A Case for Carlo

Despite winning the league and FA Cup double last season, and being 3 points clear in second place with 4 games to go, Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti is one of the favorites, up there with Avram Grant and Gerard Houllier, to be sacked at the end of the season. Not surprising considering his boss, Roman Abramovich, has sacked a coach like Jose Mourinho in the past. So why could sacking the Italian prove to be as bad a decision as when Chelsea let Mourinho go?

Before we start with defenses for Ancelotti, let us look at the Chelsea squad for a minute. Five first team players, including influential players like Michael Ballack, Ricardo Carvalho and Joe Cole were allowed to leave while just two signed - one of whom spent most of the first half of the season injured. At it wasn’t till the final day of January that Carvalho’s replacement was signed. Furthermore, the core of the team was on the wrong side of 30. Didier Drogba, John Terry, Nicolas Anelka, Frank Lampard, Florent Malouda and Ashley Cole had all had their big 30th birthday and the club needed some fresh blood.

The foremost reason that Carlo Ancelotti should be given another season is simple, his past record. He did win the double in his first season. Let’s not forget that. He was only the second manager to win the Premier League in his first season. And on top of that the two Champions League titles with AC Milan. Despite his poor league record at the San Siro, something I was worried about when he came to England, Ancelotti has shown that he is not just a cup man with a brilliant performance in his debut season.

Secondly, Mourinho was sacked, despite winning 6 trophies in 3 years because his football was not “attractive” enough. Well Ancelotti has addressed that problem, improving Chelsea’s game to a level that is probably second to just Arsenal and Barcelona. Let’s not forget that it was the first time a team scored a century of goals in Premiership history. After a decade of cries of overspending and “anti football”, people finally started liking Chelsea again. And it wasn’t just the style of football they liked, people liked the manager. Ancelotti has been a charming and popular man wherever he has been.

Not only is it going to be hard to find a universally liked replacement, Abramovich is never going to find a man who does his job despite all that he does. Ancelotti never complained about anything - be it the pressure during the middle of the season or the sacking of Ray Willkins or even the signing of Fernando Torres. The Alec Baldwin lookalike just nodded and continued with his work.

I spoke about the age of the squad earlier and evidence from this season has shown that the club need a massive overhaul. No longer can they rely on the likes of Lampard and Drogba to be the core of the team. While the club have started bringing in the new generation with players like Fernando Torres, David Luiz, Ramires and Banislav Ivanovic - there is still some re construction to do. Ancelotti has had a history of signing and bringing up some of the greatest players of the last generation. He was the man who brought Kaka and Pato to Europe. Sure they were the next big things, but so were Javier Saviola and Kleberson at one time. It takes the right guidance to make them a Kaka instead of a Saviola. With Chelsea boasting of the likes of Daniel Sturridge and Gael Kakuta already in their ranks, Ancelotti could really be a massive influence on their and any potential new young players at Stamford Bridge.

Carlo has a year left on his contract and is very happy with life at the bridge. He “loves London and the Chelsea” in his own words. Why would you want to sack a man, who is happy, the players and fans are happy with him and has a year left on his deal? Just see the team spirit within the camp. Watch the celebrations when Ramires got his first goal against Bolton or Fernando Torres against West Ham. Probably the best spirit in the premier league at the moment. And it’s all thanks to Carlo.

Finally, let’s say Ancelotti does get the boot? Who out there can replace him? Mourinho isn’t coming back, Guardiola is planning on staying for at least another season. Among the unemployed we’re looking at the likes of Rafa Benitez - who’s football philosophy is exactly what Abramovich is against. Or Marcello Lippi who’s only success has been with Juventus or a Juventus based team in Italy 2006. And as Lippi really better than Ancelotti? I think not. Capello? Yeah right! Or Redknapp - good luck convincing Daniel Levy. Andre Villas Boas might not be a bad option, but why change things just for the sake of it.

All we are saying, is give Carlo a chance!

Financial FairPlay - Is UEFA just stamping on it's on feet and creating greater inequity?

