong. . . . both Cameroon & Zambia scored and conceeded 5 goals!

Actually, i think Cameroon tops - they beat Zambia both on head2head and fair-play!

CAFONLINE neva update. . . . I remember telling some1 here that Gabon were not gonna make it thru; beating Cameroon was always gonna be their only 1 consolation!

Actually. . . . i think it'd go down to fair-play to decide who tops cuz both have same pts & goal diff!

But on head2head. . . . it should be Cameroon - on Eurosport, they have Zambia on top!

Hmmmm. . . . very intriguing. I thot a gabon goal will put Cameroon in trouble; so it actually just sets it up nicely for 'em - i wanted Egypt, oh well we can alwyas wait till the finals - Lions are always patient!

dat idrissou guy is good. . . . .

who else - if not Cameroon - the African Comeback Kings

The pharaohs of egypt must be quaking in their boots right now cuz The Lions will surely take their pound of flesh if they cross paths again!

mukina2:
Cameroun to lose that's my own!!!

berra dey pray ma'y we no cas'h ivory coast because dem no go like wetin go hapun. . . .

my indomitable lions no fit fall my hand - dem no born any team to come from behind win game for this AFCON as we dey do  

We needed a game like this and I hope it will be the start of a new run of form," Negredo told Canal Plus television.

ol' boy. . . . no be lai oh, we needed it badly!

stunning win. . . . surely, we are guaranteed a place in the last-4, guess this copa del rey is within our reach!

we're getting back to full strength now; fabiano, kanoute back. . . . still seething from the fact that Jimenez did a "wolves" in the barca game saving the cavalry for this game - we should shed that mentality by now and mix it with the big boys - sevilla fc can never go back to being just 1 of the clubs in la liga & we just have to accept it. . . . Jimenez, Jose Maria del Nido - take note!

True. . . the head to head rule in a competiton where both teams only play 1ce in the group stages appears not to be the right thing - if anything it only just encourages -tive footie as we saw in the case of Mali-Algeria; absolutely rubbish!

Interesting to see which rule comes into play tonight if Cameroon can only manage a draw with Tunisia & Zambia beats Gabon - i might so sure the head-to-head will be valid here cuz all the sides woulda won/lost against a fellow contender.

Dr Kitaun:
Cameroun because I know we would win

even at that, we will dull any of the other team with our uninspiringly slow and dull pattern except maybe Algeria . . .

ah Dokita. . . . not Cameroon oh - o' gb'o oruk'o wan - lions ke!? becuz dey will over-run d eagles with sheer brute force; u see Osaze 9 months _pregnancy ^kpele injury lo' ma fun

Manchester City striker Carlos Tevez has defended his controversial goal celebrations against former club Manchester United on Tuesday, insisting they were "a response to them saying I was not worth the money".

Tevez, who joined City in the summer after United decided not to spend £25million to keep him, goaded former United team-mate Gary Neville during his two-goal performance in the 2-1 Carling Cup semi-final first-leg victory. Neville publicly backed Sir Alex Ferguson's decision not to buy the forward.

The Argentina striker also gestured towards the United directors but insists there was "nothing malicious intended".
"Gary was very disrespectful, which is out of character, but he didn't know the whole story of why I left Manchester United and I believe I deserved his respect," Tevez said.

"Football is a form of theatre and it was just a form of banter. There was nothing malicious intended. I was not trying to incite anyone but I was entitled to say to Neville that he should have been more respectful.

"For the second goal I ran to the touchline and cupped my ears and looked up to the part of the ground where the United directors were sitting, and also to Ferguson in the dugout, because I wanted them to know this was my response to them saying I was not worth the money.

"People from United have been speaking about me publicly and criticising me but I wanted to do my talking on the pitch because that was the best way of responding to all these people, such as Neville, who were saying United were right to let me go."

