MEN live blogging Hamburg game

CITY take on Hamburg in the first leg of their UEFA Cup quarter-final on Thursday - and we'll be blogging it live here on www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk. Make sure you click here from 7.30pm on Thursday to catch:

:: Regular text updates on the action
:: All the latest snaps from the game as they come in
:: Polls updated in real time
:: Your comments on the game as it unfolds

>>MEN.

Pretty much all the major newspapers are covering games as live in some capacity these days, but it is the first time that I know of that the MEN are trying this out.

There are usually plenty of comments on any MEN story but I wonder given the game is live on TV how much attention it will attract during the match.

Should be interesting to see the response it gets.

Ronaldinho - why the criticism?

Regardless of the possibility of signing Ronaldinho, the very fact we are linked with him would get the pulses going and that it would be unanimously thought of as a great coup.

Not so it appears.

In today's MEN, Chris Bailey sets out his case for eschewing the possibility of signing the Brazillian - under the headline 'Sidestep the superstars', and implored the club to concentrate and focus on youth instead.

All very noble sentiment indeed, except the article from Bailey is littered with statements and arguments that don't wash, and I am still stunned that anyone who supports (or linked with) the club could seriously make a case for not signing him.

Paraphrasing the article, Bailey asserts that he doesn't want the club to become a home for faded superstars and that the progression of youth is the way to go.

I feel though it is worth challenging some of the points he has raised (Bailey's in italics, my response in standard font):

Far better to build a side than bring in a Ronaldinho, David Beckham or Luis Figo who are past their practical best on the pitch, even if they do shift plenty of units of memorabilia and replica kit in the Far East.

I agree entirely with not bringing in a mid-30's agre range player who is clearly past it, but Ronaldinho would not be that type of player and it is a lazy argument to bring up the cliched 'Far East market' but Ronaldinho is not far removed from being voted World Player of the Year.

Signing such a player would also wreck the wage structure and that invariably leads to more problems, for there is hardly likely to be a harmonious dressing room if one of the members is changing on a pedestal, emblazoned with a label proclaiming him a prince amongst paupers.

There is clearly a wage differential between the squad at the moment, with the likes of Petrov, Corluka and Elano likely earning significantly more than the majority of the squad. Has this affected team morale and unity? Thought not.

And how many games do fans think you would get out of a Galactico? Take Ronaldinho as an example. He has averaged a little more than 20 outings per season, not much good when the league is over 38 games and you fancy a tilt at a cup competition or two. Surely it is far better to budget for a Lukas Podolski, Robbie Keane, Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott or Aaron Lennon and a holding midfielder of some class than an ageing superstar who sells shirts in the super stores of Asia?

Ronaldinho has suffered from injury problems this season but he has been a workhorse at Barcelona and he can hardly be labelled a 'fancy dan' who picks and chooses his games. The next argument is simply ridiculous - Bayern have said Podolski is part of their plans for next season, Walcott is clearly headed in the right direction at Arsenal and Keane is captain at Tottenham, a club who sold Jermaine Defoe in January. Are any of that trio likely to be available?

The Galacticos route so beloved of Real Madrid in recent years didn't really work in terms of cups and titles and, significantly, they are domestically performing much better now, without them. Closer to home, Newcastle's desire to spend hugely on big names has left them without a trophy for longer than City. In any case, Blues followers must surely have had enough during the Keegan era of older players who had built their reputations elsewhere being brought in for one last pay-day.

To lump Ronaldinho alongside Paul Bosvelt, Robbie Fowler and worst of all, Steve McManaman is ludicrous. We are not talking here of a player who is sniffing around for one last play-day but a world class player who could potentially have a huge impact on the side.

The best way forward for City is surely from the roots up. Keep pumping money into a wonderful Academy that produces genuine talent for club and country and augment that with judicious purchases from home and abroad each summer and there is a recipe for success.

I agree with developing the Academy but Bailey himself admits this mix needs to be added to with outside purchases and it is clear that at the moment the squad is some way off challenging for a Champions League berth, let alone the UEFA Cup.

So, let Ronaldinho play out his days in the sun in Italy. It is not lack of ambition it is commonsense and the creation of something more long lasting.

Play out his days in the sun? He is 28 years old and considered one of the best players in the world. Why on earth would this move not be considered commonsense and the creation of something more long lasting.

I have also read comparison with Gio Kinkladze and the problems we had fitting him into the team ethic, but we now had a side that can compete, not one that was filled with the likes of Ged Brannan and Neil Heaney.

