Chelsea Daily - And then there was one

As Chelsea limbered up for their Champions League last 16 clash with FC Copenhagen, under fire coach Carlo Ancelotti remained defiant that he would not walk out on the club.

Ancelotti’s tenure at the Stamford Bridge is at its most fragile point following the weekend FA Cup defeat to Everton, with a host of pre-emptive newspaper reports suggesting the Italian is ready to call time on his stay in west London.

But during the official Champions League press gathering, Ancelotti chose the moment to reaffirm his commitment to the cause, “I am not here to consider my own position. I just have to work and try my best. The pressure is football – you have to be able to manage at moments like this."

When pressed upon whether he was about to walk, Ancelotti replied with a frank - albeit predictable - “no”.

Whether Ancelotti will quit or not may have little or no bearing on whether he is still Chelsea’s manager come next season, but if he does have any genuine ambitions of remaining in the post, then success in Europe will go someway to repairing the damage of an awful second season.

In reality this competition represents the ailing champions only chance of silverware and reclaiming respectability after their fall from grace. Privately - if never publicly - Roman Abramovich has earmarked the Champions League as his priority and specifically summoned Ancelotti to the club due in large to his exploits with Milan.

Last year Ancelotti was comprehensively outsmarted by a certain Jose Mourinho as the Blues registered their equal worst finish in the competition in eight attempts.

The failure was eradicated by a domestic double, but many will recollect that Ancelotti was once again found tactically wanting when it mattered - much as he has done for the past few months.

Prying eyes will be keen to see how the Italian shuffles his pack following another three games without a win, and 300 minutes of football with just a solitary strike for their troubles.

Fernando Torres returns to the squad after being cup-tied against Everton, but the Spaniards return almost adds to Ancelotti’s problems rather than solves them.

The brief dalliance with the ill-fated diamond appears again to have been consigned to the bin as the Blues continue to labour by with some ill-fitting variation of a 4-3-3.

Indeed it is Nicolas Anelka who is Chelsea’s man on the continent with five goals to his name already. How Ancelotti arranges his attacking options will have a strong bearing on their performance in Denmark, and for the remainder of the campaign.

On paper, a trip to the Danish capital represented the best outcome for Chelsea but given their current confidence crisis it also could perversely become the worst.

The unfancied Danes qualified impressively from Group D also containing Barcelona, Rubin Kazan and Panathinaikos. Their Parken stadium was somewhat of a fortress during the groups with Barca held and the other two well beaten.

Due to the winter break in the Danish SuperLiga, Stale Solbakken’s side have played only a handful of friendlies since defeating Panathinaikos 3-1 in early December.

Last season this fixture would have been tantamount to a bye for the Blues but with no tangible signs of form or finesse returning, the city of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytales could easily become a nightmare.

Chelsea Daily - Ancelotti under the cosh after cup crash

Throughout Chelsea’s torment, the club hierarchy has remained unified in its belief that Carlo Ancelotti should remain at the helm.

The Blues have previously been stung by mid-term managerial shuffling's and Roman Abramovich - minus a recognised incumbent and without the inclination to part more of his fortune on compensation packages - has stood by the under fire Italian.

Whilst in no immediate danger of the Abramovich axe, the FA Cup defeat to Everton has once again further exaggerated the depths to which last season’s double winners have fallen since last term.

The surrendering of the cup means Chelsea have now almost certainly lost both of the honours they so impressively collected last campaign, and by the time they next resume Premier League duties, they could be five points adrift of the Champions League chasers with Manchester’s United and City offering two of their next three fixtures.

More pertinently, questions as to how and why Chelsea find themselves in this predicament invariably lead back to Ancelotti. These inquisitions are now reflective and reactive, the inevitable upcoming proactive posers will be orientated around weather Ancelotti has the capabilities to revive his team.

On another day, things could have been different. The post-match press praise has been lavished upon the Toffees but in truth, they brought little to the party.

Endeavours aside, David Moyes’s side did nothing more than what most sides seem to find the norm against Chelsea these days - stifle them. Even still, the Londoners should have had a penalty and still forged numerous goalscoring opportunities, which could have rendered Leighton Baines’s late strike redundant.

But, had Chelsea progressed and kept themselves off the back pages for another week, would the situation Ancelotti be any different?

The groundhog day scenario since November has been a questionable combination of a chronic lack of width, pace and invention from a side who have scored just 26 league goals in their last 21 outings.

In their two previous scoreless league encounters with Liverpool and Fulham, Chelsea mustered around 40 shots on goal, without many to memory troubling the opposition goalkeeper.