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/21012010/63/tevez-goading-response.html

Okay carlito. . . . enough said already - we still like u, but keep runnimg ur mouth and that will soon turn to something else!

what is wrong to say UTD were right in letting u go; maybe it is carlito that doesn't know the whole story!

nateevs:
I don't think a club can successfully implement a wage cap. Like Wenger said - With the way we are going in football, if you are successful on the pitch, you are doomed.

A club implementing a wage cap with the current conditions is tantamount to committing suicide. Footballers will simply move on and recent stats have shown that the biggest wage players are the most successful on the pitch. When clubs see that they win trophies when they pay big, they will continue in that light.

So unless the FA steps in, there can't be a successful cap on wages.

It'd take a very brave FA to attempt to put a cap on player's wages. . . . . to some clubs, its gonna be welcome; to others it'd be like being put in a strait jacket; and its really unrealistic cuz its difficult to get any form of uniformity from big clubs all d way down 2 d lower ligues.

Arsenal go lose dis game! Davies still dey hol' those defenders 4 work.

Copa Del Rey:

Deportivo vs Sevilla 10pm naija time

Its only 1 half of a 2-legged tie - nothing wrong with city basking in the euphoria of their victory, let carlito enjoy his moment in the sun, he's always wanted it & now he's got it.
But in the end, he who ultimately laffs last, is he that makes it thru to the finals & going by UTD's response in the last quarter of that game after city had snatched the lead, in all honesty, i don't think Mancini's boys will be able to take the heat in OT!

nateevs:
Let's discuss Wages.

Is a Wage cap on footballers possible? And if it is what are the pros and cons of such actions on football.

very possible but can only really be successful if enforced by individual clubs rather than the FA. . . .

Manchester United's parent company's overall debt has swelled to £716.5million, latest accounts reveal.

The company Red Football Joint Venture Ltd, which is owned by the Glazer family, filed accounts on Wednesday for the year ending June 30 2009 showing their overall debt has gone past the £700million mark for the first time, increasing by £17million from £699million.

The biggest rise has come in the payment in kindUnited's parent company reveals £716.5m debt loans, which typically have a higher interest rate, which show a £27million increase to £202million. Bank loans, meanwhile, have dropped by £9million to £509million.

The overall debt figure, not contained in the prospectus for a £500million bond issue released last week, illustrate why the Glazers are so keen to raise cash through bonds to reduce the interest on the debt.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/20012010/58/premier-league-manchester-united-reveal-716m-debt.html

@ last some cheery news

Fabiano could make Copa comeback
Sevilla striker Luis Fabiano could make his return from injury in Wednesday's Copa del Rey quarter-final first-leg at Deportivo La Coruna.
The Andalusian club said in a statement that the Brazilian international, who damaged an ankle in early December, trained normally on Monday.

Argentina midfielder Diego Perotti is still suffering from bruising on his thigh and is doubtful.

Thank goodness Mali are out - at least we can have Kanoute back even if its only just for sake of sparing us the agony of having to watch that mumu Kone embarass his family name  in public

So, so cruel on the malians. . . . they saved the best for last but unfortunately, not enough! Kanoute & Co. thanks for some very splendid entertainment  though.

Very nicely setup for the Milan derby next week!

La Liga - Laporta sets Guardiola deadline

Barcelona president Joan Laporta wants coach Pep Guardiola to tell the club by April if he plans to remain with the European champions beyond this season.

Guardiola, who turns 39 on Monday, has led the Liga club to an unprecedented six titles since taking over at the start of last season.

His refusal to commit to a contract extension has led to speculation he may move to a rival club or take time out from coaching.

"It would be good to know around Easter time who will be the coach next season," Laporta, whose final term as president ends later this year, said on Barca's website.

"It's the best thing for the institution because it would send a message of calm," he added.

"It's a convenient point, because it would give us time to find an alternative, even though that is not something I am considering."