One man does not make a team, but one man can make a team better and that is what we would get with Ronaldino in the line up. I find it staggering that anyone can actually consider a move for him to be a bad one and there is not a convincing argument that can be made to suggest that if a move for him was viable then it should be turned down in the interests of being better for their club.

Takeover speculation grows

Apologies for being a little late on this one, as I have been planning to post up on it for the past few days or so. There has been more talk of takeovers over the last week, resulting in the share price seeing a steep increase and news that the board were meeting yesterday to discuss the potential of a takeover and the groups believed to be in the running.

The Times ran a good piece today which suggested that there were two front-runners to take control of the club - an unknown American consortium, and a British-based one headed by former-City player Ray Ranson.

Interestingly, the article suggested that the American bid holds the upper hand but there are believed to be concerns over how their bid will be structured (with it being leveraged) and this could 'let the Ranson consortium' in:

Highly regarded by many supporters, Wardle and Makin
risk being cast as villains if they fail to strike a deal financially workable
for an incoming investor. Of greatest concern to the club’s fans, however, are
the intentions of the American investors who are thought to be leading the race,
the identity of whom the club has kept a closely guarded secret.

The Times understands that the American bid is
leveraged and could result in the club, who have existing debts in excess of £50
million, falling deeper into the red, a nightmare scenario for supporters who
fear that the club could be saddled with a debt in much the same way Manchester
United were when the Glazer family took over at Old Trafford.

Although this is something that the MEN does not subscribe to, offering an alternate view on proceedings:

Ranson, who unsuccessfully tried to buy Aston Villa
before American Randy Lerner took over, has, it is understood, had a lukewarm
response at the City of Manchester Stadium.
More talks are planned with the
mystery Americans later this week, after today's board meeting at City has been
given an update on the takeover saga.

The Americans have been checked out
- along with all four would-be investors - and would not saddle City with debt
and the hush-hush talks with them are now set to move from the "preliminary
stage'' to more advanced discussions.

It is an interesting angle that The Times approach, and there is the suggestion that Wardle and Makin may have a decision to make which - in blunt terms, would either be in the best interests of the club or themselves.

No one doubts that the pair have the best interests of the
club at heart, but there is a belief in some quarters that they may have to
accept a loss on their loans in the long-term interest of the club.

It seems that takeover talk is beginning to gather momentum, and is now a case of 'when' rather than 'if' the club will see new ownership, and one thing that all reports I have seen suggest is that Makin and Wardle do have the best long-term interests of the club at heart and are keen to secure the best deal possible.

With the Supporters Trust announcing on Five Live last night that they have the potential backing to secure upto 15% of the clubs shares - although I know for sure they are not part of any of the groups looking to bid for the club, this could be perfect timing for the Trust to be up and running and be able to come on board and work with new owners - wouldn't it be perfect PR at least for any incoming group to be seen to engaging the fans as a whole as one of their first moves?

Derby selection poser

The MEN today takes a look at the possibilities available to Stuart Pearce as he mulls over his selection and tactics ahead of Saturday's derby.

Although I'll take a more in depth look at the game later in the week, I cannot see too many surprises as I expect Pearce to line up with a similair 4-5-1 formation as we saw against Liverpool recently, with Corradi operating as a lone striker.

The only debate I guess will be whether to once again push Micah Richards into midfield with Nedum Onouha slotting in at right-back, although the temptation must be to possibly bring in Didi Hamman and leave Richards to go up against Giggs and Ronaldo.

Big publicity for the supporters trust

Looks like the guys over mcfcsupporterstrust have hit the headlines in a big way today as they are all over the backpages of the MEN profiling their attempts to set up a supporters trust.

The main point that has been picked up elsewhere by the press is the news that the group has contacted former chairman David Bernstein for his advice (and more?) but more importantly Bernstein's general comments on the subject:

"Over the last few months I have numerous calls from
supporters and supporters' groupings expressing unhappiness over a wide range of
issues and the club's general direction, these concerns appear to be increasing
and it worries me that so many people feel this way."

This is something that the club have subsequently denied, with Paul Tyrell commenting:

"We are surprised by David Bernstein comments because
he has always been extremely supportive of the club, especially of John Wardle
(chairman) and Alistair Mackintosh (chief executive)."

Good to see Ollie and the rest of the guys getting some publicity behind them and things look to definitely be gaining momentum. Hopefully I'll bring some more news shortly.

Backtracking by the board?