It appears nigh on everyone has just about sussed Chelsea out. Their narrow midfield supplemented by a narrow front three congeal the game into a scrappy mess in centre field - effectively helping the other side out by constricting their creative forces into controllable areas.

These are obvious flaws which have obvious solutions, yet Ancelotti appears reticent to change. As time dribbled on during normal time at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, the former Milan coach stood motionless on the touchline; no gesticulating or galvanising of the troops as he resembled a captain solemnly going down with his ship.

As time and again the Blues tried to shoehorn their way through a resilient Everton, the groans of discontent rolling down from the terraces were unified in their wishes for width.
Yet, after seeing his side go goalless for three successive ninety minute’s - Ancelotti only summoned Nicolas Anelka to the plot at the start of extra time. The Frenchman subsequently created Frank Lampard’s opener after some neat wing play and cross from the by-line.

For all of their sins, the Chelsea squad are a resolute bunch and in the wake of the Mourinho and Scolari sackings, the side rallied themselves to various positions which eventually put a silver lining round the clouds.

Similar resolve is needed here from all parties to take the bare minimum from a barren season.

UEFA's ticket extortion causes outrage across the continent

Just over three years ago, Michel Platini popped in to address the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg.

As President of UEFA, Platini made an impassioned speech that football's ‘fundamental social and cultural values were coming under pressure from various negative influences.’

The Frenchmen went onto add that an "explosion of sectoral and corporate interests are designed to benefit one element - particularly if it is powerful and rich, rather than the masses.”

With barely a dry eye in the house, Platini concluded, “It is now becoming more important to make a profit than to win trophies."

Today, Platini’s organisation has announced that the cheapest tickets on open sale for this season’s Champions League final at Wembley will be £176.

The fee has been condemned across the continent as the 15% increase on prices from last years final are in no way representative of the economic living situation of the average fan.

The pricing has almost doubled since 2009, and any booking is subject to a £26 admin fee for ‘costs involved’ - or a stamp as it used to be known.

UEFA’s media henchmen sent up Director of Competitions, Giorgio Marchetti up to declare "We do not want to squeeze every single penny out of the market.” The UEFA tie also pointed out that the pricing was indeed comparative to similar events, such as last summers FIFA World Cup Final.

The two participating clubs will receive 50,000 tickets between them for the Wembley showpiece, priced at a not unaskable £80, with another 11,000 tickets going on general sale at £300, £225 and £150 - plus the £26 stamp.

Approximately 20,000 places will be reserved for various corporate interests and commercial colleagues. Details of those price schemes, if any, have yet to be released.

The numbers don’t make favourable reading for UEFA, and nor should they.

The bare essentials of this pricing orientation is to maximise to earning potential of an event which is the very antithesis the organisation apparently aspire against.

If you care to peruse the UEFA or FIFA websites, the place is packed with contradiction. The glowing UEFA endorsed development reports depict imagery of war torn or disadvantage children seeking solace with a football. Look into the political rhetoric and there is a grandiose utopian perception of mutuality and independence shared in the beautiful game. Look into the ticket pricing and behind the avatar logos of Adidas, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and others, there is nothing but elitism and capital gains. The metaphorical and actual intentions do not add up.

Without adding to the speculation, the Panorama questions have still yet to be feasibly answered. Those queries about internal contracts and holding accounts have been threatened with lawsuits. None have ever materialised.

How can UEFA think that charging £176 for a single match ticket to a football match is, in the words of Giorgio Marchetti, “a fair level”?

Quite easily, to be honest.

The event will be a sell-out, and those tickets which will be later regurgitated for much higher prices will all be snapped up regardless of what extortionate price they are set at.

That’s because football sells, and nobody sells it, or exploits it, like the games governing bodies, despite what the politically friendly-faced former golden boy come UEFA preacher may try to say to the contrary.

The prices charged for a single ticket regardless of the worldwide kudos of that game is simply extortion and draws nobody to the game other than those that can out bid the rest.

Such unequal economic playing fields have been oft derided by Platini to such levels that financial fair play rules are on there way in at his behest.

Will any monopolies body be invited in to review the ticket pricing system of registered UEFA and FIFA events? Maybe not.

Platini speaks frequently about his discomfort at the imbalance of European football, yet confesses little about how his organization have helped to create it. Yet, an overseas investor picking a club off the shelf is essentially harmless when compared to the game’s policing force charging football fans ridiculous prices to attend a football match.

The pricing of these tickets should not be the issue, moreover it is the integrity of the continents governing force which should be open to further investigation.