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/17012010/58/la-liga-laporta-sets-guardiola-deadline.html

Who says Pepe ain't seriously considering stepping into the shoes of the Archbishop of all managers at the Theatre of Dreams 

Milan are 2 up now against Siena. . . . same team Inter were struggling to come to terms with two weeks ago. Baring a miracle, its down to 6pts with a game in hand for Milan - they have a chance to cut it down to 3pts next week when both teams square off against each other, still having a game in hand - just about everything seems to be going Milan's way at the moment!

& Boriello has been absolutely magic, he has to make that italian WC team, just has to!

A Tussle With The Tax Man - Pompey

So, the real politik of overspending has finally come home to roost in the Premier League with the issuance of a winding up order against Portsmouth. Such action by HMRC is hardly surprising. The authorities long since stopped caring too much about what happens to them, and why should they? Much is made in some circles of football turning from a sport into a business, and the usual rules of business apply. If you can’t pay your bills on time, you are insolvent and your creditors have the right to press for company to be wound up. There has been nothing happening at Fratton Park over the last twelve months or so to indicate that Portsmouth Football Club is anything other than hopelessly insolvent.

Inside the club, the denial continues to linger. Club officials continue to plead ignorance. If papers hadn’t been served upon them, it was because more likely than not that this is merely because of the Christmas break. It is the court that serves the papers rather than the creditor, and it is likely that the court service will not be operating at full strength over the Christmas and New Year period. A date for a hearing will now be set – about six weeks is considered normal – and Portsmouth Football Club now has to decide how it wishes to proceed.

[b]It is at this point that alarm bells start to go off. Portsmouth have, in reality, three choices ahead of the February deadline. Firstly, they could raise the money that they need to in order to pay off the petition amount. They have an opportunity to do this because of the January transfer window, but such a move would almost certainly condemn them to relegation from the Premier League and, even if it didn’t, they still wouldn’t receive anything like the full value for players that they could theoretically sell next month.
Secondly, they could enter into administration. Such a move would have a similarly severe effect on the likelihood of their staying in the Premier League – a nine point deduction would cut them off at the bottom of the table than they already are. It would, however, secure their future in the short term.

The third option, however, seems to be the one that they are going for, and it is the highest risk strategy of the three. Reports elsewhere in the press seem to be that they are intending to dispute the debt. They need to have a watertight case if they are to win. The clubs claims to only owe two months’ worth of PAYE, National Insurance and VAT, but this is obviously a sizeable amount of money. The club claims to have paid off £5.7m of £9.7m outstanding, but Portsmouth supporters will be wondering what the grounds are for believing anything that comes out of Fratton Park at the moment. To dispute the existence of the debt and make that the basis of fighting a court case is often regarded as a stalling tactic, creating confusion where there should be none in an attempt to set aside judgement. HMRC, however, are prevented by law from issuing proceedings as a scare tactic alone, and it seems unlikely that they would begin what would obviously be a very high profile case without having first checked that their case was watertight.[/b]
Avram Grant, in an interview shortly after his team was humbled 4-1 at home by Arsenal, seems to be in a similar state of denial. “Everybody knows we need to make the team stronger. No-one has said we need to sell players. All the players need to stay and the board knows it”. That may well be his opinion, but the bare fact of the matter seems to be that the old adage about no news being good news doesn’t necessarily apply to Portsmouth at the moment, and it has even been suggested that HMRC have timed their petition deliberately precisely because they know that the transfer window is imminent. Portsmouth supporters already know fully well that player sales have been used by the club to pay off debts – Peter Crouch went to Tottenham Hotspur for £10m during the summer, money that has already been thrown onto the bonfire of the club’s mismanagement – and it seems unlikely that, even with a transfer embargo still in place, more will not follow.

The biggest concern for Portsmouth at present, however, is their long term survival. How on earth will the club cope if (or when) it is relegated from the Premier League at the end of this season? Do they have adequate plans to offload their highest earning players? Because if they have been struggling to pay them this season (and there seems to be fairly cast iron proof that they have), they’re going to find it impossible without the comparative windfall of Premier League television, sponsorship and prize money. They may well end up winning their tussle with HMRC, but even a victory in court in February is unlikely to mean an end to their current tribulations.

