Comments on: Porto are Kicked OUT of the Champions League

By: Viriatos

Viriatos — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:20:03 +0000

Shazback you are the man!!!
But you shouldnt waste your keyboard on this subject, because Mr. Nuno is obviously a Benfica supporter with a mind mined with envy of the glory that Porto as achieve the last 25 years. He is so pitfull that he doesn’t see that if Benfica as went the last years to the CL is due to Porto…
And if the Red whistle will become subject of investigation i wonder what UEFA will say.
Nobody is inocent… Search for Mr. King a english referee that was often corrupt by the Benfica in the nineties!
I will not speak about the decades of the Dictator Salazar, the 50, the 60 and even the 70…for wish Benfica was a “protegee”!!!!
Porto as shown in the green fields a kind of futebol that was long time forgotten in Portugal…this year Benfica staid 24 points behind Porto! And Benfica is trying to pull is way to the CL putting pression on UEFA to ban Porto… Pitfull loosers!
But you said it all… italian league is a very big fish compared to the portuguese, specially when we have only one team capable of show good futebol and pass the fase of groups… F.C.Porto.
Thank you for your just and open viewed comments!

By: Pedro

Pedro — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:34:14 +0000

http://www.abola.pt/nnh/ver.aspx?id=142604
É incrivel como este gajo não têm vergonha na cara, com certeza estasse dirigindo a pessoas da laia dele! Isto faz-me lembrar atitudes da Máfia em itália nos anos 90 no caso “operação mãos limpas” em que culminou com o assassinato dos juizes Falcone e Borcelino (Paz á alma destes grandes HOMENS).O nosso Pais está a começar a ficar minado, e a face mais vizivel é o Futebol e a Politica.Querem nos deitar areia para os olhos! Ladrões!…
Só espero que Maria José Morgado não acabe como os juizes italianos, eu penso que não! Mas quando penso no caso Bexiga penso logo duas vezes.Grande Mulher como Português e pessoa de bem, gostava que ela volta-se á Policia Judiciária para fazer aquilo que tão bem sabe fazer que é esercer a sua profissão honestamente e imparcial com plenos poderes dentro da lei constitucional mas independente do poder politico , honestamente penso que ela já fez muito mais que qualquer politico neste pais, deveria receber a ordem de mérito pelos serviços prestados ao pais, mas como os politicos estam mais preocupados em condecorar tipos que se dão com corruptos que até gostam de aprender sobre o oficio de como corromper. Metam este gajo na prisão, é uma tremenda falta de respeito pela srª e pela instituição que trata da justiça deste pais. Eu sei que a justiça não vai bem,mas não é por causa dos juizes que ela não anda bem, mas sim pela legislação que as sanguessugas mediocres que ocupam o Parlamento fazem, legislação essa muito subjectiva que defende só os prevaricadores.

By: Petinga

Petinga — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:17:44 +0000

Shazback has a point, although comparing the Heysel disaster with the Calciopoli is just stretching the whole thing a bit too far IMO.
If you want to be completely fair, you should know that, following the Heysel disaster, if UEFA hadn’t suspended English clubs from European competitions, the English FA would have at least withdrawn them for a year as the British Government was putting a lot of pressure on them. It also should be said that in those days the game was completely different. Can you imagine banning all clubs from England nowadays, with all the money involved? The thing is that UEFA had so much power back then because they effectively controlled European football. But if they took the kind of attitude you are suggesting, wanna guess the obvious consequence? Some top European clubs are already hinting at breaking away and forming their own international competitions so as to get more revenue.
So yes, UEFA could have removed all Italian clubs from the Champions’ League in 2006-2007. But it would have been bonkers and a real threat to the game.
Plus, it’s not like they didn’t try to ban Milan. They just lost the appeal because there were no legal grounds to do so. As there were no legal grounds to ban English clubs from Europe after the Heysel – but who was going to appeal??!

Cheers

By: Shazback

Shazback — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:34:50 +0000

Nuno… I might have misread the articles about the “golden whistle”, but only two games have been brought under scrutiny. It’s very possible that there are other games that were bribed, but until there’s proof of it, it’s not UEFA’s role to condemn Porto because there are “suspicions” of bribery.

However, that UEFA drafted these rules after the Calciopoli is exactly the thing that isn’t normal. When the Heysel disaster occured, do you think there was anything in UEFA’s rule books that said “If supporters of a club are involved in an ultimately fatal incident largely caused by the choice of an outdated stadium and lack of organisation by UEFA, then the federation of the aforementioned club will be forever removed from UEFA club competitions”? Of course they didn’t. But exceptional events call for exceptional measures. When UEFA let AC Milan participate in the Champion’s League, they were clearly saying that UEFA will not ban countries condemned for corruption in ther national league, and the clubs will be allowed to participate in European Club Competitions as long as their federation places in a position that qualifies for a European Club Competition.

