We have emails about Arsenal’s paranoia, Steven Gerrard’s vocabulary, Frank Lampard’s struggles and a new era for Chelsea.
Give your opinion on [email protected]…
The incomparable Arsenal
On a weekend where Jurgen Klopp managed to complain about match officials despite a place in the last four, kudos must go to Arteta, his team and much of Arsenal fans for making himself more unsympathetic than Liverpool at the neutral.
It took a long time, but you made it. well done
Arsenal and its agenda
I had to quickly respond to John’s comments in yesterday’s mailbox. Now he quoted Blade, so he’s clearly a man of taste, but “add to that that we
questioned the referees for their inconsistency in the application of the rules at Arsenal compared to other clubs”.
Stop. Please. For God’s sake. Stop. Arsenal fans and the ‘Agenda’ against Arsenal are borderline mad. There is no agenda against
Arsenal. Every team can look back over the season and explain why their club didn’t go green, but Arsenal fans seem to be taking it to a whole new level. And it seeps into the club, from management to the fan base. Arteta complained the other day that Arsenal’s fixture list (think they’ve played 8 games in the last 11 matchweeks) is the PL vs Arsenal and no one would get the same treatment. Yes, no team in Premier League history has played midweek and then again on Saturday at 12.30pm. Tottenham certainly haven’t had this last month playing Burnley and then Leeds at 12.30pm on Saturday for example. Definitely not.
It’s also not supposed to start a whole ‘Spurs/Arsenal’ thing, stop with the agenda against Arsenal, it’s embarrassing.
Steven Gerrard knows getting injured hurts – why the bluster?
Mings should have walked
Nobody mentioned this in both mailboxes on Monday, so I thought I’d… First off, Gerrard’s comments about hardening Saka aren’t helpful, and that’s not what which I would like to see the manager say. My main point, however, is Tyrone Mings’ yellow card. In the scheme of this particular game it didn’t really matter, but as a League (sport?) are we happy that a challenge that wins the ball as cleanly as it is even a foul, without talk about a yellow card?
Strangely, all the presenters in the sky seem to think it was indeed a yellow, but not a red. But what was the real offense here? I assume the ref considered it a reckless tackle (“reckless” would be a foul but not caution), but to me (Clive), if it’s considered reckless then any slipped challenge must also fall into the same category.
Oli (game is gone) AVFC
Enjoyed the misleading results article. Seeing that Liverpool have some results there, I have one to add. Man Utd 0 – Liverpool 5. It should have been a bigger margin of victory. Cordially
Everton are 17th in the league and only one article from f365 about the terrible job Frank is doing. I sincerely wonder why. He never qualified for the Chelsea job which was obvious after Tuchel took on that same team, I have to point out that the same team won the Champions League. He was certainly unqualified for the job if not for the same blind spot offered to him, which is seen in the drama when he was appointed. My main point of writing is that, whether you choose to admit it or not, Everton are in real danger of being relegated more than ever. Here are some reasons
1. Everton’s remaining fixtures are the toughest in the league; West Ham, Burnley, Man Utd, Leicester, Liverpool, Chelsea, more Leicester, Brentford and Arsenal.
2. Burnley are very slow, trending in the right direction, the fewest goals conceded among the lower half-clubs and the attack is progressing very slowly (thanks to Weghorst).
3. Lampard is simply a bad coach, drawing a blank on Benitez blaming his players’ losses on a lack of bullshit and I’m sure there are crazier excuses.
4. Everton are a very badly run club, signing Lampard was a mistake and he is very Evertonian about not admitting a mistake and correcting it quickly. I don’t even know what fixing the error would look like.
Ace (obviously not in the UK)
I don’t know why Lampard’s interview was censored on BT Sport after he suggested his side needed more bullshit after their 4-0 loss to Crystal Palace. And I don’t know why the Football365 Facebook page is also censoring the word.
It’s not a dirty word. This may be considered rude, but so is Sean Dyche and he is not illegal.
A quick online check has bollocks in seventh place, behind f***ing, sh*t, f**k, bloody, hell and f**k off. B*stard, bitch and damn are in eighth, ninth and tenth position.
Of those, I’d say joining bullshit in the no-swear words category would be gory, hellish, and b*stard.
So the next time Lamps, or anyone else, says some bullshit, can you just write it as said? If you get a fuss about it, tell them they’re just talking bullshit.
