It is now time to switch to a new Money AM football blog as the world cup is now over and we all look to the future.....World cup 2010 is over, Bravo Espana, and Forlan, once again and bring on the new season !.....I never expected the last thread to be such a success...thanks all.... so this new one might go on for years without the need to edit the title...we shall see...

Think the above sums it all up perfectly Joseph :0)

Rupert Sullivan
41 Posted 12/02/2015 at 19:47:58 Really it shouldn't be a surprise...
1. If the FA charge Invanovic, that is akin to saying the ref was inept
2. If they say the ref was inept, that is akin to saying the FA fielded an inept ref
3. If the FA start criticising refs, then they cannot fine managers for doing the same
4. If the FA field rubbish refs, then they are rubbish, and all of that money they receive is not worth it

As well as all of this, this type of controversy is what keeps football in the newspapers, which keeps it in the public eye, which raises its profile - and on and on.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - well, likewise the FA, they will never remove this sort of thing from the game for as long as it profits them for it to remain.

I for one cannot be bothered with it anymore

Barry Thompson
42 Posted 12/02/2015 at 19:52:44 Carl @39, I know it is a ToffeeWeb cliché now, but I blame Moyes with all his - I won't have any of my players diving or cheating to gain an advantage bollocks
Rob Halligan
43 Posted 12/02/2015 at 19:51:51 As soon as Barry "committed" the foul last night, Fabregas, was jumping up and down like a fucking demented baboon waving his imaginary card. In the mean time, that useless twat Terry was sprinting 50 yards to shove his face in the refs face, practically demanding Barry sent off. This is what annoys me most, professionals trying to get another professional sent off. And since when has "a trip" on the halfway line right by the touchline, been a bookable offence? Once the melee had started, I couldn't see the Ivanovic/McCarthy incident. Having seen pictures later on though, Jon Moss is about 2 feet away looking at the Boston strangled choking McCarthy to death, and claims he never saw it!! It beggars belief, it really does, the mighty shall not be punished, no matter what!
Carl Sanderson
44 Posted 12/02/2015 at 20:01:40 Chelsea have been at it for years, though. I remember Gronkjaer getting one of ours sent off (Unsworth?) by some tool of a referee and Gallas getting Beattie sent off on another occasion.
Wayne Smyth
46 Posted 12/02/2015 at 20:06:10 Barry Thompson, I couldn't agree more.
I was more pissed off at our naive nicey-nicey attitude than I was with the loss. If McCarthy had hit the deck holding his throat when Ivanovich grabbed him, we could well have seen 2 reds and got a point, or more.

All the clubs that win things have the same win-at-all-costs mentality. As long as we continue to be fools who show respect to refs, don't dive or cheat we will be playing effectively a man down. For all the good things Moyes did, this was one of the things I hate most about his legacy.

The governing body will do fuck all about it. I heard Scudamore talking on the radio about the "show" a few days ago. It's not been sport for a long time, they want talking points and they want the usual suspects to win by any means possible so the media have their heroes to fawn over.

I missed a few :-

Actually footballing wise Everton were good - save for the fouling which quite often they didn't need to do.

A lot better than the other filth they share a city with

I hate the way Chelsea constantly cheat and get away with it even my mate who's a Chelsea fans hates it.

Dil, Most Chelsea followers I come across are invariably arrogant, which sort of mirrors the club in some ways.

So where's the outcry against Rooney's diving then ?

Silent are we now Dil?

Rooney is largely an irrelevance now Joe, against Burnley on Wed. he struggled to defend against Danny Ings (who he came into contact with in his deeper roll) and was duly booked for his incompetent tackling.

As an aside if Burnley had got to grips with their pathetic attempts at defending crosses, they would have at least drawn the match as they controlled the game at times and did miss chances.

Re Rooney----------Too many cheats in the game nowadays.
2517

How Chelsea became the most hated team in England
As the Blues replace Manchester United as every neutral’s worst enemy, Chris Moss considers how the west London team became this season’s “Special One”