Liverpool & Everton – The Case For & Against Ground-Sharing

Ground-sharing, although commonplace in the rest of Europe, has always been something of an anathema in England. The very existence of both Liverpool and Everton started with a row over rental rates at Anfield. Everton had baulked at an increase in rent at Anfield, which led to them leaving for Goodison Park and the ground’s owner John Houlding forming a new club, Liverpool FC, to play at the stadium.
One hundred and twenty years on from that fateful row, there still hasn’t been a successful case of two clubs sharing the same stadium at the top end of English football but the question of whether it makes sense for two clubs in such close proximity to build two separate stadia has been raised again by Warren Brady, the head of Liverpool City Council and the head of the city’s bid to be included in the 2018 World Cup. Brady states that, “we’ve got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup” and that, “I don’t want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums”.

It’s important to correct Brady on one important detail. The city of Liverpool will almost certainly not lose out to Manchester in bidding for the 2018 World Cup. FIFA rules state that, under normal circumstances, one city may have two facilities and the remaining host cities would ordinarily have one each. It is impossible to believe that the FA would not select London as the city with two stadia (Wembley and The Emirates Stadium would be the obvious choices), so there is little chance of the FA saying “no” to Liverpool and “yes” to both Old Trafford and The City of Manchester Stadium. It does raise the question of whether Brady is politicking here, and what his motives might be.
Certainly, Liverpool City Council have given indications of being being in favour of Liverpool and Everton sharing a stadium before. However, there is certainly an argument of sorts to be made for Everton and Liverpool sharing a facility, so here are the arguments for and against Liverpool and Everton becoming bedmates.

Against: There is a convincing argument that a ground-sharing arrangement would be very much to the detriment of Everton Football Club. They may well be equal partners in any proposed new stadium, but the perception may well take place that they are the junior partners there and it may have a seriously detrimental effect on their ability to continue to attract new supporters. Having their own stadium is part of their distinct identity, and it’s difficult to escape the idea that should they lose this, they may struggle to find a new one.

The arguments over history and tradition are less convincing, but it is worth pointing out that setting a precedent for clubs sharing facilities at the very top of the game could have ramifications throughout the whole of English football. The motives of Liverpool, Everton and Liverpool City Council may be entirely innocent, but there are plenty of people that are involved in football to make a fast buck and that would be delighted to have a precedent allowing them to merge clubs and merge facilities coming from the Premier League.

It’s also worth pointing out that a 2018 World Cup bid will not stand or fall on whether Liverpool and Everton share a stadium, and that concerns over the loss of identity of at least one of these two clubs shouldn’t be over-ridden by the desire to host football in the city at a World Cup finals which hasn’t even been awarded to England yet. Quite regardless of this, it wouldn’t take a massive amount of tweaking to bring Anfield up to the required standard to host World Cup football. Liverpool City Council have made noises to the effect that they would prefer the two clubs to play in one stadium, and there is a valid case to make that they could be scaremongering about the World Cup bid in order to make this happen.

For: The case in favour of Everton and Liverpool sharing a stadium is based on both practical and hypothetical considerations. Most pressing of all is the issue of what the alternatives for the two clubs are. Liverpool are £350m in debt and struggling to maintain interest payments on the debt that they already have. It seems as if they will be staying at Anfield for the forseeable future whether they like it or not. Gillett and Hicks may or may not be able to fund a new stadium, but whether Liverpool FC will be able to afford to build a stadium that is considerably bigger than the one that they already have is a different matter.