What UEFA is doing isn’t fair. There’s no discussing it. AC Milan, Fiorentina and Reggina were only docked points for fixing up to 60 games, and Juventus were relegated because they fixed over 100 games… and all that was proven. If the Portuguese FA proves that Porto fixed anything like 60 games, then I’ll reconsider saying that what AC Milan did was worse than what Porto did. But until then, 2<60. And Milan weren’t kicked out. If UEFA had to wait for something to be written in their rule books, then surely the Heysel disaster wouldn’t have banned English clubs, would it? UEFA never investigated their responsability in the Heysel disaster, never investigated the role of Belgian police forces, and less than 24 hours after the events claimed that it was “only the English fans that were responsible”. Less than 48 hours after the incident, English clubs were banned forever from UEFA competitions. Exceptional events, exceptional measures. UEFA should have taken exceptional measures during the Calciopoli : ban all the clubs involved for at least one year, and strip the Italian FA of the places that would have been awarded to Juventus (Champions), AC Milan (2nd), Fiorentina (4th). Porto are paying because UEFA didn’t have the balls to strike down on the Italian FA, and only adopted strong measures -after- the Calciopoli. No surprise, it’s a smaller club thats the first to suffer. And although I do think that it is the right measure, I’m simply very, very dissapointed that UEFA weren’t coherent in their decisions (either exclude both on accept both).

By: Nuno

Nuno — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:30:53 +0000

I dont think this is a question of double standards. The difference of treatment between Milan and Porto is justified in a simple manner. After the Calciocaos scandal UEFA approved a harsher regulation regarding corruption situations. Porto is the first club to fall under the scrutiny of this new regime.
And Porto defense is simple – The two games in question relate with the 2003/2004 season, before this new regulation was approved. If they win their appeal it is for this reason.
Another difference you might notice is that in the Calciocaos situation Juve went to the italian second liga while to Porto only 6 points were deducted. This is because italian laws were much harsher than portuguese regarding corruption in sport (Also because FCP is, for some reason, considered a big fish in Portugal) – A change in the portuguese regulations regarding these situations is now underway.

And Shazback,
Porto didnt only corrupted only or two games in portuguese league. These two games were a drop in the ocean. They´ve doing this for over 20 years. The problem for Porto is that the buying of those games was overheard by the police, thus making it a lot easier to press corruption charges against them. And although the portuguese sport authorities condemned the club, the trial is still going on in the portuguese courts.
So, kudos for UEFA for finally showing some justice to this scum (And I sincerely hope they stick with this decision).

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:38:34 +0000

Shazback thats a brilliant post. Unfortunatly UEFA are always gonna have double standards in this regard because more people are going to watch a competition with Milan in than one without Milan in, whereas Porto aren’t quite such big fish, something which is a damn shame.

By: Shazback

Shazback — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:42:54 +0000

I’m torn.

On one hand, this -is- the right thing to do : a club that cheats doesn’t deserve to play in the Champions League. No matter what. I’d also go for stripping Porto’s place from the Portuguese FA. After all, it -is- the FA’s job to make sure that the teams aren’t corrupting the officials… And I would like to see Champions of lesser leagues get a chance at hitting the proverbial jackpot of the group stages.

But on the other hand, doing this so close to the Calciopoli is very, very bad. Porto bribed one game, and are going to be kicked out, whilst Milan bribed two seasons, and weren’t? UEFA shouldn’t have double standards. The Calciopoli should have been an examplary jugement from UEFA : Strip Juventus, AC Milan and Fiorentina from participating in the Champion’s League, and give them to lower-ranked leagues. The Italian FA should lose a place per team that is found guilty of corrupting officials if that team has ended up in a European position. And that team should be banned for at least one year from European club competitions, regardless of any sanctions taken by the league (relegation, point docking, etc.).

If UEFA want to fight corruption, they are taking the right move. Late, but right. Corrupt leagues lose money for not being tight enough to prevent corruption, and the teams that practice corruption don’t get the right to play with the big boys.

However, it’s terribly late. Big events call for big sanctions. England were banned from European club compeitions forever (waived after five years and a substantial decrease in hooliganism) because of the Heysel disaster. And it pains me to say so, but that -was- the right decision. It needed to be strong, firm and make people think. The Calciopoli was a good chance to take similarly strong action against corruption, but UEFA missed its chance. And part of me feels that it’s unfair Porto is treated much worse than AC Milan, whilst the crimes Porto commited were vastly inferior to those of AC Milan…

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:14:13 +0000

I agree, I really wouldn’t want anyone but a Portugese team in – it makes sense that way.

By: Ian Rose

Ian Rose — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:22:56 +0000

It’s good that the Portuguese league gets to keep the spot. AC Milan didn’t earn their way in. We’ve already seen a Champions League with five entries from a single country – I never want to see that again. Four is already too many.

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:09:39 +0000

Nah, the spot belongs to the Portuguese league and they will give it to the next best team. Anything else would be idiotic. Otherwise they could just as well award all CL spots to the teams with the best coefficients.

Interesting idea Jan.