Michel Platini was born to a modest family in Joeuf, a small town in northern France. Could his father have afforded to take the future president of UEFA to a Champions League final, and if he couldn’t, what would he have said about a 15% incremental on the year before?

There are many questions about UEFA’s finances which will always remain unanswered, least of all how much will there corporate bar tab increase by this year?

Chelsea Daily - Blues spree is Ancelotti’s ultimatum

The sobering loss to Liverpool is not one many Chelsea fans will choose to dwell on for long, but one token positive they did take from the game was the brief cameo of David Luiz.

The on-off-on negotiations between Chelsea and Benfica bordered on tedium as the pair dragged things on throughout January. With the Fernando Torres capture monopolising the back pages, Luiz’s eventual arrival for a kings ransom was consigned to the small print.

Indeed, that fee itself may have been subject to more scrutiny had it not been sandwiched between Torres and Andy Carroll breaking respective British transfer records.

The cash plus Nemanja Matic deal is estimated to be worth over £25m, for a defender who has played just over 100 games in Europe, has only 5 Brazil caps to his name, and who was terrorised by Torres at Anfield last year. It was also a player from the same club who managed to extract £18m from the Blues for Ramires in the summer.

Like Torres, Luiz arrives at Stamford Bridge with an answerable price-tag and high expectation around his neck. Similar to Torres, Luiz has been approcolamated by Carlo Ancelotti as the chosen’s one’s, the one’s he needed and wanted to get things right again.

The dynamic duo were never on the pitch at the same time against Liverpool, but whilst Torres completely struggled to find his groove, Luiz’s seventeen minute burst saw him confidently and competently bring the ball out from the back to initiate moves, albeit at Kenny Dalglish’s insistance.

That really was the silver lining around the cloud, and now armed with his two new recruits, Ancelotti will have to make those clouds go away soon.

In the run-up to the short trip to Fulham, the Italian spoke of his belief that Luiz could become one of the world’s best defenders and could bring a ‘new dimension’ to the way the team plays. They are bold statements by Ancelotti, and in such a precarious position, ones by which he will fly or die.

The Blues are already on-course for their worst league finish during Roman Abramovich’s reign with even the ignominy of a top four finish not under control. It could be perceived that the deadline day signings were a demonstration of faith towards the manager in the long-term, but Abramovich has essentially given Ancelotti the three line whip that his £75m outlay means results must be delivered.

Any hope of retaining the title is fast fading and privately the parameters of success will have been redefined for between now and the end of the season.

A top four finish is imperative, so to an improvement on last season’s Champions League falterings, whilst surrendering the FA Cup will not bode well either.

However, possibly the most important but ultimately material factor as to whether Ancelotti remains at the helm will be how the overall on-field chemistry improves from its current depths.

A faltering finish regardless of material gains could spell the death knoll for Ancelotti. The Blues high command have been burnt by having to replace Jose Mourinho and Luis Felipe Scolari mid season and unless Ancelotti can here on in prove he can best utilise Chelsea’s assets, he may find himself no longer being an asset to Chelsea.

Tactic Talk - Aleksandr Kolarov - the man who can from Left-back

Aleksander Kolarov arrived at Manchester City with a big price tag, a big reputation and a racy showreel of fearsome free-kicks and pot shots.

Before he even pulled on the sky blue jersey he was somewhat of a fans favourite, albeit more out of excited expectation than anything else.

However, an injury picked up against Tottenham on the opening day of the season curtailed the Serbian’s adventure into English football for the next three months, but since his return, Kolarov has increasingly impressed for the Eastlands side.

The former Lazio man has made his stock as a forward thinking left back with a penchant for sweetly struck set-pieces. So far the majority of his 18 Citizens appearances have been in defence, but during saturday’s 3-0 blitz of West Brom, kolarov made an impact from a more advanced left wing position.

The upfield switch was a success against the Baggies. Kolarov got brought down for the opening penalty, almost got on the scoresheet with a trademark blast from range, provided a steady stream of quality crosses and generally offered a persistent and penetrative threat down his flank.

At times this season Roberto Mancini has been criticised for his conservative approach, but the emergence of Kolarov could have great influence on how City fare from here.

Barring Wayne Bridge who has since been sentenced to a loan spell at West Ham, all of City’s full-backs are essentially foremost defenders. Mancini argued that this hindered his teams forward play as the full-backs weren’t providing enough going forward to supplement the creative forces.

Now Kolarov is back into the fray, Mancini has his man, but where will he deploy him to best effect?