Everton, on the other hand, have pinned all of their hopes on a move outside of the city to Kirkby. There is a groundswell of opinion amongst the club’s support against this move, and a ground share with Liverpool in the city might be seen by them as being preferable to moving away and ground-sharing with Tesco instead. Ultimately, neither club is in a great position to build the sort of facility that they would like to. A pooling of resources would enable them to build a stadium within the city that both can be proud of. Even those in favour of the move to Kirkby have to concede that the decision to give planning permission for a new stadium there has been kicked from pillar to post. There is a not unreasonable chance that they might end up not getting planning permission to go there regardless of whether the supporters want to or not, leaving them stuck at Goodison Park.

The fact of the matter is that ground-sharing does work on the continent. The clubs of Milan, Munich and Rome are amongst those that have not lost their identity as a result of playing in the same stadium. If the two clubs can be persuaded to work as equal partners (because one suspects that an element of the support of both clubs will believe that they are putting in all the money whilst the others reap all of the benefits), then there is precedent from abroad to say that it can work. Only a fool would say that Milan and Internazionale don’t have distinct identities as clubs.

The problem for both Liverpool and Everton lies in the past. There has been so much procrastination over new grounds for the two clubs over the last twenty or thirty years that both clubs stood comparatively still during the 1990s. Even accounting for the recession, both Liverpool and Everton would still be faced with astronomical costs should they wish to move, regardless of where they end up going. It is perhaps an indication that football supporters are much less sentimental than we might have thought that they might be that there doesn’t seem to be a significant amount opposition to Liverpool leaving Anfield. Liverpool FC is, perhaps, more closely associated with its stadium than any other club in England, but there has never been any significant opposition to simply upping sticks and leaving it behind.

For Everton, the issue is a subtly different one. They are in a more advanced position with regard to moving to a new stadium, but it is a move that their supporters seem less than happy with. These supporters may be more inclined to support sharing a stadium because it will at least keep them within the city of Liverpool, and the possibility of staying at a cramped Goodison Park continuing to loom on the horizon means that such a move may start to look even more appealing if they don’t get permission to share a supermarket with Tesco on the outskirts of a sleeper town which stretches the very definition of where the city boundaries of Liverpool begin and end to its very limit.

Ultimately, it seems unlikely (if not implausible) that Liverpool and Everton will both end up in 50,000 capacity grounds of their own in Liverpool, regardless of any debates over whether they should build their own grounds or share one. It is, therefore, important that discussion of where these two clubs end up is written from the perspective of which will benefit their supporters the most. From a personal – and neutral – perspective, whilst it is understandable that both sets of supporters have valid concerns over sharing a stadium, both clubs will have to make difficult decisions to make.

Gillett and Hicks have already shown themselves to be plenty capable of spending vast amounts of money with no significant benefit having been seen, and it would be unsurprising if staying at Anfield ended up being preferable to any plan that they could concoct. Certainly, they can ill afford having their current levels of indebtedness doubled at the very least. Everton supporters have a subtly different problem to face. If permission to move to Kirkby – which is far from assured – is granted, it will still not mean that the stadium will be built. The time to protest against it, however, is now.

sleek417:
thank u for this

so whts the inherent economies of scale in Pool and Everton sharing a joint stadium?

all the fckin stats and analyses should be here

sauron , debosky and dayo
make una watch o

The logic of groundshare is hard to disprove. The cost of the stadium is split evenly between the 2 clubs while the revenue is still kept relatively distinct and separate but in the case of liverpool/everton its more of a rivalry thing than finances. . . . . fans of both clubs would want anything else but "sharing."
However if Kirby is not forthcoming, Tranmere is an option.

MrCrackles:
So market was that bad for you to suffer palpitations and suicidal thoughts

Bobz. . . . d thin' pain me no be small; me wey dey open office by 5am next morning, i no sleep i dey till midnight dey watch dis mumu boys as dem dey fall my hand

Anyways, we'll have our days in the sun - its bitter now, but it can only get sweeter. Our paths will cross again sometime in the future & scores will be settled 1ce & for all!

I fear for Eto'o when he returns. . . . Goran Pandev is a very, very good player!