After posting up something up recently on a story about the club planning to (or having already done so) sell the naming rights to The City of Manchester Stadium, the club subsequently denied this and there was even a post up from mcfcsupporterstrust to acknowledge this.

Fast forward to the back page of the MEN yesterday and there is an article from Chris Bailiey extolling the club to sell the naming rights to The Stadium to benefit the club financially.

The link to the article is here, but I thought it was worth posting up in full - even if it is a little lengthy:

WHAT'S in a name? Well, actually, heaps of cash if you
play your cards right.
That's why if I were sitting in the accounts office
at Manchester City Council this morning, I would be picking up the phone to
Blues' chief executive Alistair Mackintosh and chairman John Wardle and talking
about a title for a Premiership stadium that is a great credit to both
parties.
Finding a corporate bigwig to adorn the ground with their brand name
could make the Blues and the council millions in extra cash - and that surely
wouldn't come amiss on either balance sheet.
Advertisement your story
continues below



City have spent the past couple of weeks strenuously denying
rumours that they are about the sell the name of the ground and there is no
reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. To do so they would have to negotiate
changes to the terms of the 250-year lease they signed with the council after
inheriting the stadium following the hugely successful Manchester Commonwealth
Games in 2002.

That detail, though, surely shouldn't stop both parties
at least investigating the possibility of some corporate schmoosing in the
pursuit of a deal that will suit everyone.
It is hard to envisage any City
fan being up in arms at the thought of their new home receiving a fresh name.
Even those Blues who perpetually view life through a half-empty glass must see
that it could benefit them and the team by providing a cash injection to a club
always seeking ways of producing worthwhile investment.
Supporters have not
been in the ground long enough to develop an umbilical cord attachment to the
place.

There are not any of the large doses of sentiment, tradition or
history surrounding the stadium as there were at dear old Maine Road - a name
that no one would have wanted to disappear for the sake of
money.

To have suggested hawking off Maine Road's name would
have been close to Blue blasphemy, but not so the current home that seems to me
has no identity at all at present.
Some call it `Eastlands', an area that
doesn't officially exist on maps, some who like expending their breath call it
by its Sunday best name `City of Manchester Stadium', others prefer to shorten
that to `COMS' while still more refer to City's stronghold as `Sportcity' in
keeping with those nice brown signs that help everyone find their way to the
complex.
See what I mean. How unifying it would be to find a once and for all
handle to attach to the name.

There simply have to be companies, Blue Chip ones
naturally, who would be willing to fork out more than just a few quid to have
their name become synonymous with a magnificent state of the art
stadium.

Highbury no longer exists but people are already happy
to say Emirates Stadium, Bolton jettisoned the burden of Burnden to ply their
trade at the Reebok, and even cricket is played at the Fosters Oval.
Further
down the footballing ladder, Doncaster occupy the Earth Stadium and Swansea The
Liberty. Over the pond in America where the dollar is much mightier than any
sentiment over concrete and steel, it is possible to watch NFL at the Heinz or
the Fed-Ex Stadium. All the teams concerned have benefited financially from
changing the name of the ground.

With a UEFA Cup final in the pipeline and rugby and
soccer internationals as well as concerts from world-renowned artists regular
features at a packed Eastlands/Coms/Sportcity now would seem the perfect time to
standardise the name and make it known throughout the globe.
And if some
money can be made then all well and good.

Maybe I'm being a little mischeivous here but reading through the article it reads exactly as though it is a club release designed to test the water ahead and float the idea of selling the stadium name in preperation for a deal come the end of the season. The article is very much a pro-sale one, but has come a little out of the blue considering the clubs denial less than a couple of weeks ago.

Now, personally I don't have a problem with selling the stadium name - as much for anything that it still doesn't have a name that all fans refer to it as, but if a deal has been done already then maybe the club was caught a little off-guard when the story first came into the public domain and this article will do nothing to dissuade opinion that the article in the MEN is one designed to ease any criticism on the board if they do end up backtracking over the stadium name issue.

Charlton 1 City 0

I've not caught anything from Saturday's game apart from the reports I've picked up today, but although it appears it was a much improved away performance ultimately it was the same end result and we slip back towards the relegation zone.

Rather than a report then, I've linked to a selection of the some of the match reports:

Pearce still gloomy as awful away form add misery - The Independent

Bent gets straight to the points - The Guardian

Bent and Carson prove worth to Charlton - The Telegraph

NetAddicks match report

MEN match report

Sky Sports match report