I can understand the Chelsea bashing, but why the Terry Trash Talk?

Malc

because he's an oaf and a thug.

because I hate his face.

because he's an oaf and a thug.

because I hate his face.

And because when he loses he always cries like a toddler in the supermarket who wants an ice cream *and* some sweets.

No, sorry, there you are wrong, toddlers like that don't just cry they throw a tantrum, they scream and shout and throw things around. When ever I have seen him cry it's always been in big close matches when they have lost. He is a man that is passionate about his job (playing football) a man that could have won his team the biggest game in football, but he slipped and missed (or missed and slipped, it doesn't really matter). He's showing his passion, he's showing he cares, he's showing his emotion. I really can't see what's so wrong with that.

I suspect that it's just because he's the Chelsea captain.

Malc

John Terry is well known for his gambling/drinking/womanising.

Also, there was the allegedly racist Ledley King incident.

Deplorable racism aside, I do two of the top three, and would have done the third if I was ever a young rich footballer.

Also, he's a mouthy bastard who continually harangues referees and yells at them if he doesn't get his own way (he is regularly mocked by 'The Fiver' amongst others for thinking he is an official).

John Terry is well known for his gambling/drinking/womanising.

Also, there was the allegedly racist Ledley King incident.

I can understand the Chelsea bashing, but why the Terry Trash Talk?

Malc

Grant sacked.

Hoho!

This was always going to happen, though.

And such is the silliness of football, that he would probably have lost his job over the summer anyway, even if they'd won the other night.

Both Kenyon and chairman Bruce Buck paved the way for change by insisting that Chelsea's performance this season was simply "not good enough".

Buck said: "We have very high expectations at Chelsea and a couple of second place finishes is just not good enough for us.

"So although we never would have thought in September when Jose Mourinho left that we would be able to make it into a Champions League final as we did - and that is fantastic - Chelsea are here to win trophies.

"So although it was an excellent season, we are still disappointed."

Grant's problem is not that his overall record was bad, it's that he blew every single one of the important games. Jose never lost a final, Grant lost both his.

Easy stroll past Wigan to all but guarantee the title? Nope. Barnsley in the FA Cup? Nope. Bloody Spurs? Nope. Hell, although it didn't matter at the time, beat Bolton, who have nothing to play for whatsoever to give a shot at the title? Nope.

He made 2 signings, one has played 0 games, the other was played in positions decided by throwing a dart at a picture of a pitch.

Chelsea of course should never have got rid of Jose, but Grant really wasn't much cop, the existing players pulled him through it to a degree and he certainly didn't have the personality to inspire. Furthermore, Chelsea were about to have a huge exodus of the good players (start with Drogba and Lampard) simply because they didn't want to work with him, notice that since the club would have been informed, both have suddenly announced new contract talks.

Grant's problem is not that his overall record was bad, it's that he blew every single one of the important games. Jose never lost a final, Grant lost both his.

In other news.

Leeds United.

He can't. No matter how much he bleats, it's illegal with EU based players. He can restrict out of that.

In contrast, the "home-grown players" rule, which is set to be expanded from next season, has received EU backing.

That means four players in a Champions League or Uefa Cup squad must have been developed by the club, with another four having been produced by clubs from the same federation.

To be eligible, a player of any nationality must have been developed by the club for three years between the ages of 15 and 21.

Surely, a sports organisation can put whatever limits it likes on its own competitions. If thats illegal, so are 'under-21' competitions.

I wrote a massive argument mainly about african players but being a bit drunk it sounded pretty shit. Im trying really hard to keep it short but african players, teams and footballers in general have gathered a reputation more than ever, last world cup should be sufficient evidence. Better facilities, coaches and so on would only improve them which for our players are staples yet out leagues systems actually home the best african players and many poorer nations how would this rule benefit them at all. Nevermind our home nations like its in problems anyway. The example they used was this years finals, man u had 6 english players in their start up, chelsea had 5 english I think, rangers 4-5 scottish or 5 they think and about 7 russians for petersberg. To me they seem like good results to football rather than an epidemic in this time in footballespecially since I bet liverpool and arsenal had worse totals in recent champions league finals.

This has only come about because Sepp Blatter hates English football and doesn't want the Premier League to dominate the Champions League.

For that to work, there would need to be equivalent "foreign-allowed" as well as "no-foreign" competitions in each country, as that would be the equivalent. It's a conflict with employment law, not discrimination laws.

No team has to play in the Champions League or UEFA cup. In fact, it is entirely optional.

Surely you just don't put any restrictions on who's hired by the club, but on who plays in particular games? That way there's no conflict with employment regulations.

Surely you just don't put any restrictions on who's hired by the club, but on who plays in particular games? That way there's no conflict with employment regulations.

This seems a rather petty move, although I'm not sure I believe that Man Utd would have such a valuable asset warming the bench for long.