Harry Sideras

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Harry Sideras

  • Rank
    CFCnet Member
  • Birthday 10/06/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Previous Fields

  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

2,644 profile views
  1. Frank Lampard: Legend.

    When Abramovich arrived, Rio Ferdinand told Frank he'd struggle to get in the team with all the superstars Roman was going to buy. No matter who came, Frank was still always first on the teamsheet. Which says as much about Rio as it does Frank, but it says everything about Frank. Last year I got invited to the CPO dinner a year on from the Champions League win, where Frank was the special guest, being interviewed by Cundy about each stage of the run to the final. I got a bit bored tbh because I went to most games of the run and I wasn't hearing anything that I hadn't already seen. They took a break after going through the group-stage games and out of desperation I submitted a question that I didn't think for a minute would get answered. Everyone knew what happened in the 2nd leg at home to Napoli, but I wanted to know about the team meeting ahead of the first leg where AVB chose to drop Frank and Ashley. What was going on ahead of that 1st leg? Much to my surprise, Cundy asked the question. Frank said he knew AVB had his own ideas, so he wasn't that surprised when he got called in to see Andre and was told he wasn't starting the game. Cundy asked Frank what he replied when he was told. "I said: 'Are you ****ing sure?'". But like he said, he was half-expecting it so he just had to take it. It was only after he got out of the meeting and saw the team sheet, only to discover Ash had been dropped too. "You don't go into a big European away game and drop the best left back in the world and replace him with Bosingwa!" At the end of the dinner, Frank and Bobby Tambling made themselves available for autographs until everyone had been seen. Frank had an enormous crowd of people around him - a lot probably 20 years older than him - pushing in to get his autograph, like a gaggle of schoolgirls. Some people were monopolising Bobby Tambling, probably trying to tell him their life story. I'm not really into that kind of thing, but after a while when most of the crowd had gone I thought I'd get an autograph from Frank. I didn't know what to say that he probably hadn't already heard 100 times that night. I just said I was really glad he'd got the goals record and a new contract, because it was just about the only thing keeping some of us going in that Benitez season. He was his usual polite self and thanked me. I said: no Frank, it was the ONLY thing keeping some of us going. To me, it really was. This season, it's different. Jose is back and he'll deal with the hand-over from the old Chelsea to the new one. Frank's done his time and we're in good hands. The end of an era.
  2. Salomon Kalou

    Ozil League Cup Europe Total 2007–08 23 1 1 1 6 0 30 2 2008–09 28 3 5 2 14 0 47 5 2009–10 31 9 5 0 10 2 46 11 ------------------------------- 82 13 11 3 30 2 123 19 + 2 Int'l goals Kalou League Cup Europe Total 2007–08 30 7 3 1 11 1 44 9 2008–09 27 6 7 3 8 1 39 10 2009–10 23 5 6 4 6 3 35 12 ------------------------------- 80 17 16 8 25 5 118 31 + 9 Int'l goals
  3. Musical Tastes

    And for good measure... OTB Two Sisters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTrCh36Wjg
  4. Musical Tastes

    Since I've been away: Zakir Hussein The Shin & friends (from Georgia)
  5. Didier Drogba

    So every single player in the current England squad was born in this country. Is that the point you were trying to make or the complete opposite point? If the latter, as I thought, I imagine some supporting evidence would help.
  6. Hey Harry, read your comments re AC and the general level of some of the posts. Couldn't agree more so well said.

    A few years back you jumped to my defence on a tongue in cheek post I made after winning the League, never thanked you then so thanks now!!!

