Maybe I’m being a little optimistic, but it could be time for the media and everyone else to move on from Adebayor as we have the small matter of a trip to Old Trafford this weekend. What should have seen us venturing over to Stretford with the strongest comparable squad to our rivals since the 70’s, has been undermined by the lack of available strikers.
We are of course brimful of confidence following our 100% start to the season, but so were Spurs when they took on United last week.
The absence of Adebayor along with Robinho and Santa Cruz appears to have left Hughes considering at rushing Tevez back. This could be unwise for several reasons:
- Tevez isn’t suited to playing as a lone striker (lacking either height or pace), therefore doing a straight swap of Tevez for Adebayor is likely to make little impression on Vidic and Ferdinand.
- Bellamy has successfully played as a lone striker in the past, utilising his pace, movement and energy to stretch a defence.
- Moving Bellamy to centre-forward and introducing Petrov on the wing may weaken us defensively, but will give us an extra attacking threat. Petrov looks to be bursting for first team action and his long raking passes could be a crucial weapon in releasing Bellamy on the break.
- A half fit Tevez would struggle in a normal Premier League fixture. United are hardly likely to go easy on him in this one.
- Last season, Hughes brought back players from injury to quickly (eg. Richards, Benjani and Kompany) and it was counter-productive. We don’t want to see Tevez aggravate the injury and be out for longer.
If Tevez is deemed fit enough, a substitutes role should be as much as we can expect of him. There has been talk of introducing Zabaleta to the midfield. While this would give us additional strength tackling in the middle, the team would be left unbalanced. Would Ireland or Barry play on the left side of midfield? Ireland has been put there before and was clearly out of position. Barry lacks the pace to go on the flank, either as full-back or winger. In addition, the absence of his calm head and excellent distribution from the middle would leave us resembling the team that lost so limply in last seasons fixture.
With the rise of City, Manchester derbies are no longer just a local matter. The fixture is now resonating across the whole footballing globe, as illustrated by the number of column inches given to the build-up alone. Players on both sides have been queuing up to give their opinions.
Listening to all their positivity and collective confidence is becoming overwhelming and made me wonder what it would be like to hear someone say, “I fancy us to get trounced. Don’t think we’ve got a chance in this one.” Sadly that’s probably a criminal offence in this age of mediaspeak and sports psychology.
Given our lack of strikers, we should be looking to keep it tight and put our faith in the defensive qualities of the newly acquired Toure and Lescott, with de Jong and Barry providing cover in front. Barry’s measured passing will be crucial in helping us retain possession, and instigate attacks on the break.
Possible line-up: Given, Richards, Bridge, Toure, Lescott, Barry, de Jong, Ireland, Wright-Phillips, Petrov, Bellamy
Prediction: 2-1 to City
In amongst all the derby previews in today’s press are two excellent pieces by City supporting Guardian writer David Conn, where he interviews Khaldoon al Mubarak in Abu Dhabi.
Khaldoon responds to criticism of City’s spending being a danger to football:
“I could accept the argument if we were artificially building up the club through debt”
“That produces a destructive end result; we have seen that happen. But in our case, the club will be in the healthiest position because there is no debt. We have funded it through equity [permanent investment].
“I believe what we are doing is a fair way to inject competition into football, without debt.”
This is confirmation of what we already know, but which a lot of City’s critics choose to ignore. He goes on to respond to the plans being put forward by Michel Platini to curb the freedom of owners to invest in clubs:
“The argument that this is unhealthy suggests that the big clubs, which make the most money, must remain the big clubs, that the status quo must remain.
“Is Mr Platini saying that only Real Madrid and Barcelona have the right to be competitive in La Liga?”
This is precisely the problem with the plans. Platini has always said he wants to make European football fairer, but it seems that the only changes he can get the big clubs to agree to, are ones that don’t threaten them. Hence the ‘financial fair play’, linking expenditure to revenue, is ok for the likes of Milan who have a high turnover. He appears to be playing on these clubs fear of City’s spending to get an agreement to his changes.
There seems to be a denial of the problems these rules will cause in stopping clubs like City challenging those established in the Champions League. The silence from Uefa and Platini on this is becoming increasingly apparent.
Khaldoon confronts it head on:
“I appreciate the argument about having so much money.
“The way I answer it is: Yes, this is a club, but it is a business too, and in business, you are there to compete. And we are striving to build the club the right way, with respect for its heritage, and the fans.”
The second article looks at how the ownership of City is part of the move to promote Abu Dhabi and it’s values. Conn firstly describes how this push is part of the state’s policy. The level of expenditure is awesome, and makes the investment in City seem almost trifling.