By Chris Moss4:23PM GMT 17 Feb 2015CommentsComment
When I was little, in the era of Esso football coins and football cards, I wafted my fanhood through several teams, including Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea. The first two were northern (as I am), and my brother supported Liverpool. Chelsea was the enigma.
At the time, Peter Osgood and Alan Hudson were flamboyant superstars, the team seemed glamorous (or at least far-off), and there was something about blue, too. The colour was definitely more important than the form, which was actually very patchy, and I even went as far as getting my mum to buy me a kit – just as Chelsea were relegated and went adrift from the mainstream of footballing ambition.
When Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003, he was picking up a fast-improving brand that had garnered several trophies under the leadership of Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Claudio Ranieri. But the new Russian-owned Chelsea, with Mourinho as its key player, was soon set on a course that would see it become the most hated team in England. It's a title that surely will be cemented if the team is triumphant this season.
I only realised this when Chelsea robbed Everton of a draw last week. Willian's jammy goal in the 89th minute reminded me of all those Manchester United matches when they couldn't lose a game even if they wanted to, repeatedly snatching victories at the end of tight matches. I found myself cursing Chelsea in unprintable terms, and deeply enjoying the sensation of loathing them for their good fortune, their wealth, their talent and their undisputed status as winners. Assorted surveys confirm that I am not alone in despising Chelsea – but I knew anyway, in my guts.
How is it, I wondered, that teams become so detestable? And what does it take to become the number one club in the Premier League of Universal Loathing?

Chelsea, you’d think, were always ripe for becoming unpopular. It’s a geezers’ team from the wealthy west of London that has always looked down on neighbours QPR and Fulham. These days, no derby in the region balances Chelsea's hegemony. It also has a much-mythologised history as a hooligan team, widely viewed as a posh Millwall. The Football Factory – novel and film – is an illustration of how flagging teams can still get lots of media attention by attracting thugs, racists and nostalgic losers.
But Chelsea has other special features. It was the first English team to field an entirely foreign starting line-up, against Southampton on December 26, 1999. This was a watershed for the game, final proof that localism had been abandoned and that fans were not members of a club or anything quite so corny, but merely payees in a very one-sided contract.
The location of the club still matters, though in an entirely negative way. While small niches associate the word Chelsea with pensioners, or an arts club, or fashion, for most of us it just means filthy rich. While SW3 is not one of London’s most attractive neighbourhoods, it has had high rents for decades, and is home to enough corporate lawyers and workshy third-tier aristocrats to make it a no-go area for most commoners.
Stanford Bridge is in Fulham, but this part of West London as a whole is aspirational, full of expats and, at the same time, bland and uncultured. This setting makes Chelsea that little bit easier to dislike. Where the bloated, American-funded, Indonesia-touring money machine known as Manchester United was always able to be viewed as out of place in a city we like to think of post-industrial, left-leaning and a bit gritty, the slick, stylish, and slightly sinister modern Chelsea brand seems very much at home in its regenerated, factory-less, foreign-owned metropolis.


Chelsea tops the Premier League table when it comes to the average cost of a day out at £57.50 – the price of the cheapest match-day ticket, a programme, a pie and a cup of tea. The average is £37.44. Obtaining the same at Leicester City costs £27.50 – and you might get to see a brawl on the sidelines. With Costa, Fabregas, and Hazard each earning an estimated £200,000 a week, somebody has to pay.
Since Abramovich bought the club, the Premier League has seen a rash of foreign buyers of dubious provenance. The “Russian oligarch” has become a figure of almost comedic contempt. When we see Abramovich gurning from the upper stands, standing beside very beautiful Irina, or very beautiful Dasha, we see a billionaire Paul Daniels. But alone, Abramovich would only have been the butt of jokes; the former pig farmer and tyre retreader’s masterstroke was in employing a Portuguese manager who embodies a swaggering arrogance and a towering self-regard that even Siberia’s aluminium can’t buy.
Some football-focused critics take Mourinho to task for his negative play, his defensive strategies, a certain dullness in his approach. In truth, there’s nothing much wrong with what Jose Mourinho does; it is his manner that suits so sublimely the Chelsea we love to hate.
See how he 'fulfills' his post-match duties: not bothering to look at the camera, mumbling to himself grudgingly during interviews, then pronouncing on matches as if he were delivering the Sermon on the Mount. His players become demi-gods, while fans can be criticised for being too loud or referees for pertetuating imagined conspiracies. The whole performance is absolutely in keeping with being at the helm of this season’s evil team.

Meanwhile, Manchester United – everyone’s former pet hate – suddenly seem almost likeable. It sticks in my craw to admit it, but the Moyes debacle, the way Ferguson turned on the players to sell his book (who reciprocated by turning on him), the slippage from top to middling, Rooney’s passage towards football midlife, and the increasing irrelevance of David Beckham, means the club, while still sickeningly rich and utterly worthy of any residual hatred you may have left once you’re done with Chelsea, is a lot easier to ignore.
Don’t let nostalgia confuse you; these are the Chelsea years. Give your Old Trafford-abhorrence a rest.
Football has always been about hatred. According to Dr Andrew Livingstone of Exeter University’s school of psychology, “having an ‘enemy’ is very helpful in making sure we know who we are as a group – it can cement a shared identity with fellow fans, and provides a sense of purpose and focus for 'our' team.”
But football, he says, is special because it is an arena where hatred is accepted and even encouraged. Why, though, do a team’s achievements rankle so much?