If you’re full-backs can be utilised as a genuine offensive tool it effectively gives you an additional attacking body. With City’s full-backs previously offering limited supply, it placed an extra emphasis on the midfield men to get forward and support the more often than not lone striker of Carlos Tevez.

By keeping a fortified back four, City were overmanning their defensive lines and as such, not overloading when going forward. By playing Kolarov in midfield, not much would change. Either Joleon Lescott or Jerome Boateng behind him would offer much the same, where as Kolarov has the ability from defence to do two jobs at once, for the greater good of the side, and especially at home.

By giving Kolarov licence from left-back, City can then afford to operate another attacking option. Against West Brom, Eden Dzeko watched on from the distance of the Dame Judy as Kolarov time and again shaped enticing balls into areas the Bosnian should have been lurking.

Instead, City had a five-man midfield with David Silva off Tevez, it worked, but by incorporating Kolarov at the back, it enables Mancini to swap a defender for a forward and thus make more of his abundant attacking supplies.

For example, by sticking Kolarov at the back, and Silva on the left, Kolarov’s natural insistence to get forward would provide the width to allow Silva to drift from his wide station.

With Milner down the right and any two from Nigel De Jong, Gareth barry, Yaya Toure and Patrick Vieira manning the central midfield, Dzeko could partner Tevez and Silva would be allowed to roam, all without losing any shape, balance or width with Kolarov on the front foot.

there is no doubt Kolarov could do a job on the wing, but the bigger picture should see the Serbian drop back a slot, which would then provide City with more presence further up the pitch.

Parsons passes away as Blues duo get international acclaim.

Eric Parsons, a member of the Drake Ducklings who brought Chelsea their first ever league title in 1955, has passed away aged 87.

After serving in the army during the Second World War, Eric began his professional football career with West Ham United after being spotted playing for his local club, Worthing Boys.

After three years with the Hammers, he switched over to west London becoming Chelsea’s record transfer when he signed for £23,000 in 1950.

Nicknamed ‘the rabbit’ because of his slight frame and fantastic pace, Eric endured a difficult start to life at Stamford Bridge with injuries and poor form limiting his appearances and effect.

After Ted Drake took over, Eric found a role in the side and eventually won over the crowd with his energetic performances in the title winning ’55 side. He played in all 42 league games that season, scoring eleven goals and contributing many more with his pacy wide play down the wings.

Chelsea clinched the title with a 3-0 win over Sheffield Wednesday at the Bridge, with Eric scoring twice. In the post match celebrations and speeches, the Chelsea faithful who Eric worked so hard to win over, succumbed, chanting ‘we want rabbit’ until Eric appeared to say his pleasantries.

In a six year career with the Blues, Eric made 177 appearances, scoring 42 goals. His international chances were limited by a pair of wingers called Stanley Matthews and Tom Finney, restricting ‘the rabbit’ to just two England ‘B’ caps.

Eric left Chelsea in 1956 to spend six years with Brentford before retiring from the game and running a grocery store in his home town of Worthing, where he lived until his death on Monday night.

A Different League wishes to pass on its condolences to Eric’s family and friends.

After the disappointing defeat to Liverpool, the majority of the squad have jetted off to various parts to join up with their respective countries for international duty.

England are playing away to Denmark in a game which could see midfielder Frank Lampard be handed the Three Lions armband for the first time.

First and second choice skippers Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard have both pulled out of the trip to Copenhagen, so Fabio Capello could chose Lampard to lead the side ahead of Wayne Rooney.

Also on England duty is full-back Ashley Cole, who was this week named as England supporters Player of the Year for 2010.

Cole came top of the poll conducted by thefa.com, beating Steven Gerrard and Adam Johnson into second and third respectively.

The 30-year-old had a remarkable club season, winning the league and cup double with Chelsea, whilst his individual performances cemented his reputation as the best left-back in the world.

Cole was also one of the few players to come back from the World Cup debacle with any credit and remains an integral part of Capello’s team as they look to qualify for Euro 2012.

The former Arsenal star has won 85 caps since making his debut for England in 2001, but has previously endured a mixed relationship with the Three Lions fans who have targeted him for abuse for off-field misdemeanours.

Cole told FATV, "I never thought it would be me but I'm very privileged and proud and thankful to the fans. It's been hard at times but I think I've got their appreciation and I'm very grateful."

Blues team-mate Lampard also won the award in 2004 and 2005.

Torres arrival answers and raises questions for the Blues

Manchester United had lost their unbeaten run, Arsenal proved they were as brittle as ever, and Carlo Ancelotti had been reinforced with the quality of offensive and defensive reinforcements he’d been pleading for. Chelsea were in prime position to make a statement. A bold title statement. They did anything but.

