What do you make of the whole Capello- Beckham saga with Fabio refusing to play him. Despite his off field persona Beckham could still do a job for Madrid even though he is leaving in the Summer. Real have been very poor without him and even Raul and Guti have been outspoken saying the players want Beckham back in the team. If you look at Ayala at Valencia, who is joining Villareal in the Summer, and Saviola whose contract runs out at Barcelona in July- they are still playing for their respective teams.

Tbh we all know Beckham isn't the player he used to be, but like you say he could still do a job for Real. I'm not surprised though that Capello isn't playing him, it's just one fo those stupid things that happens in football, I've not really that much to say about it really though as I've never erally been interested in Beckham's progress at Real.

As for Saviola, I'd be surprised if he stays at Barce ones his contract is up seeing as people seem to be trying to force him out of the club despite his form recently. I've always rated Saviola highly and I think it'll be a stupid move if Barce do let him go, especailly on a free, I'd see him in a move to another La Liga side or maybe even the Premiership doesn't sounda ll that far-fetched.

Oh yeah, most notable thing of late though, Liverpool take-over...not sure what I think yet though, I think I'll just have to see how things pan out.

Hes not the player he used to be granted, but he is one of the best crossers and free kick takers in the world- one of them. I dunno, i suppose because of the prestige that surrounds Real and the galacticos that play for them, ive always been interested in what occurs there.

Wouldnt mind Saviola at Villa!

Man Utd, Villa and now Liverpool all under the ownership of American investors. I dont think its a bad thing. Im not one of these- OOOo foreigners invading our game type of people. It was a godsend for Villa that Learner came in and Ellis went out.

You could argue that Becks lost it after he left Man United, Fergie got rid of him since he was letting his off-field activities interfere with his football and sold him off before it affected the team. Beckham could have been one of the greats like Giggs or Scholes but chose the easy way out I feel, good dead ball taker but could have been so much more. It's a similar situation with moving to the US instead of a fresh challenge at Tottenham or Inter, he's going for the money and the easier lifestyle rather than for his career and it's the managers right to drop him if he feels he's not in it, might not be the best reason granted but better to give a chance to someone who gives more of a damn.

Being taking over by billionaires can only be a good thing if they wish the club to be successful, Man United aren't doing too badly at the moment and Villa have had some good transfer funds which haven't been seen for a while. But it will be a problem if they try to get more of the praise and interfere with the team directly, look at Chelsea and Hearts for example where both their respective seasons could be ruined because of the owners.

Bit disappointed in how the Italian situation is being handled, after all the fuss about year long banning and a crackdown on the issues plaguing the sport to just do a 180 and have games continue like that is quite frankly ridiculous although not entirely surprising considering how they handled the corruption charges last year.

Maybe when Ferguson cast him aside, it affected Beckham a lot more than he would care to admit. In his defence, he does have a Sports Academy out there in LA- though im sure the move has a lot more to do with getting into Hollywood and his new pals such as Tom Cruise than setting the world alight with LA Galaxy.

Chelsea are in a precarious position i agree. If Abramovich gets bored of his plaything and leaves, they are basically screwed really. Hearts really arent a Scottish team anymore- its more a Lithuainians home away from home.

Chelsea still have a fair bit to go for this season but it could fall apart very easily like you've said, I wouild imagine that Jose would be gone come the summer but the problem isn't really him and more the players they've signed recently and who they let go. Shevchenko and Ballack (who I've never rated anyway) have proved to be poor buys and letting players like Crespo, Geremi and Duff who were so important last year go are more to blame than anything.

Hearts are in far more trouble with the selling or throwing away of key players like Pressley and Hartley with fellow Scots Robbie Neilson and Craig Gordon loooking to go as wel. Romanov has just gone off the rails and has no idea of how a football club should be run which was clear as day last season when he sacked George Burley after 10 or so games in charge without a loss, but the fans were happy because they got some success with second place, a Chamions League spot and the Scottish Cup. But this continuing farce and growing debts of around £28 million could mean that there might not be a club in a few years time.

Theres talk that Marcello Lippi might replace him and that Mourinho might go to Bayern Munich, but its just speculation. Fortunately for a team like Chelsea, shelling out for replacements for Shevchenko and Ballack wont be a problem!

Even though England lost against Spain, we were very poor by the way, it was excellent to see Gareth Barry back in the England Squad. He should start ahead of Phil Neville anyway. It really annoyed me how Eriksson overlooked him. Barry has been awesome for the Villa for years.

Would Abramovich actually get rid of Shevchenko though since they're best pals? Could see a summer clearout like at Hearts if Jose leaves with the players who defended him like Terry and Lampard who might want to leave because of it, I know that Lampard has been linked with a few Italian clubs already so it's possible.

Never been a fan of either Phil or Gary Neville, there's far better out there but it highlights one of England's problems where they take players more because of who they play for or on past reputation rather than current form or whether they'll do a better job. I mind when Sven brought Andy Johnson after he was waving a killer season as a lone striker and stuck him on the right wing. Bloody idiots.

There was a rumour about Shevchenkos wife not liking it in London and that they wanted a quick return back to Italy but that seems to have been quelled at the moment but i see your point about Shevchenko being off in the Summer. Then again after his poor showing so far for Chelsea, who would want to get him? Especially as Chelsea would probably want some return on the 30mill or so they spent on him (even though they have deep pockets of course). I think its crucial for Chelsea to hold on to Mourinho for at least another season, as you say, if they want to keep the spine of the club- Cech, Terry, Lampard.