“We see the success of a rival as ill-gotten, or unfairly achieved. Also, winners in football don't tend to win with good grace, and gloating and the rubbing-their-faces-in-it celebration of the winners are as much part of the game as the resentment of the losers.”
Before signing off, I should point out that I am an Everton fan (I went for blue, you see, combined with a dash of pure white). While researching Britain's most-hated teams, I learned that my club is a neutrals’ favourite. I suppose mediocrity, being an also-ran and a perennial “almost” team make everyone like you.
My favourite other clubs right now are Bradford City (the 4-2 surely not so much “a disgrace” as an ungracious low point for the Mourinho trademark) and, tonight at least, Paris Saint-Germain. I’m looking forward to a good night in, with a few tins and a few choice swear words.
But I’m not going to feel guilt or shame. According to Dr Livingstone, “I think the rivalries reveal something positive and profound – that even in a supposedly individualised society, we can still develop a powerful sense of belonging, identity and meaning through groups, and that when we do, we look to better ourselves and our group.
"Crucially, this can involve raging against and challenging the unfair (at least in our eyes) advantages of the successful. In short, our 'hatreds' are a window onto who we think we are, and where we think we are.”


Ten steps to becoming most hated club in England:
1. Win lots of tournaments and silverware.
2. Be coached by a handsome and successful manager who dresses well and struts his stuff like an unashamed alpha-male.
3. Be a global brand.
4. Be owned by a billionaire from a corrupt country – ideally Russia.
5. Be connected to a wealthy, faceless, amoral area of a wealthy, faceless, amoral city – ideally London.
6. Be successful – for a long time, and, crucially, right now.
7. Ensure some matches feature no native or local or poorly paid players.
8. Have a history of aggression and violence.
9. Be sponsored by a foreign company no one really knows – ideally Gazprom.
10. Lose ungraciously to low-ranking opposition

I think the PSG-Chelsea game ref is a photo addition to the screen !....(from another game)....a hologram of some sort...from Voyager...(please state the nature of the medical emergency).....

Film shows Chelsea fans in Paris Metro incident

A group of people can be heard singing: "We're racist, we're racist and that's the way we like it."

Yes. It isn't good to see video clips of Chelsea supporters behaving like that.

If they feel a need to include their support for Chelsea as being part of their pathetic public behaviour, then a suitable punishment ought to include a big fine on their club.

Here's the clip:

Interested to know if that lot would refuse treatment if they needed it in a Kings Cross type disaster if offered by a Black Man/Women?

Scum, I hope they are season ticket holders then the club can ban them for life.

The club has behaved impeccably - despite it being a handful of people at best and miles away from the ground. They immediately said they would aid the police and apply bans, but whose to know if they're regulars or hangers on for the day?

Former public schoolboy was one of the Chelsea fans on train of racist football thugs, claims Twitter friend

A good night of European football on the box tonight :-

6pm ITV4 Young Boys v Everton

8pm ITV Liverpool v Besiktas


I'll leave the Mrs to find out who killed Lucy :o)

Joe Say - 17 Feb 2015 07:31 - 4306 of 4317

So where's the outcry against Rooney's diving then ?

Silent are we now Dil?



Thats rich coming from you ... ever seen Drogba stay on his feet for more than 5 minutes ?

And for the record I believe it was a dive and no contact was made and the crap that Hodgson was spouting about evasive action was a joke. Go down that route and we'll be seeing two players going for a fifty fifty ball both diving out the way and claiming a foul for evasive action.

Joe Say - 19 Feb 2015 07:10 - 4315 of 4318

The club has behaved impeccably - despite it being a handful of people at best and miles away from the ground. They immediately said they would aid the police and apply bans, but whose to know if they're regulars or hangers on for the day?



Hangers on for the day ???
Feck me I bet all the tickets were only sold to season ticket holders so how do you work that one out ?

Take off the rose tinted glasses , suppose all those that got locked up in 2010 after the Cardiff game were innoncent bypassers too.

And don't worry about the club applying bans because the courts will do it anyway.