Liverpool - Football's Drama Queen

[disco]

It's bias because they made the decision retrospectively. You can't argue with that can you? You get a rule change retrospectively which benefits you and no-one else.
Isn't that bias?

No, because the rule changes will benefit all future teams in Liverpool's very specific situation.

Only way it could be bias is if you believe, as the Chavski and some other bitter fans believe, that it was ONLY changed because Liverpool FC requested the change.

Usually the same bitter fans go on to say that we'd do a massive collage on the Kop if the rules aren't changed :whatever:

[Red Chilli]

No, because the rule changes will benefit all future teams in Liverpool's very specific situation.

Only way it could be bias is if you believe, as the Chavski and some other bitter fans believe, that it was ONLY changed because Liverpool FC requested the change.

Usually the same bitter fans go on to say that we'd do a massive collage on the Kop if the rules aren't changed :whatever:

There were 2 rule changes though:

1) LFC granted special dispensation to enter the first qualifying stage in 2005/6 which was a one off ruling. This ruling affected many things including the allocation of TV money to premier league teams.
2) Starting 2006/7 the winners of the previous years competition qualify automatically for the group stages and take one allocated place away from their country of origin.

The first one applied only to us.

[einar]

In all walks of life rules are changed retrospectively all the time, so there is nothing to be feel bad about.

[tomasjj]

I dont' get it. Maureen is footballs drama queen. Even a Chav must see that!

[Redlife]

His point about the Mascherano deal seems untenable. I'm sure the deal would have been ratified whichever club was involved.


I assume FIFA passed the deal because if clubs were to kick up a fuss about the '2 clubs a year' rule and get the EU involved, they would have to scrap the whole thing.

[AFII]

There was a statement still on their website at the time of our case, (but was quickly removed) which, ironically, had been put there when Chelsea played Arsenal in the CL saying that if either of them won the tournament, but didn't qualify they would be allowed to defend it, is that the one you meant? Unless it was a wind-up..

Yes.

[lfcruleus]

On top of this, its actually Mascherano's job. Im pretty confident EU law dictates he has the right to work. Or something along those lines anyway.
Secondly, didn't EUFA take into account that the Brazilian league season starts and finishes at different parts of the year to ours??

tbh mate EU law makes not a jot cos he is not from the EU. I think there are some good points there, even though expressed in a bitter and jealous way. The OT stuff last year was stupid as was the **** chuckin.
We do also flaunt our history in the faces of Chelsea so its only to be expected really.

[Red_Polo]

tbh mate EU law makes not a jot cos he is not from the EU. I think there are some good points there, even though expressed in a bitter and jealous way. The OT stuff last year was stupid as was the **** chuckin.
We do also flaunt our history in the faces of Chelsea so its only to be expected really.

He is working and living in the EU though mate

Not that it makes a difference but he also has an Italian passport, so is an EU citizen.

[JRC]

There were 2 rule changes though:

1) LFC granted special dispensation to enter the first qualifying stage in 2005/6 which was a one off ruling. This ruling affected many things including the allocation of TV money to premier league teams.
2) Starting 2006/7 the winners of the previous years competition qualify automatically for the group stages and take one allocated place away from their country of origin.

The first one applied only to us.

It applied only to us, becasue we happened to be the team in the one-off situation - that is the nature of special dispensations. The question of bias arrives as to whether any other club in that same one-off situation would have received such special dispensation, and I suggest that they would have - it was given not because we were Liverpool, but because the credibility of the competition was being undermined and the intention of the original, poorly drafted rule was not being followed.

Is that true about the winners taking one allocated place for their country? Or only for those countries that have 4 allocated places? So if the CL Winners came from a One-team league (Unlikely, I know), but weren't Champions, then the League Winners wouldn't go into the CL?

[Rich]

I think, if I remember rightly. The Winners get a place automatically into the Griup Stage, however, the rule which was a problem for us, was that no more than 4 clubs from a country are allowed to enter. Therefore, what SHOULD have happened was that Liverpool would have taken their position as winners, followed by Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United. Pushing Everton into the UEFA Cup, however the FA bottled the decision.

[Mumsafan]

Followed by Everton just bottling it

[Walter]

Oh you are naughty

[fah-q]

That article is the equivalent of Katie Price calling someone else common.