CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

The Guardian excelling itself again:

"Gallagher robbed of big occasion

Football is full of silly rules that help the bigger clubs hold power over the smaller ones. For example, Conor Gallagher cannot play in an FA Cup semi-final despite helping Crystal Palace through each round to Wembley, purely because he is owned by Chelsea, a club that let him leave in the summer as they did not want to use him. They will not permit him to play. If Chelsea are willing to loan out a player, they should do so at their own risk. Gallagher has been a standout performer all season for Patrick Vieira, the manager helping improve him as a player, giving him experience and increasing his value. All of which help Chelsea in the long run. If Gallagher had been allowed to play and scored the winner for Palace, that is a danger Chelsea should have had to live with. Surely the point of sending Gallagher out is for him to experience big occasions and deal with them? "

Fair and balanced coverage of our club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diddymen   
3 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

The Guardian excelling itself again:

"Gallagher robbed of big occasion

Football is full of silly rules that help the bigger clubs hold power over the smaller ones. For example, Conor Gallagher cannot play in an FA Cup semi-final despite helping Crystal Palace through each round to Wembley, purely because he is owned by Chelsea, a club that let him leave in the summer as they did not want to use him. They will not permit him to play. If Chelsea are willing to loan out a player, they should do so at their own risk. Gallagher has been a standout performer all season for Patrick Vieira, the manager helping improve him as a player, giving him experience and increasing his value. All of which help Chelsea in the long run. If Gallagher had been allowed to play and scored the winner for Palace, that is a danger Chelsea should have had to live with. Surely the point of sending Gallagher out is for him to experience big occasions and deal with them? "

Fair and balanced coverage of our club.

Can imagine if it was Liverpool who had the player loaned. 

Its the rules FFS! What’s with this country and rules ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   

I'd be confident there are no Chelsea players failing test because I'm convinced that would have been leaked already. I wonder who the Premier League is protecting...

I've linked this article before but here it is again for anybody that missed it the first time round (this is from 2020, the season the team in question would have an awful year by their current standards):

https://backpagefootball.com/why-liverpool-wont-win-the-premier-league-this-season/126313/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

Yet another crap article in the Guardian. An attempt to examine RA's legacy can't find the space to consider the academy.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2022/apr/16/if-cup-defeat-to-palace-ends-Abramovich-era-what-will-he-leave-behind-at-chelsea

Read it earlier and thought ... "if we end up on a very different trajectory now, and all he leaves behind is two decades of winning trophies, all of the trophies there are to win ... That's pretty good right?!". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   
1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

Yet another crap article in the Guardian. An attempt to examine RA's legacy can't find the space to consider the academy.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2022/apr/16/if-cup-defeat-to-palace-ends-Abramovich-era-what-will-he-leave-behind-at-chelsea

He condemns "sports washing" and "financial doping". Jonathan Wilson always likes a quote from Wenger I suppose because he likes to appeal to the Arsenistas who read his columns. But then claims "the incredible achievements of City’s commercial department in making their club the richest by revenue in the world are to be saluted". Really? The way he desperately tries to find reasons to believe the players have stopped playing and the club is falling apart is fairly typical. To be honest, this kind of thing is the reason I stopped reading the Guardian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that comment about their commercial department and assumed he had to be taking the piss, given what we know about their fabricated sponsorship deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bison said:

I'd be confident there are no Chelsea players failing test because I'm convinced that would have been leaked already. I wonder who the Premier League is protecting...

I've linked this article before but here it is again for anybody that missed it the first time round (this is from 2020, the season the team in question would have an awful year by their current standards):

https://backpagefootball.com/why-liverpool-wont-win-the-premier-league-this-season/126313/

Thought the same, must be very disappointing for the press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/04/2022 at 1:40 PM, Backbiter said:

The Guardian excelling itself again:

"Gallagher robbed of big occasion

Football is full of silly rules that help the bigger clubs hold power over the smaller ones. For example, Conor Gallagher cannot play in an FA Cup semi-final despite helping Crystal Palace through each round to Wembley, purely because he is owned by Chelsea, a club that let him leave in the summer as they did not want to use him. They will not permit him to play. If Chelsea are willing to loan out a player, they should do so at their own risk. Gallagher has been a standout performer all season for Patrick Vieira, the manager helping improve him as a player, giving him experience and increasing his value. All of which help Chelsea in the long run. If Gallagher had been allowed to play and scored the winner for Palace, that is a danger Chelsea should have had to live with. Surely the point of sending Gallagher out is for him to experience big occasions and deal with them? "

Fair and balanced coverage of our club.

They're at it again today. The Guardian's constitution dictates it must report negatively on Chelsea at every opportunity:

"a key figure of the Patrick Vieira revolution was taken away in the FA Cup semi-final on Sunday with Conor Gallagher ineligible to appear against his parent club after Chelsea refused him permission to play. The Gallagher issue was always going to rear its head should Palace lose and the fact that Chelsea’s opener was scored by another former Palace loanee, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, only rubbed salt into the wounds. Gallagher’s goals garner attention but it’s his energy and closing down that Palace missed most. Would the moves that led to Loftus-Cheek and Mason Mount’s second-half goals have been stopped at source with Gallagher on the pitch? The big clubs have enough advantages; the parent club rule does not need to be one of them. "

Err. I think you'll find you raised it in advance of the game so the first part of the bolded sentence is just ridiculous.

As for the second part of the sentence, it makes zero sense. It appears to imply that Palace fans can feel doubly aggrieved because a Chelsea player scored against them, because he was loaned to Palace and played very well for them four seasons ago. Is the suggestion that Chelsea shouldn't have been allowed to play him because of that loan spell?

I see Steinberg is still writing for the paper despite his despicable tweets about Lamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
17 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

They're at it again today. The Guardian's constitution dictates it must report negatively on Chelsea at every opportunity:

"a key figure of the Patrick Vieira revolution was taken away in the FA Cup semi-final on Sunday with Conor Gallagher ineligible to appear against his parent club after Chelsea refused him permission to play. The Gallagher issue was always going to rear its head should Palace lose and the fact that Chelsea’s opener was scored by another former Palace loanee, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, only rubbed salt into the wounds. Gallagher’s goals garner attention but it’s his energy and closing down that Palace missed most. Would the moves that led to Loftus-Cheek and Mason Mount’s second-half goals have been stopped at source with Gallagher on the pitch? The big clubs have enough advantages; the parent club rule does not need to be one of them. "

Err. I think you'll find you raised it in advance of the game so the first part of the bolded sentence is just ridiculous.

As for the second part of the sentence, it makes zero sense. It appears to imply that Palace fans can feel doubly aggrieved because a Chelsea player scored against them, because he was loaned to Palace and played very well for them four seasons ago. Is the suggestion that Chelsea shouldn't have been allowed to play him because of that loan spell?

I see Steinberg is still writing for the paper despite his despicable tweets about Lamps.

Yeah. How on earth has he kept his influential job?  Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now