If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!In the past, playoffs were used to help determine the final qualifiers for the European Championships.
This time, however, qualification for Euro 2008 will be determined solely on group results, as the top two from each of the seven groups automatically qualify for the tournament, and the other two slots go to the joint hosts, Austria and Switzerland.
But, with so many quality teams set to miss out on the competition, it‘s time to think about expanding.
The possible expansion of the tournament to 24 teams for 2012 was discussed earlier this year. It was favored by many (including UEFA President Michel Platini, who‘s also in favor of expanding the Champions League, which is another story entirely), due to the ever-increasing number of UEFA members, but the proposal was rejected by UEFA’s Executive Committee.
There’s a good chance that this idea will not only come up again soon, but also pass the next time around, and for good reason. While the increase in UEFA members is a big selling point, so is the number of teams who have an argument about deserving a place in the competition.
There are a couple of groups where there isn’t any doubt about who the top two teams are, like Group D with the Czech Republic and Germany, but several of the groups are tight going into the final two matches, and there‘s a chance that the likes of yes, the English, and World Cup champions Italy, along with Euro 92 champs Denmark (who‘ve participated in the last six tournaments), or a Scotland side that has been excellent in qualifying, could find themselves out in the cold after next Wednesday.
I’m not saying that the competition should be devalued any by allowing mediocre teams in, because that wouldn’t be the case - all of them aforementioned teams could hold their own in the tournament, to say the least.
If the tournament is indeed expanded to 24 teams, there are multiple ways it could effectively take place.
1) Keep the same format as there is right now, with four teams in each group, and each team playing each other once. The six group winners qualify for the quarters, with the two best second-placed teams advancing as well.
This would be much like the Copa America format, where the two best third-placed teams from the three groups advance to the quarters, along with the top two finishers from each group. The only potential roadblocks are some tiebreaking situations that could get a little tricky, and there‘s a good chance some teams would feel pretty slighted about doing well and barely missing out on advancing.
2) Change the format to four groups of six. Each team would play five group matches, and the top two in each group would move on to the quarters. The one potential snag in this idea is the added number of matches for every team, which might translate into having to start the championships a week or so earlier, or extending them a week or so further.
And then, there’s my idea. My idea is pretty simple - a combination of the current tournament format with the old qualifying format.
If the qualifying breaks down into seven groups once again, then the top two finishers from each group automatically qualify. The next eight best point finishers (not necessarily third-placed teams) also qualify.
But, instead of automatically getting passage into the group stage, those eight teams will square off in a two-legged playoff. This playoff doesn’t have to happen immediately after the end of qualifying, but can either happen in February/March or it can be an official part of the tournament itself, where the four playoffs would be contested in the week before the group stage kicks off, with the winners being placed into a pre-determined group, as the playoff participants would be placed in the seeding pots with the already-qualified teams.
The group stage would consist of four groups of five teams (which means only one extra group match, as opposed to two, with plan #2), and as is the case now, the top two in each group would advance to the quarters.
Each of the ideas have their pros and cons. I do like my idea, but in terms of which one looks more likely to actually be put in place is the first one, where there aren’t any extra matches, or the second one, which is similar to the UEFA Cup group stage.
Do you think the European Championships should be expanded? If you do, which idea do you think would work the best? Or do you have your own clever idea? Comment away!
Friday, December 7, 2007
Women’s Football in England = Slave Labor
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!On Thursday we read that women footballers were paid £40 per day for the five weeks they spent in China representing their country and reaching the quarter finals of the 2007 Women’s World Cup.
That’s £1400 for 5 weeks, £280 per week or to roughly convert that into dollars, around $3k / month.
To give you a better idea, Nemanja Vidic’s 1-week’s worth of wages (under his new contract) are more than the entire amount paid to the England women’s team for their China trip.
The BBC talks about ‘minimum wage’, the hardship suffered by the players who have to support themselves and their families by working overtime to cover for lost wages (setup an online business ladies, let me know if you need help), and the English FA’s stance that they’re pumping more money than ever and that standards will improve soon.
All that is well and good. However, read this (Alex Stone, representing the FA on women’s football):
“We’ve been actually conducting a strategic review of the women’s league since June this year and the findings will be presented to FA board in early 2008.
And one of the key issues to work on for the FA is to find out how we can make that product more attractive to sponsors, broadcasters and people who want to come in and watch the game.
Clearly we hope that the finances we might generate filter through to the players.