Roman and a new era
This is my first time writing in Football365, although I have long read and enjoyed the related articles/comments. I am a Chelsea fan and have been bowled over by what has happened recently regarding the owner/club and the articles about them both.
Before continuing, I consider what happened in Ukraine to be heinous and I fully agree that everything must be done to try to stop Russia and bring peace to the region as soon as possible. In principle, I am fine with sanctioning individuals/companies who can be shown to have approved of the Russian invasion, but I am concerned about some of the actions taken.
With Roman Abramovich, there appears to be overwhelming public support for the actions taken by the UK government, which shows a surprising belief in the integrity and moral compass of your elected officials. It is ironic that the public is willing to allow a Russian model of governance in which a statement can be issued and a person’s assets frozen instead of the traditional “innocent until proven guilty” approach. The fact that laws were enacted so that the government did not have to produce evidence to support its claims in court or give Roman Abramovich the opportunity to defend himself and possibly recover his assets, certainly enabled the government British to be judge, jury and executioner in this case. No matter what you think of Roman Abramovich, he should be entitled to legal redress and spare a thought for those who may be in the government’s crosshairs.
Even Germans captured at the end of World War II were given a trial to defend themselves. Despite the horror inflicted while in power, the victorious Western Allies knew that to differentiate themselves from this regime, they would have to provide evidence that these people were individually implicated or were responsible for decisions made regarding the atrocities committed. How times change.
Reading the sanctions statement itself, there are two main parts, one linking Roman Abramovich to the Russian government/Putin due to favorable dealings between them in the past (also with other sanctioned individuals), and the second part concerning its major stake in Evraz PLC.
Regarding the first part, what should be identified is his approval of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, not that he knows or has any ties to Putin. I imagine there would be a lot of people with ties to Putin during the time he was in power (including a lot of non-Russians) as it seems to do large scale business with that country , Putin would be involved somewhere along the line. Since Roman Abramovich is neither a minister in the Russian government, in charge of part of its military, nor a member of its advisory council, this is essentially guilt by association (we’ll probably never know if Putin asked the oligarch’s approval before the invasion, but this seems unlikely given his penchant for control). Moreover, if guilt by association is the criterion for sanctions, the British government itself, as well as most Western European countries, should face sanctions because they continue to pay Russia for oil and gas. gas while they know the bully they are paying and what those funds will likely be used for.
The second part of the statement is ambiguous at best. Evraz PLC is a publicly traded company, so being a major shareholder, Roman Abramovich would have influence over the election of directors, but since he is neither CEO nor board member himself, he is unlikely to have a say in the day. in the day-to-day management of the business. If Evraz PLC had potentially supplied steel to the Russian military that could have been used in tank production, the most important thing to clarify in order to give context is the timeframe. Was this provided after the invasion of Ukraine, or before, but with the knowledge that Russia was going to invade. If so, the seller should be persecuted and not one of the shareholders. If provided at any time before the invasion (and without it happening), this sale is totally irrelevant. The use of the words “potential” and “may” would indicate that it is far from certain that Evraz PLC has ever supplied steel to the Russian army and, if so, whether it was actually used specifically for the production of tanks. This part of the sanctions statement appears to be a deliberate (and quite effective) ploy to put an image in the public mind of Roman Abramovich with a column of Russian tanks in Ukraine.
Moving away from the ins and outs of what happened with Roman Abramovich, it is with some positivity that I look forward to the new ownership of the club. I had sensed a few seasons ago that RA’s interest was waning and he may have considered selling. The appointment of Frank Lampard, challenges due to a transfer ban and subsequent use of academy players seemed to rejuvenate his support. In all likelihood, a sale at the time would have resulted in similar ownership to other big Premier League clubs, so it looks like Chelsea have a real chance of going a different route. The hope is that supporter representatives will have more of a say in the club in the future, including holding a gold share. I am also very excited that Stamford Bridge is being redeveloped. I used to go there regularly when I lived in London and held my wedding reception there in 1999 (with pictures of me swinging on the goal posts. My wife wasn’t the most impressed !). This is certainly an area where the club have fallen behind their rivals, so it will be great to push ahead with the construction of a new, larger capacity stadium.
In summary, although disappointed with the causes of the imposed change, a page will be turned, the club will continue to exist and, despite the hopes of some rival fans, could eventually thrive under new ownership (approved by the UK government).
Glenn, New Zealand