  7. Gael Kakuta

    Your first article was certainly the first decent analysis of the issue and put into words what a few felt. You deserved credit for that, if only for discovering the snappily titled tome The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber - no doubt now a best-seller in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Also credit to Backbiter here for dredging up the text of decisions by both the DRC and CAS. It was certainly all over as far as I was concerned within a week of it all going off last September. I have actually waded through the entire 40 pages of the original thread now and it was worth doing once I'd ignored the incessant whining from the usual suspects. Lens asked for €4.3m and eventually got €130k 2.5 years after the event, when we offered several times that amount originally, to help run a youth team that costs them €5m a year to run. What a monumental own goal for them and for the whole of French football. You or I may not have known 100%, even if the evidence compiled wasn't a big enough clue, but for the club there was no risk whatsoever, as it turned out, as soon as we'd got the agreement from Lens that they had no legal or factual case and were bound to lose if it went to Court. From that point on it's just a matter of CAS confirming that agreement had been arrived at so there was no case to answer. An official rubber-stamping, but no more than that. Having read the original thread, I'd just like to say this was a good example of the complete and utter rubbish you seemed to be coming out with at the time. Glad I didn't have to suffer it at the time. Complete drivel from first word to last. If it's any consolation (it shouldn't be) you weren't alone. I expect you meant Blatter, even though Platini is a Vice president of Fifa. But yes, in a nutshell, that's it. From Backbiter's various links to the previous decisions of both the DRC and CAS it should've been entirely obvious to Fifa that the various contracts (such as they are) in France are almost wholly discredited, especially when it comes to transfers involving leagues outside France, even if the conditions on schooling had been met, which 5 minutes of investigation would've revealed those conditions hadn't been met anyway. See below. I think it's Lens and probably FIFA trying to save face and Chelsea going along with it just to end it once and for all. Chelsea had nothing to lose by letting it go the distance, everyone else did. Without knowing for sure I'm confident Chelsea would've made some agreement to support Lens development work in return for first dibs on the players to come out of their academy, as it's clear they have a good thing going on through the years. That's to our advantage and I don't see anything wrong with it as all the major clubs have tie-ins with various European clubs in a similar way. Other aspects I'm not so happy with. First, by not putting it through a public court, French clubs can maintain these highly dubious contracts with children - some French, some kids trafficked from Africa by dodgy agents for cash - in order that the whole gravy train continues to everyone's eventual benefit. The story of Culture Foot Solidaire shows there's a major issue with trafficking, yet Fifa and Blatter, who claim to be supportive, seem to do everything they can to knowingly point the finger at the wrong people to distract from those more directly involved in it - low profile French, Belgian and Norwegian clubs and agents who supply them. Allowing Fifa (and Uefa) to get off the hook has all the hallmarks of Kenyon's involvement to buddy up to them as if there's some quid pro quo we'll eventually see at Chelsea. Well I've never seen it, nor do I expect it to ever arrive. For all this brown-nosing, what benefits have we seen? We can't even play a CL game without corrupt officials being appointed who manage to suspend all laws of the game when it might benefit us, then reinstate them when it happens the other way. Kenyon has wheedled his way onto the Executive Board of the ECA, allegedly still representing us rather than himself (and with the recent suggestion he'll get involved with Galatasaray) yet where's the benefit for us? My view at the time of the CAS announcement was that we should sue Fifa (and Uefa) for everything we can for the outrageous defamation they carelessly contrived and it's no different now. What can they do to us they haven't already done and, no doubt, will do again for the flimsiest reason? Throw us out of football? For what? Winning court cases against them at every turn and beating their favoured teams at football if only their officials didn't suspend all laws of the game? Of that we're certainly guilty. Complete bollocks. At the outset we offered Lens several times more than they eventually got. We ended up paying less than even Fifa awarded against us and got a tie-in to Lens' best players into the bargain. In the Fifa Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, under Annex 4 and 5 there are rules regarding Training Compensation and a Solidarity Mechanism that requires all clubs to recompense (effectively) feeder clubs for the work they've not only done with the player but support for the size of their academy, and a system whereby clubs in bigger leagues pay an additional amount in line with the size of the league the player moves to. I've seen nothing anywhere that indicates Chelsea aren't fully supportive of this principle, were fully willing to pay all required costs and to pay an extra amount effectively in the form of a transfer fee. Just as we should. All this farting about has resulted in Chelsea revealing very little except that even though we've been found completely innocent of all charges and Lens barely had any proper hold over the player, we will make up all the costs Lens would have been due under these principles. Just as every club anywhere would have to do as well. It would certainly be less than if we'd have found or developed the player ourselves. How you contrive this into us being taken for suckers, just so you can maintain your view that academies are worthless, beggars belief. We established a very long time ago that cost isn't the reason for having an academy\finishing school, so endlessly going on about it serves no purpose - unless your purpose is to become as wholly discredited a commentator as James P. If that's the case, you're doing a good job. Carry on.
  8. Didier Drogba