Women’s football has made a breakthrough but clearly there’s a long way to go and we know that which is why we’re working incredibly hard to try and change that status quo.”
Once you wade your way past the PR schlitz you read that the money for the players will come through sponsorships. This might seem reasonable until you read this (by the same person):
“The money that goes into women’s football each year from the FA is currently at an all-time high - it’s £4.5m.”
I think out of that money, they could have spent £3000 per person instead of £1400 per person during the World Cup. Double the money, in other words. Is that too difficult to manage? Channeling the funds so that your most precious resources - the current crop of players who are role models and flagbearers for the future generations - can earn decent wages is not rocket science, it’s efficient management.
The Beeb has tried to stay somewhat ‘impartial’ but they’ve picked the wrong time to do so - seeing the numbers, I don’t see how they cannot afford to at least immediately double wages (and why it wasn’t done before). Matching the Americans will take time, but right now the FA aren’t doing enough, and while it’s understandable that money is tight it’s not being used correctly just the same.
Let’s put it this way - If you offered me these wages for the high-intensity work that footballers must do, I’d piss on your grave. The fact that these players are willing to sacrifice personal well-being for the sake of their country says a lot - maybe it’s time that they were compensated for it?
That’s £1400 for 5 weeks, £280 per week or to roughly convert that into dollars, around $3k / month.
To give you a better idea, Nemanja Vidic’s 1-week’s worth of wages (under his new contract) are more than the entire amount paid to the England women’s team for their China trip.
The BBC talks about ‘minimum wage’, the hardship suffered by the players who have to support themselves and their families by working overtime to cover for lost wages (setup an online business ladies, let me know if you need help), and the English FA’s stance that they’re pumping more money than ever and that standards will improve soon.
All that is well and good. However, read this (Alex Stone, representing the FA on women’s football):
“We’ve been actually conducting a strategic review of the women’s league since June this year and the findings will be presented to FA board in early 2008.
And one of the key issues to work on for the FA is to find out how we can make that product more attractive to sponsors, broadcasters and people who want to come in and watch the game.
Clearly we hope that the finances we might generate filter through to the players.
Women’s football has made a breakthrough but clearly there’s a long way to go and we know that which is why we’re working incredibly hard to try and change that status quo.”
Once you wade your way past the PR schlitz you read that the money for the players will come through sponsorships. This might seem reasonable until you read this (by the same person):
“The money that goes into women’s football each year from the FA is currently at an all-time high - it’s £4.5m.”
I think out of that money, they could have spent £3000 per person instead of £1400 per person during the World Cup. Double the money, in other words. Is that too difficult to manage? Channeling the funds so that your most precious resources - the current crop of players who are role models and flagbearers for the future generations - can earn decent wages is not rocket science, it’s efficient management.
The Beeb has tried to stay somewhat ‘impartial’ but they’ve picked the wrong time to do so - seeing the numbers, I don’t see how they cannot afford to at least immediately double wages (and why it wasn’t done before). Matching the Americans will take time, but right now the FA aren’t doing enough, and while it’s understandable that money is tight it’s not being used correctly just the same.
Let’s put it this way - If you offered me these wages for the high-intensity work that footballers must do, I’d piss on your grave. The fact that these players are willing to sacrifice personal well-being for the sake of their country says a lot - maybe it’s time that they were compensated for it?
Match Fixing in Football | UEFA and Interpol investigate
Do you think that the results of football matches can be rigged?
Match fixing in sporting competitions (thanks to the money involved - welcome to the dark side of sports betting) is not as uncommon as one might think, nor is it as simple as some suggest.
Football too has come under scrutiny, with UEFA collaborating with Interpol because of suspicious betting patterns in the preliminary rounds of UEFA club competitions. Uefa has given a 96-page report to Interpol alleging that 15 games in a variety of competitions were fixed - these games are all from lower-profile matches from Champions League, UEFA Cup and Intertoto qualification games.
To quote:
In one case, a second round UEFA Intertoto Cup match, the disciplinary inspector considered the circumstances serious enough to bring the case before the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body.
Uefa have made a statement on the matter, which I advise you to read instead of the hyperbole and useless soundbites coming out of the BBC (this is serious for football, we’ve never seen anything like this before, betting = evil, etc etc).
Contrary to what the BBC claims, no Euro 2008 qualifiers are under investigation.