Instead of raising questions about their competitors sustainability, it is now the ailing champions who will be forced to field inquisitions about where they go from here.

The party line will of course be that the title can still be retained. Internally, those desires may now be re-harnessed towards the Champions League and indeed Champions League qualification alone.

If, prior to Kenny Dalglish’s recent revival, this has been an annus horribilis for Liverpool, it shows how bad things have slid for Chelsea after the Anfield side deservedly completed a league double over the Londoners, without having their goal breached.

It wasn’t as if Chelsea could play the injury card as an excuse for their travails. Ancelotti arguably picked his strongest X1 possible, a feat which arguably conspired to be their downfall against an organised and energetic Liverpool team.

Once Ancelotti got his new frontman, the conundrum was always going to be where to fit him in.

The Italian chose to shoehorn Fernando Torres, Nicolas Anelka and Didier Drogba into his starting line-up, deciding to incorporate the trio into the dreaded diamond formation which the Blues abandoned part-way through last season as their domestic and European desires threatened to disappear.

Many of the reasons Chelsea co-jointly dispatched that system then were back in evidence at Stamford Bridge yesterday. The narrow triumvirate up-front were supplemented by a midfield with no natural width, so creating a virtually impassable midfield congestion zone they didn’t have the skill or intuition to play through.

Through their own accord, Chelsea created nothing and never looked likely to. Stifled by their own system, time ticked by harmlessly as last seasons fluid and free scoring conquerors looked devoid of how to even fashion a chance.

Ancelotti has been criticised for his ‘if it doesn’t work, don’t fix it’ methods at times, and his decision to replace a centre back for a right back and the inevitable Salomon Kalou swap for Torres only succeeded to make the hosts look even more clueless and desperate as they panicked with indecision between hurrying a non-existant through-ball and slinging in optimistic crosses.

For all of Liverpool’s endeavours, Chelsea were dire. They started slowly, grew increasingly poor and went downhill from there. It was difficult to really analyse Torres’s debut contribution too much. The bottom line was that he didn’t cover himself in glory, but the way Chelsea played from front to back gave him slim to none service or space to work in.

Ever since Jose Mourinho implemented the 433 formation, Chelsea have cocooned themselves within that comfort zone, and have found only niggles when switching modus operandi.

The recruitment of Torres may now mean either a significant shift in formation or personnel is needed to get the best out of the Spaniard and the team.

Privy to Ancelotti’s outcome will be what to do with Torres and Drogba. The pair were restricted in their understanding yesterday, again hindered by the cumbersome nature of Chelsea’s overall play, but how Ancelotti decides to send his team out will largely depend on whether he thinks the duo are compatible.

The tried and tested 433 will mean one of them will have to miss out with two from Malouda, Kalou and Anelka supporting the main man and providing the much needed craft out wide.

A 442 is possible with the duo paired together, but for all of Chelsea’s multi-million pound resources, most of their main assets are central players. Only Florent malouda is a natural wide midfielder, meaning either Kalou or Anelka would have to be deployed as a quasi right-winger to have any balance. A four man midfield would also leave Ancelotti a surplus of central midfielders with Lampard and Essien likely to oust John Obi Mikel, Ramires and the potentially brilliant Josh McEachran.

In the interim, Ancelotti may persevere with the diamond which he favoured at Milan, but the limitations of that system are there for all to see.

It didn’t take the opposition long to rumble it last time, and any visitors to Stamford Bridge will be acutely aware that frustration will not be far away by funnelling the Blues through the middle of the park whilst allowing the full backs to have possession in innocuous areas.

When you worry about your own set-up more than your opponents do, then there are issues, and at present, could Ancelotti and his players universally agree on a best plan of action?

If the maximum is to be salvaged from a season in which Chelsea now appear to have relinquished their Premier League crown, then Carlo Ancelotti has some hard and defining decisions to make, and soon.

Not much learnt or gained after City dispatch the Baggies

Efficiently taking down relegation material at home is a performance performed by champions but unfortunately not when they end three games without a win.

It was the flattery after the deception for Manchester City, with Carlos Tevez choosing to flatter enough to move his side five points behind Manchester United at the top of the table.

The captain’s hat-trick took him to twenty goals for the season but more importantly, el Apache looks over the mid-season wobble when he wanted out. Three goals on your birthday tends to help.

The man who was supposed to be shouldering some of Tevez’s goalscoring responsibilities was only watching from the bench after Eden Dzeko was made scapegoat for the trio of winless games.