I hate the Chuckle Brothers as i call them.

Chuckle Brothers. lol

I would imagine that there will be some interest in Shevchenko even now although with his form at Chelsea, his salary and his age to take into consideration Chelsea would be lucky to offload him now for a tenner. They'll do themselves some good getting rid of Ballack as well while they're at it and give Essien his place and spend the summer looking for a new striker and cover for defence, all at inflated prices of course.

Ive always considered Essien a quality player and with Makelele at the club, it was a bit surprising they got in Ballack. They must be rueing letting Gallas go with both Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge injured. Maybe Adriano could be prised away from Inter Milan. He would be awesome for any club.

Bah, they can afford to do it though i suppose, while they have a rich sugar daddy overseeing everything.

I heard a rumour that Figo is off to Qatar or Saudi Arabia at the end of the season as he has fallen out with Mancini at Inter Milan.

Ballack's a player who only plays well when it's all going fine around him, if there is too much pressure he falls apart and he's not as good as some claim. Gallas at the club would have been a huge benefit when Chelsea has those players injured, they could have put Essien back where he would have more useful instead of in the back. Adriano would be a decent buy if they could get him but I doubt Inter would sell him right now.

Figo's nearing the end of his career and I don't see many people wanting him at his age so a move there would give him that last pay check, shame since he's still one of the best although he's past his best.

What do you think about Platini trying to push for a change in the Champions League by limiting the number of entrants to three to allow smaller teams through? The Liverpools and Arsenals will be pretty pissed as well as some of the sponsors but it would be better to actually have the champions of each league in the group stages since that's what the name of the tournament is.

Im in total agreement about the Champions League and im glad Platini is the new president of UEFA. Heres an article i came across the other day which outlines the effects of the changes he will make:

So Michel Platini is the new president of UEFA and I must say I am happy. No disrespect to Lennart Johannsson who did a great job in making the sport so powerful and sucessful around the world but during his time he suffered from the problem of a Modified Northern Mosaic but in this case it was where only 5 nations really benefited from his term: England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany and to a much lesser extent Holland. During his time we were introduced to the Bosman Ruling and Soccer outside of those 5 nations suffered. Yes some nations did ok afterwards (Portugal and Netherlands) but remember, UEFA has 53 nations not 7.

Now with Michel Platini in charge he has already made the promise to reduce the number of teams the top three nations get to participate in the biggest sports competition in the world, The Champions League. While his plan would not come into effect until the 2008-09 at the absolute earliest, people from those three nations are up in arms about the reduction.

Now let's look at it from all the angles:

1. Yes England, Italy and Spain would lose one (1) club from the competition, but don't forget that while those three nations orginally had four (4) clubs in the competition, only two were automatically placed in the group stage, the other two had to qualify. More than likely, these nations would still be allowed to start with two clubs in the group stage while one would have to qualify like the rest via the 3rd Qualification Round. Also, it's so common that the 4th place team from those nations wouldn't even qualify. It's happened in the past (eg. Newcastle a couple of years ago) so it could happen again. Also, what this would more than do is give those in the middle another oppertunity to qualify, but again, they would not be promised a spot.
2. This would help the UEFA Cup. Yes, that tournament has become a bit of a joke and not as interesting, it's still a competition that gets money for UEFA and the clubs involved. So in this case, you'd have a good side in the competition, thus, improving the quality of the tournament. Using England as an example, you're almost certain that one of the following clubs: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United would be in the UEFA Cup and then take another good time from Spain and Italy and the that tournament gets a bit better.
3. By giving other clubs a chance, the game improves greatly throughout Europe. Prior to the fall of Eastern Europe: Czechoslovakia, USSR and Yugoslavia were in consistently in the top 5-10 of Europe. At one point the best clubs in terms of the UEFA Coefficent came from those countries not from Italy, England or Spain. Back in the day you had so many great clubs that it was never a certainity that the dollars would win you the trophy. But thanks to the fall of communism/socialism and the Bosman Ruling, those days are long gone. Thankfully the Czech Republic has improved a bit and Sparta Prague have been in the competition a few times and performed decently, while in Russia, money is finally coming back into the mix and they can compete, but other than that, we have little coming from that part of the world. Romania and Bulgaria finally got a team in the Champions League with Steaua and Levski reaching it this year, Yugoslavia/Serbia has only had Partizan qualify 3 years ago, Croatia had a few teams in the mid-90s but nothing since. But outside a few clubs here and there, nothing has come from this part of the world. There are a few decent clubs in this part of the world that people have heard of and adding them into the CL mix would make those nations improve and introduce the world to un-tapped talent resource before those players get picked up by the West

Platini wants to improve the quality of those leagues in the East. You still probably won't see any clubs come from tiny nations like Albania, Latvia, Moldova, Montenegro, among others but clubs from Finland, Poland (EU), Serbia, Slovakia (EU), Sweden (EU) and even the more middle-tier nations like Belgium, Holland or Norway get the better chances of also getting teams into the tournament. I love the idea of changing the number of clubs from the big nations. It will give those other nations a more significant chance and it will add more quality to the UEFA Cup.
--------------------------------

Its always irked me that the Champions League isnt really what it claims to be- at the moment more a cross of a Superleague/knock out of the rich and the famous. Hopefully when 2008/9 comes along that will all change.