I’m looking forward to what UEFA / Interpol find - although for the sake of football, I hope they don’t make a PR spectacle out of it like the English police have done with the recent investigations in football corruption.
Match fixing in sporting competitions (thanks to the money involved - welcome to the dark side of sports betting) is not as uncommon as one might think, nor is it as simple as some suggest.
Football too has come under scrutiny, with UEFA collaborating with Interpol because of suspicious betting patterns in the preliminary rounds of UEFA club competitions. Uefa has given a 96-page report to Interpol alleging that 15 games in a variety of competitions were fixed - these games are all from lower-profile matches from Champions League, UEFA Cup and Intertoto qualification games.
To quote:
In one case, a second round UEFA Intertoto Cup match, the disciplinary inspector considered the circumstances serious enough to bring the case before the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body.
Uefa have made a statement on the matter, which I advise you to read instead of the hyperbole and useless soundbites coming out of the BBC (this is serious for football, we’ve never seen anything like this before, betting = evil, etc etc).
Contrary to what the BBC claims, no Euro 2008 qualifiers are under investigation.
I’m looking forward to what UEFA / Interpol find - although for the sake of football, I hope they don’t make a PR spectacle out of it like the English police have done with the recent investigations in football corruption.
Has the English FA Learned From Its Mistakes?
Ever since the sacking of Steve McClaren as the coach of the England national football team, the rumour mill has been in full swing. Several names have been thrown into the pot with Jose Mourinho being pushed to the forefront of gaining the reign of the England horse.
Even Fabio Capello, who cannot speak English and is 61 years of age, hasn’t denied that he would be interested in taking up the challenge of managing of the better national teams in Europe. There have been reports that Jurgen Klinsmann, who is based in the US city of California, has been approached too and people are not ruling out Luiz Felipe Scolari either.
But the otherwise inept English FA have come out of the blocks and have denied that any formal approach has been made to any likely candidates for the English. They have of course admitted that they are searching everywhere for a suitable man with character, talent and stamina to be the next guide of England but they have dismissed of having sent any formal offer letters to anyone.
To quote the head of FA Communications Adrian Bevington:
The FA can confirm no individual has been approached by Brian Barwick or Sir Trevor Brooking with regard to being offered the job of next England manager. There is no formal shortlist and no salaries have been discussed with any individual. We have been very clear that Brian and Trevor will consult with figures across the game - and they are already well into that process - before making any such approach or appointment. We are conscious there is a huge level of interest in this and we are trying to be as transparent as possible. Whilst there is no set time frame we are understandably working on this as our number one priority.
But such a statement would hardly convince the English or the European press who have been going on and on about who the next person to take on the most difficult job in football would be. Everyday one name after the other is splashed across the pages; so much so that such rumours have attained the nadir of a cliché.
That the FA are still searching for the best man to handle the national side implies that they are not in too hurry. And they shouldn’t be either. After all it was their ineptitude and hurry that led them to appoint Steve McClaren as the England coach after the departure of Sven-Goran Eriksson immediate to England’s 2006 Germany World Cup quarter-final exit.
The FA appear to have learnt their lessons. Or have they? We shall know after they name the next England coach.
Even Fabio Capello, who cannot speak English and is 61 years of age, hasn’t denied that he would be interested in taking up the challenge of managing of the better national teams in Europe. There have been reports that Jurgen Klinsmann, who is based in the US city of California, has been approached too and people are not ruling out Luiz Felipe Scolari either.
But the otherwise inept English FA have come out of the blocks and have denied that any formal approach has been made to any likely candidates for the English. They have of course admitted that they are searching everywhere for a suitable man with character, talent and stamina to be the next guide of England but they have dismissed of having sent any formal offer letters to anyone.
To quote the head of FA Communications Adrian Bevington:
The FA can confirm no individual has been approached by Brian Barwick or Sir Trevor Brooking with regard to being offered the job of next England manager. There is no formal shortlist and no salaries have been discussed with any individual. We have been very clear that Brian and Trevor will consult with figures across the game - and they are already well into that process - before making any such approach or appointment. We are conscious there is a huge level of interest in this and we are trying to be as transparent as possible. Whilst there is no set time frame we are understandably working on this as our number one priority.
But such a statement would hardly convince the English or the European press who have been going on and on about who the next person to take on the most difficult job in football would be. Everyday one name after the other is splashed across the pages; so much so that such rumours have attained the nadir of a cliché.