It was a strange call for Roberto Mancini to rest the new £27m striker as Dzeko opened his account last weekend and was looking lively despite having not played for over a month.

If you were allowed to handpick your fixtures then West Brom at home wouldn’t be far off first dabs. The Baggies came into the game with the worst defensive record in the league and looked like a presentable opportunity for Dzeko and Tevez to get another game together and exploit some loose defending.

As it was Tevez put the game to bed before half time with a a pair of penalties either side of slick link play with David Silva for the second. West Brom never looked like holding City at bay with Silva calling the tune in the final third and Aleksandr Kolarov giving width and threat wide left. The only thing missing was Dzeko to do his part.

Earlier in the season Mancini had been criticised for his deployment of Tevez as a lone frontman after City struggled to score and dropped points at Eastlands. The Italian pined for a new forward and Dzeko was deliver, but by sticking him on the bench for home games, does it solve any of the issues that Mancini sought him to correct?

Either way, it was three points coupled with United getting beat at Wolves that has reigned the Reds back in a bit with the derby at Old Trafford next weekend.

After United’s unbeaten spell was ended at Molineux, the gap between the pair should appear a lot psychologically closer to the chasing Blues.

The results will raise the City title talk again but the debate is futile. Of course they can win the league. Plenty of teams can still hypothetically win it but they can only control the controllables and shows like those at Aston Villa and Birmingham won’t win anything.

Any number of things could still happen in the title race so City must collect as many points as possible to ensure they can capitalise on any plunges. Regardless of what everyone else thinks, how Mancini approaches the derby will indicate whether he actually thinks they can win the league or not.

A blue day would not only cut the lead by another three points, it would put an indifferent United side under close scrutiny coming out of the final bend,

However, as has notably been the case, Mancini has preferred pragmatism when facing any of his fellow Champions League counterparts. 4-5-1 the dish of the day with the attacking lightly done.

Tevez has been marooned up front chasing balls you wouldn’t expect your dog to go after while the midfield look on from afar. Against Tottenham, United and Arsenal he has played for, and got, draws. Scoreless one’s at that.

Now armed with Dzeko - refreshed after a rest - Mancini could make a statement in the very least that they’ve not just come for a point. Playing more strikers is never a definate to score more goals and win more games, but City’s bids have been badly hindered by the lone striker’s isolation.

Overall City are good enough and will finish in the top four and although perhaps short of a full title push, the progress is still rising steadily as they go.

EU ruling a serious threat to the stability of the Premier League

In a week where the British transfer record was broken twice either side of last orders, the perseverance of a pub landlady could mean that the size of transfer fees spent on Andy Carroll and Fernando Torres are a thing of the past.

Karen Murphy of the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth has been involved in a protracted legal battle with the Premier League after the organisation tried to prevent her from showing live league matches supplied by an overseas broadcaster.

The dispute has rumbled onto the European Courts of Justice, where legal advisors have recommended that any "territorial exclusivity agreements relating to the transmission of football matches are contrary to European Union law".

The Premier League currently sell rights to games on a territory-by-territory basis, where the fee varies from one country to the next. The current three year TV deal brings in a combined £3.5bn to the Premier League pot, £1.4bn of that coming from overseas broadcasters, the majority rest by domestic rights holders who in turn pass the costs on to subscribers and advertisers.

In essence, the Premier League forebode pubs, clubs and armchair viewers from subscribing to any other rights broadcaster other than those based domestically such as Sky, ESPN and the BBC, in a perceived effort to maintain the value of its domestic contracts.

Mrs Murphy opted against paying Sky’s £600 per month subscription charge and instead imported a Greek decoder and subscribed to their package for just £800 a year, which included an additional 200 live games.

Pubs up and down the land have similarly been beaming in overseas footage at a fraction of the cost, something the Premier League said was illegal. But the commission which advise the European Court’s has ruled against the Premier League and in favour of the consumer by declaring the current system is "tantamount to profiting from the elimination of the internal market".

An appeal is expected by the Premier League and it’s lawyers, but potentially, if that fails and new laws are introduced, the economic model of the Premier League cash cow could be seriously jeopardised.

If the commercial territorial boundaries are erased, that would mean the Premier League require broadcasters to buy the rights with equal parity regardless of location. If the rule goes through, the Premier League will face a difficult choice between upping the fee significantly to foreign broadcasters, or by lowering the tariff to domestic companies. Either way, it could signal a dramatic drop in TV revenues being filtered to the clubs with the scenario having ramifications for clubs of all size and financial standing within the league.