    Is that what you imagined he said? My cat imagined he said something else entirely. I remember coming back from that game hearing JT had said something and thought it was an incident I'd missed. I hadn't. Unlike the press, who came out with this story, it seems, as some kind of delayed explanation of why they'd been claiming he'd been diving for years, when that rarely ever happened, but had miraculously stopped, I thought he'd been told not to come back and defend when he was more value keeping their defence pegged back. It's amazing how these players spend all week with each other, yet say nothing, but as soon as they're in public all sorts of imaginings about what they're saying to each other comes out. More proof, I guess, that if something doesn't happen on TV (or the internet) things don't really happen at all. Must be some kind of joke, but I don't find myself laughing very much.
  9. Chelsea Reserve & Youth Team

    If JT signed with United, so be it. Thing as, at that age they wouldn't have been very interested in him. He was quite unremarkable at that age. What you're missing is the solidarity payments and training compensation that are established as part of Uefa rules and you may notice that the figures mean that Chelsea's offer was in excess of what was demanded under Uefa's rules. While holding out for over 4m Lens actually received less from Chelsea through Uefa than Chelsea had offered. By definition, then, Chelsea's offer was more than fair.
  10. Frank Arnesen

    This could end up as a biannual thread the way I'm going... Sorry. I wouldn't say minor, but a cog most certainly. A cog that doesn't involve replacing the entire mechanism at the same time if it's found to be deficient, which I take it is your alternative preference? How well has that done the last few years? That's one of your criticisms, isn't it? Which I guess is why you fear it so much. Well, the solution is to ensure that a component of this type doesn't bring down a house of cards when it fails. As far as whether it's conjectural goes, you forget JM admitted it directly a couple of times (on the pitch after the FA Cup final was one occasion). In addition there were other occasions admitted by others, less publicly. It's not in dispute. On being denied players, he partly decided it for himself (fewer, but multifunctional players), partly had it thrust upon him by middle-men (the loss of Gallas) and partly by budgetary constraints imposed from the top. This question makes about as much sense as "Why is green?". Because that's the long term structure of the club the owner and board wants. It's the manager's job to manage his resources. When it comes to the shortfalls or gaps there are several ways of dealing with that. From within, from below and from outside. Some aspects are within the coach's own hands and some aren't. The manager (1st team coach) has enough on his hands every 3 or 4 days than to resolve external issues, especially as that involves non-footballing issues like budgets and contracts. This has nothing to do with existing players. It's to do with structure and organisation. No wonder you're permanently so confused if you view this issue so narrowly.
  11. Chelsea Finances Thread

    Some people are. If you grabbed the accounts can you post them somewhere and provide a link, please Rod? Many thanks.
  12. Didier Drogba

    To possibly avoid any further investigation of his handling of Barca matches over a long period of time? As I remember it, early in that year's CL tournament Frisk was reffing in Italy and was pelted from the crowd. (Someone will correct me if that's wrong or it was another ref, but I believe that's correct). Frisk was very capable of being a very good and perceptive ref, so when he came out with his aberrations it was seen in a context he'd assiduously built up. If he made controversial decisions that were shown to be right he could get away with slipping in controversial decisions that were clearly wrong. It all added to the view he was decisive and would whistle without fear or favour... except to the extent they always went one way when he got to the Nou Camp. In that context, the Baba red card was correct, but the Drogba second yellow was a million miles from being corrrect. I've got no doubt that Rijkaard's half-time rant at Frisk made no difference to anything. I have no doubt that Mourinho was wrong and used a lie to make the accusation he did. BUT, the reason behind the accusation had been building for some time due to the increasing number of inexplicable decisions he was making. The pretence (and there's no doubt that all claims of death threats were a complete fabrication, backed by no-one at the time or since) that Frisk retired due to the aftermath of the Chelsea game rather than the previous game at which he was attacked is a smoke screen with Drogba a victim as much as Mourinho. And what followed Frisk's retirement? The revelation that German refs were taking bungs and in a following year the whole Calciopoli story with refs agreeing to be chosen for certain matches with certain Italian clubs. And yet, Volker Roth, head of Uefa's Referee Committee not only claimed us to be the enemy of football but announced there would be a demonstration of solidarity among referees in support of Frisk - a demonstration that's still going on today - which he's never retracted. You might think he was trying to cover up a bigger story if you didn't know better... <cough>
  13. Ashley Cole