That the FA are still searching for the best man to handle the national side implies that they are not in too hurry. And they shouldn’t be either. After all it was their ineptitude and hurry that led them to appoint Steve McClaren as the England coach after the departure of Sven-Goran Eriksson immediate to England’s 2006 Germany World Cup quarter-final exit.
The FA appear to have learnt their lessons. Or have they? We shall know after they name the next England coach.
Ballon D’Or 2007 Winner: Kaka
AC Milan’s Brazilian star Kaka (and future christian evangelist) has been named Europe’s footballer of the year after winning France Football magazine’s Golden Ball award.
The 25-year-old was the key figure in AC Milan’s triumphant Champions League campaign this year. His performances in the Serie A were less influential, whereas someone like Cristiano Ronaldo dominated the domestic scene, provoking heated debates over which set of performances deserved more credit (and indeed, in the Kaka v Ronaldo debate, whether morality mattered more than results).
Second place went to Manchester United winger Cristiano Ronaldo with Barcelona’s Lionel Messi placing third.
The prize was voted for by 96 international journalists from a shortlist of 50 players.
In October Kaka was named FIFPro world player of the year, claiming that accolade after 45,000 members of the players’ union voted in the awards.
The 25-year-old was the key figure in AC Milan’s triumphant Champions League campaign this year. His performances in the Serie A were less influential, whereas someone like Cristiano Ronaldo dominated the domestic scene, provoking heated debates over which set of performances deserved more credit (and indeed, in the Kaka v Ronaldo debate, whether morality mattered more than results).
Second place went to Manchester United winger Cristiano Ronaldo with Barcelona’s Lionel Messi placing third.
The prize was voted for by 96 international journalists from a shortlist of 50 players.
In October Kaka was named FIFPro world player of the year, claiming that accolade after 45,000 members of the players’ union voted in the awards.
Are Liverpool Going Into Another Takeover?
Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool all are under foreign ownership but it is Liverpool who are supposed to have made the best deal. While Malcolm Glazier has shoved Man United to a debt of millions and no one is still not certain when Chelsea’s Russian billionaire owner Roman Abramovich would remove his hand of wealth from the club, Liverpool’s long-term future is secure with the takeover of the club in February last year by American tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks.
Or is it? Suddenly the club is appearing at a crossroad, once again. Hicks has been reported to be contemplating on selling his stake at the club and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum is all to eager to have a second bite at the cherry. The Dubai-based Sheikh exhibited his interest in the club before Gillett and Hicks had launched their own bid and no sooner had the rumors surfaced in the football market that Hicks could be pulling himself away from the ownership of one of the most successful clubs in Europe than the Sheikh’s name has been drafted into the hat for another takeover.
Tom Hicks has of course dismissed all such talks as “absolute rubbish” and has denied any rift with his Liverpool co-owner George Gillett. But the cat has been pulled out of the bag. Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez was recently quoted as saying that he is not happy with the club and that he needs more funds in the January transfer window to kindle a serious challenge both for the English Premier League and the UEFA Champions League. And now the notion, however vague and weak, that the partnership between Gillett and Hicks could just break is sending more shockwaves across the red half of Liverpool.
The Dubai Sheikh is said to be worth £7 billion and could easily buy the £1 billion stake that Hicks has at Liverpool. But would it be good for the club both in the short-term and the long-term futures should indeed Liverpool go for another takeover? Gillett and Hicks’ takeover of the club in the middle of last season was criticized by a certain section of the Liverpool fans but they have poured a considerable amount of money in the club in the summer, allowing manager Benitez to splash out a club record of £27 million to lire Fernando Torres from Atletico Madrid in the summer plus procuring the likes of Ryan Babel and Andrei Voronin. Would the Sheikh takeover be a better one than the American takeover?
More importantly with foreign takeover offers shipping into England from all corners of the world all the time, is foreign ownership of Premierships club indeed a good thing?
Or is it? Suddenly the club is appearing at a crossroad, once again. Hicks has been reported to be contemplating on selling his stake at the club and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum is all to eager to have a second bite at the cherry. The Dubai-based Sheikh exhibited his interest in the club before Gillett and Hicks had launched their own bid and no sooner had the rumors surfaced in the football market that Hicks could be pulling himself away from the ownership of one of the most successful clubs in Europe than the Sheikh’s name has been drafted into the hat for another takeover.