For the smaller clubs, especially the promoted and less wealthy, the TV money is a vital part of business and goes some way to easing the burden of lower gate receipts to cover player signings, wages and other overheads.

Even for the clubs of more apparent prosperity, the TV money again provides a solid and consistent income albeit part of a larger honeypot. This season alone, Manchester United have posted losses of £80m and just recently Chelsea almost matched that with a £70m deficit - figures lessened by the cushion of broadcasting money.

With UEFA’s financial fair play remit soon to be constituted, as well as the loss of revenue through lower TV monies, it would mean that clubs would be able to spend even less on transfers and wages. In theory, it could lessen the ever increasing gap between the have’s and the have not’s, but it would still leave the have not’s with less than they had before.

At present in a show of lateral unity, the money is dished out between all 20 Premier League clubs as prize money and split dependent on league positions, but should the overall sum be sizeably cut, would the big clubs be so communally friendly?

Under the current format, any loss in broadcasting fees would be felt proportionally by all and there is already resentment from the big boys that they are renumerated equally to the rest, for arguably doing more.

It is hard to go against the notion that games involving both Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea and Liverpool draw in the largest TV viewing figures. these clubs are on our screens more than the rest, draw in larger audiences both home and abroad and invariably contribute most to the commercial value of the league globally.

It is highly unlikely the chief executives and money men would agree to such disparity if their own interests were being directly and significantly affected. The current Premier League TV rights have only just been re-negotiated on a three year deal, but by the time they come to be renewed, if any sanctions from the EU need to be in place, the clubs could decide if it is in their best interests to decline to sign up to the withered intermutual windfall.

The immediate worry is that if the clubs could not amicably agree on how to be renumerated, it would leave open the possibility that individual clubs could negotiate their own individual rights packages. This happens in Italy, where the likes of Milan, Juventus and Inter all receive tenfold sums of those with a reduced fanbase and following. This is where the rich get richer and the poor become poverty stricken.

It is a potentially colossal change for the landscape of football in this country, and given the commercial success and sustainability of those clubs who can, it is highly likely they will go it alone for their own gain. Given the worldwide thirst for top Premier League action, the band of elite clubs could still demand top dollar for their product. Where there is demand for a supply, the suppliers can generally demand what they want.

What happens next is in the hands of the legal powers in Luxembourg. Rulings from the European Courts are supposed to be for the benefit of equality, in this case, it could end up doing anything but.

West Ham bid politically correct, but not correct politically.

It has now been over a week since the decision was supposed to be made about what will happen to the Olympic Stadium following the 2012 Olympic Games - with West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur still no closer to knowing which one of their respective bids to take residence will be taken up.

The indications have always been that the Hammers are in pole position to move into a stadium close to their spiritual east London home. Their proposals to keep the perimeter running track in place and merge the arena into a multi purpose sports venue has ticked many of the boxes recommended by the Olympic Park Legacy Committee (OPLC) - with local borough council’s and councillors, UK athletics, Lord Coe and a host of other high profile athletes and politicians all siding with West Ham.

With their financial limitations compared to Tottenham, the Hammers have needed to buddy up with the Newham Council in much a similar way as Manchester City did when procuring Eastlands following the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

By venturing into such a partnership West Ham are losing the independence of wholly controlling their own football ground, and whilst in the short term it will present them with a state of the art home with increased capacity, will the move really be for the best for the club, and sport in London in the long term?

Upon arriving at Upton Park, Incoming Chairmen David’s Gold and Sullivan painted a utopian image of the future of football in the east end, with the Olympic Stadium being the hive of local sporting activity.

An increased capacity meant lower ticketing prices, deals for families and children making football in and around those parts affordable and theoretically enjoyable for one and all. The spirit of the blitz lives on as the club sought to entice a whole new generation of Hammer with this field of dreams scenario.

Unfortunately though, as warming and endearing as this selfless concept is by the David’s, it is not without its obvious pitfalls and by adhering to the requisite’s of the OPLC and Newham Council, West Ham are making strong concessions to take tenancy.

By largely maintaining the stadium in it’s soon to be current format, as a 60,000 all seater arena with running track, West Ham are first and foremost quite literally distancing themselves from the archetypal close-knit English football ground and the intimacy, intricacy and atmosphere they bring.

Even ultra-modern stadia such as the City of Manchester stadium and the Emirates have successfully retained this feel, and damningly West Ham’s quasi football-athletics idea has been backed by only about a quarter of their supporter base in a recent poll conducted by KUMB.com.

