Slow blogging today…

If you hadn’t guessed already, today is a slow blogging day on Slugger. I have too many things elsewhere that I’ve left undone, that must be done up asap! However I’m sure my blogging colleagues will do their best to keep you entertained! Have a good weekend all!

  • David

    Thats unfortunate too Mick given the amount we could blog about today including the disgraceful decision to allow Liverpool to defend the Champions League. But sometimes there are more important matters than Slugger good luck with your other thing Mick

  • JCSkinner

    And the prize for second most idiotic comment of the week goes to David (above).
    Only someone blinded by anti-Scouse prejudice would dare begrudge the Champions an opportunity to defend their title in something which is (admittedly inaccurately) called the Champions’ League.
    Even the heartbroken Milanese in Istanbul (I was there covering the match for an English newspaper) were commenting the morning after the game that only the self-serving stuffed shirts of UEFA could have created such a preposterous situation that the winners could not defend their title.
    Thnakfully, common sense (and the pressure of aghast advertisers who were distraught at the prospect of losing out on one of the world’s most supported teams in the competition) have prevailed.

  • David

    Ok JCSkinner so the sponsors should dictate exactly who plays in the champions league and not the rules of the competition? I think you have managed to outdo me in the stupidity stakes there by claiming that one rule should apply to most teams and another rule to Liverpool, hardly fair and just. The oppurtunity existed in the past to change the rule, UEFA didnt take it. Regardless of our feelings on the rule which I agree with, the rule still exisited and should have been adhered too.

    Todays ruling leaves many questions, including which teams looses its first round bye, completely unfairly and who will be the competitions top seeds next season. The decision made by UEFA was unjust, irrational and poorly thought out.

  • JCSkinner

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I neither said that sponsors ought to decide the make-up of the competition, nor that separate rules ought to apply to any individual team.
    It is clearly ridiculous to title a competition “The Champions’ League” and then refuse entry to the champions of that same competition. While this is a problem of UEFA’s own making, they sought unfairly to pressurise the EFA into resolving it by removing Everton from their list of submitted qualifying teams.
    As Everton had qualified, if UEFA had had their way, this rule (that a qualifying team enters the competition) would also have been broken, as it was for Real Zaragoza a number of years ago.
    Moaning that rules are rules are rules is pointless. Rules are meant to facilitate the smooth, sensible and optimal running of the competition, and when they do not achieve that, they ought to be reviewed and changed if necessary.
    That this only occurred because of the circumstances created by Liverpool’s victory is UEFA’s fault, not Liverpool’s, Everton’s, that of the EFA or anyone else. As UEFA had failed to foresee this event, even though it had arisen before the year that Real won and finished 5th in Spain, the fault is theirs.
    That merely demonstrates the fact that UEFA is a bureaucracy that often fails to implement rules in the best interest of the game. Or do you think that their failure to address this issue prior to now is actually an indication of their superior wisdom?

  • George

    Manchester City lose out David. They qualified for the UEFA Cup via the Fair Play award and their place in European competition has been sacrificed.

    UEFA have changed the rules so, in future, the champions will qualify automatically and if they don’t finish in a champions league place then the fourth-placed team will lose out. In other words, if the same thing happened next year Everton would lose out.

    I can’t get over the Liverpool fans whining about starting in the first qualifying round. Atleast Liverpool Chief Executive David Parry has more sense.

  • George

    JCSkinner,
    it wasn’t UEFA that made the Real Zaragoza decision, it was the Spanish football federation.

    They kicked them out in favour of Real. The FA could have kicked out Everton.

  • David

    Ok lets get this straight the Rules in relation to Real Madrid and Zaragoza were inplace before the season started and they were adhered too. I dont agree with the rule and feel that an extra place should always be awarded to the European champions. But for this too happen it would need to have been enshrined in the rules when the qualifying phase was taking place. This was not the case here. Yes the rule should be changed but it should not applied retrospectively as was the case here. To use a footballing analogy UEFA have shifted the goal posts, in the quest to be ‘fair’ to Liverpool they have succeded in being deliberately unfair to a number of other clubs. Oh and on an interesting aside I may be many things but wanting all teams to compete on a level playing field does not mean I am blinded by anti-scouse prejudice.

  • Mick

    I knew someone was going to lose out to give Liverpool the previlige of defending their title. Didn’t think it was going to be sooo close to home! 🙁

  • David

    Its a very unfortunate situation that rules had to be altered to allow Liverpool back in. But its an absolute disgrace that UEFA were unfair to at least 6 teams to be ‘fair’ to Liverpool