Tom Hicks has of course dismissed all such talks as “absolute rubbish” and has denied any rift with his Liverpool co-owner George Gillett. But the cat has been pulled out of the bag. Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez was recently quoted as saying that he is not happy with the club and that he needs more funds in the January transfer window to kindle a serious challenge both for the English Premier League and the UEFA Champions League. And now the notion, however vague and weak, that the partnership between Gillett and Hicks could just break is sending more shockwaves across the red half of Liverpool.
The Dubai Sheikh is said to be worth £7 billion and could easily buy the £1 billion stake that Hicks has at Liverpool. But would it be good for the club both in the short-term and the long-term futures should indeed Liverpool go for another takeover? Gillett and Hicks’ takeover of the club in the middle of last season was criticized by a certain section of the Liverpool fans but they have poured a considerable amount of money in the club in the summer, allowing manager Benitez to splash out a club record of £27 million to lire Fernando Torres from Atletico Madrid in the summer plus procuring the likes of Ryan Babel and Andrei Voronin. Would the Sheikh takeover be a better one than the American takeover?
More importantly with foreign takeover offers shipping into England from all corners of the world all the time, is foreign ownership of Premierships club indeed a good thing?
Football Corruption in the English Premier League: The Story So Far
The recent arrests of Portsmouth manager Harry Redknapp and others have brought the whole investigations scandal of corruption in football back into the frame. The police probe began back on January 11th 2006 after Luton manager Mike Newell highlighted the concerning issue of bungs in football, openly criticising agents and claiming that illegal payments often occur throughout the game.
On January 18th, Newell met with the FA to discuss his claim. By the 24th, the Premier League had officially announced they would be making inquiries into the scandal of bung payments. On March 3rd the former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens was put in charge of the inquiry and his team began their examination of 362 transfers that occurred between the 1st January 2004 to 31st January 2006.
Another claim was made in August by another manager, Alan Curbishley who said he was offered a bung whilst he was in charge at Charlton. On September 19th 2006, the BBC documentary TV series Panorama made an investigation alleging that the then Bolton manager Sam Allardyce took illegal payments. The programme also claimed that Allardyce’s son Craig and several other football agents Peter Harrison, Teni Yerima and Charles Collymore were involved with bungs. Harry Redknapp and his former assistant Kevin Bond (who had since gone to Newcastle) were also brought into the equation of corruption.
The next day, both Bond and Yerima said they would sue the BBC over the accusations made towards them in the Panorama programme. On the 22nd Harrison also announced he would be suing. By the 25th Allardyce revealed he had organised his lawyers to prepare a case against the BBC after his portrayal in the programme. The BBC officials met the FA to find out what evidence it would disclose for their joint inquiry with the Premier League.
The next day on the 26th Newcastle had terminated Bond’s contract. Colin Gordon, the agent for then England manager Steve McClaren, said “tens of millions of pounds has gone out of the game” in dodgy deals and labelled his own profession as the “scum of the earth”. Due to his remarks the Association of Football Agents acted quickly demanding an apology and a retraction to his damaging statement. On the 29th Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson criticised Gordon, and revealed that the agent was banned from dealing with the club to past problems, no doubt when McClaren was in charge.
In October 2006, Wigan’s chairman Dave Whelan gave his theory on the messy saga saying all managers should be banned for life, and clubs relegated should they be caught taking bungs. Lord Stevens then announced on the 2nd the inquiry, which had been extended by two months, had now been whittled down to 39 transfers involving eight clubs. He also said that less than half the 150 agents contacted had cooperated, and as a result the FA may use their rules to force them into opening their bank accounts for further examination. In the same month the BBC handed over Panorama evidence they had to the FA.
By December 12th, Lord Stevens presented the report he’d conducted to the Premier League board. A further investigation would have to be made into 17 transfers as eight agents failed to cooperate. In January this year the FA met with Lord Stevens, as they looked to start applying pressure on the eight unnamed agents to make them open their bank account, so that all transactions could be traced. Another report by Lord Stevens was given to the Premier League in March, identifying clubs which broke or ignored the rules in 50 key transfers out of the original 362.
On June 8th it was discovered that a 61 year-old man was arrested in May, suspected of money laundering. Officers made the arrest on May 23rd and bailed him until October. Raids were made in July in Newcastle, Portsmouth and Rangers as well as two homes. By September another man, aged 28, openly rumoured to be Tottenham’s defender Pascal Chimbonda was taken in for police questioning.