Live within your means - something everybody (specially economists) have been saying these days. UEFA has just followed that on with the introduction of financial FairPlay. Triggered by things like Cristiano Ronaldo's move to Real Madrid (for the same price that Mike Ashley wanted to sell Newcastle United Football Club for at the time) and Fernando Torres earning a reported £200,000 a week. Under this rule, a team can only spend the amount as much as they earn, I.e. Sugar daddies like Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour cannot pump in millions and millions of pounds anymore. The aim is to create greater financial equality among football clubs, something that was destroyed when the Bosman rule came into place. What raised further alarms for UEFA was when clubs were given the winding up order and were filing for bankruptcy.

Starting from the 2012-2013 season, any club that spends more than it earns will not be allowed to play in UEFA competitions. Now here are my questions. Will this really work? Is UEFA just creating greater inequality instead? Or are they just stamping hard on their own feet? And finally if the financial FairPlay will just open a whole new different can of worms?

The big clubs are getting bigger and the small are getting smaller. But do the likes of Barcelona, Inter Milan, Real Madrid and Manchester united want to loose the power they have? Are they fine with spending over the top money on the world's best players and continue to ensure that they are the only ones who can win the league?

But despite Portsmouth and Mallorca facing administration (and it's Spanish equivalent), do the big clubs care? Would they be happier keeping their monopoly and large revenues? Probably. I mean it's hard to tell the guy at the top to sacrifice something for greatest equality right! And the teams that can spend 30-40 million are happy spending it, rather than worrying about the ones who can only sign out of contract players.

How easy will this law be to enforce? Already we are seeing large sign on fees paid over a period of time in league that have a salary cap to get around it. So who's to say teams won't find a loop hole in this system. Let's not forget that eve after this the big teams will still want to spend more money and teams like Everton and Southampton will still want to get large transfer fees for every Wayne Rooney or Gareth Bale that they produce. Teams will find loop holes like transfer of funds under different names or rich owners using their brands to sponsor their own teams.

But I think the main point we need to touch on is what UEFA give as the number one reason for introducing this system - greater equality among football teams. How is financial FairPlay ever going to guarantee greater equality? If anything it'll just increase the gap between the top 2-4 and the rest of the teams. It's no secret that teams in the UEFA champions league earn far larger revenues (specially through sponsorship and television rights) than any other teams. With the introduction of this rule, where you can only spend as much as you earn, there might be no clubs in the future that'll be able to challenge Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcelona's monopoly! These teams will continue to make more money than the remaining clubs and hence spend more as well, guaranteeing champions league qualification year after year leading to a spiral.

AC Milan vice president Adriano Gallani was one of the many to touch on this issue when he compared the TV revenue his side made in Italy compared to some of the top teams in England and Spain. This is true specially in Spain where until the end of this season clubs we allowed to individually negotiate their television deals and Barcelona & Real Madrid still get a much larger share than any club in Spain even after the new rule was brought in place (unlike england where it is decided on the final placement in the league).

Are rich owners coming into the game really as bad a thing as we're making out to be? Let's not forget that the only reason that Chelsea are one of the biggest clubs in Europe today is because of Roman Abramovich's take over and the only reason Manchester City managed to challenge the top 4 monopoly in the Premier League is due to a foreign take over as well. People will point to Tottenham as a counter example, but let's not forget the sums of money that changed hands to build the kind of squad they have today.

What exactly are UEFA's main benefits from this? While it may sound like a politically pleasing move to try to create better equality among clubs, let's consider what could happen to their prestigious Champions League and the lesser Europa League.

While Real Madrid, Barcelona and Inter Milan have their books in place - in England apart from Arsenal, no club in the top flight currently meets UEFA's fair play standards. Same can be said about clubs outside the top 2 in Spain. So with all of them being banned, could we see a champions league round of 16 match between say a side from the Championship and Serie B or the team placed third in the Romanian league? And even if the champions league managed to assemble 32 teams worthy of playing in the champions league, let's not forget that the Europa League will surely be set for doom. Under the current regulations none of the English or Spanish sides in this season's competition will be able to make it again!

And finally, is UEFA just opening a new can of worms? They are already under a lot of pressure because of their refusal for goal line technology and video replays. Would it just get worse when they can't tell if certain transfer dealings were illegal (money given outside the framework of UEFA). Also what does this mean for their competition? Will there finally be a breakaway league that everybody has been talking about? Surely if the big clubs in Europe can't play, the champions league is going to loose all it's value and sponsorships with it.

Financial FairPlay is a story that is going to tell itself. It's success or failure will probably be Michel Platini's biggest legacy - be it for better or for worse!