The old guard will still go along regardless, but for Gold and Sullivan’s speculative proposals to catch on, the new breed of Hammer must benefit from the entire experience of live football action, and that experience will undoubtedly be jeopardised with the retention of the running track.

At present, West Ham’s average home gate is just over 33,000 at over 90% take-up, but that is a long way towards best utilising a 60,000 capacity. Natural footfall will increase because of the new stadium itself but these floating voters can come and go dependent on the teams fortunes, and as of late, that isn’t encouraging.

With high ticket prices and low availability around the capital’s top clubs, the concept of trying to tap into a large pool of football fan unable to attend games is a logical business plan. However, in practice, West Ham are hamstringing themselves by getting into bed with the authorities as their proposed stadium is just not conducive to retaining a potentially easy-come easy-go following.

It’s no use going to see Scott Parker bursting through midfield if he’s a dot on the horizon and you’ve got little chance of witnessing close up the nifty footwork of Victor Obinna if your 200ft away from him. This is football, not bird watching. The West Ham branded binoculars will never catch on.

There are other factors too. The over emphasised playing area and the receded positions of the stands can make for desolate conditions during the winter months. Indeed, it is not uncommon for fans on the terraces of similarly designed Serie A stadia to make fires to keep warm when it gets a bit nippy. That doesn’t harness the family environment the Irons are preaching or will go little towards community development by enthusing pyromania.

Then there is also the issue of the playing surface. Just imagine what Wembley would look like if it had upwards of twenty full games a season played on it as well as all the extra curricular activities? It’d be more suited to Young Farmer of the Year rather than the FA Cup final, and the apocalyptic image of West Ham slogging it out on a mud-bath in front of a half full stadium is not much of a legacy that Lord Coe and his chums keep harking on about.

Which leads us nicely on to what exactly would bring the greatest sporting legacy to London. Lord Coe has talked about a ‘moral obligation’ to the International Olympic Committee to retain the venue as multi-sport complete with track. One of the pitfalls of having nobility fronting the process is that there is then a rhetoric to remain quintessentially British in our conduct.

Essentially, the IOC can do little or nothing about what we decide to do with the Olympic Stadium once the games have taken place, yet the OPLC appear reticent to renege on any promises made to an organisation that would feel scant regard to renege on any promises made to us, and that has previously and continuously been embroiled in allegations of malpractice across large areas of its body.

Surely the decision as to what to do with the Olympic Stadium is one to be solely made in the best interests of the British public, and surely that should be to make best use of the Olympic Stadium whilst also securing the future of sport in the area as a whole.

Tottenham have been criticised from many quarters for their proposals to redevelop large parts of the stadium and renovate the place to tailor their own specific needs. Essentially, Spurs are being selfish in their wishes for the stadium but very selfless with their proposals overall, which would see another new high class sporting facility in the vicinity by redesigning and refurbishing the historic Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.

The OPLC has kept its cards suspiciously close to it’s chest about it’s plans for Crystal Palace - the current home of UK athletics. At present, Crystal Palace is a grade two listed building and would need special dispensation to be demolished, yet given that a new home for UK athletics would be a few miles down the road having been built at public expense, the future of athletics, and indeed the future of Crystal Palace’s actual existence post 2012 is highly precarious.

Should athletics find a new permanent home in east London, this famous old venue would either be left to rot, or, more likely, be sold to developers to be converted into plush flats, offices or a retail outlet. It appears the legacies Lord Coe speaks so honourably about do not extend south of the borough of Newham. It is London 2012, not east London 2012.

Spurs have also promised, albeit tenuously, about future funding to sport in the area. Lest we forget, that after the coalition came to power, they swiftly announced approximately £9bn worth of sporting spending cuts. If Spurs can’t and the Government won’t fund sport, who exactly will pay for the sporting legacy in London post 2012 and past the Olympic Stadium?

Given the situation Manchester City were presented by their council - take it and do what you want - the West Ham hierarchy would have the track ripped out in a flash and tell the athletics community to take a long jump if they thought about going near the place.

The actions of West Ham are blatantly transparent. They cannot afford their own new ground, and as such are getting in bed with the top brass whilst playing up to the facade that they have wider community interests in an attempt to gain access to the Olympic Stadium.

There is an old thesis that sportsmen don’t understand politics and politicians don’t understand sport. The politically correct solution to this would be to grant West Ham the right of occupancy. The correct political decision would be to give it to Tottenham.

What the relevant powers need to understand, is that the true legacy of this decision ultimately needs to be sporting, and not political - and that means Tottenham.