The latest untwining to this fine mess comes down to the arrests last week of Harry Redknapp, chief executive Peter Storrie, footballer Amdy Faye (part of one of the transfers under examination), agent Willie McKay and former Portsmouth now Leicester chairman Milan Mandaric. Out of the 17 transfers that had been knuckled down to eight had been refused to be signed off by Lord Stevens and his Quest team. Sylvain Distin, Portsmouth defender, said the arrest of his team’s manager was saddening for the team but for all supporting him. He even went as far as to claim conspiracies surrounding Redknapp’s arrest, which may have happened because of opposition by certain individuals to his possible appointment for the England manager job. In the meantime, the five arrested have been bailed until February. After the arrests last week, seven now remain the police’s main focus so expect more arrests to soon follow.
On January 18th, Newell met with the FA to discuss his claim. By the 24th, the Premier League had officially announced they would be making inquiries into the scandal of bung payments. On March 3rd the former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens was put in charge of the inquiry and his team began their examination of 362 transfers that occurred between the 1st January 2004 to 31st January 2006.
Another claim was made in August by another manager, Alan Curbishley who said he was offered a bung whilst he was in charge at Charlton. On September 19th 2006, the BBC documentary TV series Panorama made an investigation alleging that the then Bolton manager Sam Allardyce took illegal payments. The programme also claimed that Allardyce’s son Craig and several other football agents Peter Harrison, Teni Yerima and Charles Collymore were involved with bungs. Harry Redknapp and his former assistant Kevin Bond (who had since gone to Newcastle) were also brought into the equation of corruption.
The next day, both Bond and Yerima said they would sue the BBC over the accusations made towards them in the Panorama programme. On the 22nd Harrison also announced he would be suing. By the 25th Allardyce revealed he had organised his lawyers to prepare a case against the BBC after his portrayal in the programme. The BBC officials met the FA to find out what evidence it would disclose for their joint inquiry with the Premier League.
The next day on the 26th Newcastle had terminated Bond’s contract. Colin Gordon, the agent for then England manager Steve McClaren, said “tens of millions of pounds has gone out of the game” in dodgy deals and labelled his own profession as the “scum of the earth”. Due to his remarks the Association of Football Agents acted quickly demanding an apology and a retraction to his damaging statement. On the 29th Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson criticised Gordon, and revealed that the agent was banned from dealing with the club to past problems, no doubt when McClaren was in charge.
In October 2006, Wigan’s chairman Dave Whelan gave his theory on the messy saga saying all managers should be banned for life, and clubs relegated should they be caught taking bungs. Lord Stevens then announced on the 2nd the inquiry, which had been extended by two months, had now been whittled down to 39 transfers involving eight clubs. He also said that less than half the 150 agents contacted had cooperated, and as a result the FA may use their rules to force them into opening their bank accounts for further examination. In the same month the BBC handed over Panorama evidence they had to the FA.
By December 12th, Lord Stevens presented the report he’d conducted to the Premier League board. A further investigation would have to be made into 17 transfers as eight agents failed to cooperate. In January this year the FA met with Lord Stevens, as they looked to start applying pressure on the eight unnamed agents to make them open their bank account, so that all transactions could be traced. Another report by Lord Stevens was given to the Premier League in March, identifying clubs which broke or ignored the rules in 50 key transfers out of the original 362.
On June 8th it was discovered that a 61 year-old man was arrested in May, suspected of money laundering. Officers made the arrest on May 23rd and bailed him until October. Raids were made in July in Newcastle, Portsmouth and Rangers as well as two homes. By September another man, aged 28, openly rumoured to be Tottenham’s defender Pascal Chimbonda was taken in for police questioning.
The latest untwining to this fine mess comes down to the arrests last week of Harry Redknapp, chief executive Peter Storrie, footballer Amdy Faye (part of one of the transfers under examination), agent Willie McKay and former Portsmouth now Leicester chairman Milan Mandaric. Out of the 17 transfers that had been knuckled down to eight had been refused to be signed off by Lord Stevens and his Quest team. Sylvain Distin, Portsmouth defender, said the arrest of his team’s manager was saddening for the team but for all supporting him. He even went as far as to claim conspiracies surrounding Redknapp’s arrest, which may have happened because of opposition by certain individuals to his possible appointment for the England manager job. In the meantime, the five arrested have been bailed until February. After the arrests last week, seven now remain the police’s main focus so expect more arrests to soon follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)