Interestingly, the purchase of City was initially a private venture by Sheikh Mansour who is a football fan, but with the global media attention that has followed, City are now viewed as part of the plan to promote Abu Dhabi itself. Could this mean the people in Abu Dhabi will be even more determined to see City being successful and having a positive presence at the centre of world football? It is hugely exciting to think so.
The money being spent on City is still considered an investment, that will prove it’s worth if City are established as a top European club. Then there is the fan side. According to Khaldoon:
“Sheikh Mansour is a huge football fan. There is an enjoyment, a pleasure, which comes from owning it.”
“There is a pure, football, emotional side to it, and a big business side, too. I think what attracted Sheikh Mansour was the great football journey, but also there is a business sense, that we can create a franchise, a business, over years, which will create value and reap a long term return.”
There’s a further two parts to this interview to be published by The Guardian.
The FA have confirmed that Emmanuel Adebayor is suspended for three matches after being found guilty of violent conduct in the game against Arsenal.
He’ll miss the games against Manchester United, Fulham (Carling Cup), and West Ham.
This week has seen Michel Platini’s plans for ‘financial fair play’ accepted in principle by Uefa. Exactly how this will work is yet to be agreed and negotiations are set to continue for the rest of the season. Only then can any new rules be ratified.
Platini hasn’t denied that plans to stop clubs from spending more than they make from revenues is intended to prevent ‘sugar daddies’ like Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich coming into the game and transforming clubs with cash injections.
Michel Platini:
“If you buy a house, you have a debt but that doesn’t mean someone is going to stop you from working.
“If you depend only on a rich benefactor however, then the financial model is too volatile.”
The Uefa boss claims to have been asked by members of the ‘football family’ like Silvio Berlusconi to do something about the current situation. Platini is using the financial woes of the credit crunch to justify his plans, but by the time they come to fruition the 2008 banking crisis will be long gone. In any case the new regulations being adopted by the Premier League seem far more practical.
Let’s not forget that Berlusconi has been under pressure from supporters at Milan after the clubs relative demise in recent seasons. Their financial woes would hardly have been lessened by City bumping up the fee (circa 20m Euros) and wages (circa 100k per week) they eventually had to pay for Ronaldinho. The failure of the Brazilian playboy to justify these sums is of little surprise to many, but probably irks the Italian leader.
Milan of course, still have very high revenues so would be a clear beneficiary of the possible new rules. They’d be able to out-muscle other Serie A clubs and not have to worry about upstarts like City when it comes to negotiating for the world’s top players.
Platini’s claim that Abramovich is in agreement looks to be exaggerated as the Russian will want to see more of the details before giving wholehearted support. As ever, self interest will reign as Abramovich looks to reduce his personal expenditure while still being able to make the marquee signing he missed out on this Summer.
Clubs failing to meet the criteria would not be able to play in the Uefa competitions, namely the Champions League and Europa League. This is Platini’s big stick, and while the carrots are there for the clubs currently with the biggest turnovers, it’s unclear what the benefits are to those who might want to challenge the elite.
Talk of smaller clubs growing by nurturing their own players is fantasy as we all know promising youngsters are snapped up by bigger clubs. The chances of a title challenging team coming through an Academy at the same time are also negligible in the extreme.
The Premier League’s Richard Scudamore recognises the dangers of tying expenditure on players to revenue. The lack of a level playing field in the Premier League has been bad enough. These plans threaten to lock-in the clubs with the biggest turnovers and remove the chance of other clubs challenging via a cash injection. This would make the Premier League even more predictable, less competitive, and fans would find it a turn-off. With less enthusiasm among supporters, future TV deals could be reduced, weakening the financial power of the League.
Would Platini mind? Or would he be quite happy to see this happen. How many European ties this week had the draw of City v Arsenal? Arguably, only Inter v Bareclona, and the appeal of this was reduced by being a group game with both teams happy to play out a draw.
Let’s remember, new chairmen arriving and putting cash into a club has been a part of football for years, particularly since the abolition of the maximum wage. Why else do fans welcome these people? There’s a thrill and excitement in the possibility of new players.
As Khaldoon al Mubarak said in his video interview at the start of the season, money is required.
Intriguingly, The Times Football Commentator, Patrick Barclay suggested a compromise between Platini and the Premier League may still be possible:
At length a compromise may be reached in which benefactors are allowed to give but not lend.
Platini hopes to have the plans in place by 2012, though there is talk of another three seasons grace for clubs to adjust before punishments are meted out. No doubt City will be looking closely at whatever is agreed to see how we can work with it, or round it, and continue ‘the project’. There could be a race for City to establish themselves in the Champions League and dramatically increase their revenues by this time. If matches at Eastlands continue to sell-out, then it may make sense to accelerate plans to expand the stadium. Increased crowds are the most obvious way to increase revenues.
Platini’s plans may pose another challenge to City, but I would bet against Garry Cook and Sheikh Mansour coming through once again.