    Two rather vague questions: 1. Can someone find the BBC news article on this story for me? 2. Can someone point to the iPlayer recording of the interview for me? I can't locate either. Thank you. I additional comment. Take a look at the ratings for the comments below the article linked to above. This is why the Mail is known to many as the Daily Hitler.
  14. Didier Drogba

    The comment by the poster on youtube says "I think the powers that be at YouTube have removed the sound because of DD swearing". Fact is, they didn't. This was the original broadcast. After the adverts, they wiped Andy Gray's commentary from the top, ramped up the volume, then played it again immediately after the commercial break. Someone asked why they couldn't bleep out the offending words. Fact is, Sky worked very hard in a short time to amplify it as much as possible. The doctored recording is the only one we hear now, as if it went out live. It didn't. This is what Uefa used to decide the eventual punishment - the doctored tapes. That's actually not true. The 14 year old girl on a Norwegian website related to Lubos Michel and the ghost goal by Liverpool, where no-one mentioned that it was Baros who studded Cech in the shoulder rather than the other way round. The only person to claim threats on Frisk was him and his wife, saying they'd reported it to police, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. I'm not sure they actually found any record of calls nor letters. In fact, apart from the claim, there's no evidence anything happened at all. Still, it distracted from the fact that Frisk has sent an opposition player off on every single occasion he's ref'd at the Nou Camp. I'm sure this is common knowledge by now, isn't it? Actually there is one, . No-one got booked, nothing happened and play went on.He was also booked for diving in his first season away to Villa, which we drew 0-0, but on review the ref realised it was a foul and should have been a penalty to us, so he rang Mourinho to apologise. I believe the yellow card was withdrawn on the ref's instruction. Like you, some people complained that he ran onto the pitch. He didn't. He strolled out in his flip-flops. It's just exaggerated to make it sound worse. All part of the big lie to make a poor point seem somehow larger. Alleged long-standing fan who registered for one day, never to return. Just delete this account. An obvious lie and nothing worthwhile was said. So Malouda didn't get a penalty when his trailing leg made a mark on the line because of Drogba's antics? Pique was judged to unintentionally handball a flick-on by Anelka because of Drogba's antics? Maybe the war in Iraq was down to Drogba's antics too. If it wasn't such an utterly stupid idea I'd laugh. I know this is months after the event, but I looked at this in the summer and turned up some interesting information about a previous meeting with Barcelona in 2006. In the first article concerning us getting 6 yellows and an automatic fine, JT complained about all the card-waving and our dear friend William Gaillard noticed: "A Uefa spokesman William Gaillard said that the constant pressuring of the referee had become a "bad habit" in the Champions' League but that it would be unlikely that action would be taken before the start of next week." No record of any follow-up action exists. In a second agency article a more familiar issue came up: To be clear, Barcelona threw bottles directly at Chelsea players, compared to Chelsea fans throwing flags onto the pitch - flags that are only allowed into our stadium if they have passed all safety approvals. Which is more serious? Barcelona's manager confronted the referee with a tirade following the game sufficiently bad that the team captain had to drag his own manager away. No cameras were on the pitch to record what was said, or at least if they were Sky Espana\Catalonia didn't amplify, then broadcast them and repeat it 50 times an hour before giving it to to Uefa. Perhaps he was congratulating the referee especially hard for a fine performance. We'll never know. If it didn't happen on TV, it didn't happen. I've tried to follow this issue up, but I haven't discovered any punishment for Barcelona being announced. Perhaps someone else knows different. So, to those who po-facedly think Drogba was in the wrong, perhaps you can tell us why you were so unconcerned when it happens anywhere else. Perhaps you looked at MotD the following Saturday where there were less bad fouls gaining penalties and cards, far worse behaviour and no-one mentioned it again. Drogba's deservedly got a place for life now. Best on-field rant ever.
  15. Gael Kakuta

    I understand your points here and the back-up given by Karan's links. So let's be specific: The case would have to be heard by 1st July 2009. The adjudication was made on 27th August 2009. 60 days before that is June 28th 2009. So the case must have been heard in a very specific time frame, namely, Sunday 28th June 2009, Monday 29th June 2009, Tuesday 30th June 2009 or Wednesday 1st July at a push. And I doubt they work Sundays... So let's see. [Edited for mistyping - sorry]