An update on the Robert Hoyzer investigation for all you conspiracy theorists out there.

Gambling ring had secret UEFA referee lists (via Reuters)
Disgraced referee Robert Hoyzer has told German prosecutors that a gambling ring obtained secret lists of Champions League referees before they were published, a magazine reported on Thursday.

Hoyzer said he saw lists of UEFA's referee appointments about a week before the matches were held, according to Der Spiegel.
The report says Hoyzer, cooperating with prosecutors after admitting his involvement in Germany's worst betting scandal in three decades, expressed surprise when he saw the lists and asked his Croatian gambling associates how they were obtained. "Good sources," he was told.

A UEFA spokesman in Nyon declined to comment on the details of the report but said referee appointments for Champions League matches and the latter rounds in the UEFA Cup are withheld until 48 hours before kickoff.
Der Spiegel said Hoyzer's claims would cause distress at UEFA because only 11 members of UEFA's referee commission, as well as referee manager Yvan Cornu, could know the names of the referees a week ahead of time.

Hoyzer, a second division referee, has admitted he took bribes worth 67,000 euros ($85,000) to rig matches for the Croatian gambling ring. Hoyzer, 25, faces fraud charges. He has also implicated other referees and second division players.

Rijkaard wants Mourinho punished is the headline on BBC Sport, while Football365 says that UEFA are warning Chelsea that they are "not in the clear yet". Oooh. But seriously, what has got UEFA so riled?

Mourinho's criticism of Frisk may or may not have been justified, but UEFA are deluding themselves if they think Jose's comments led to the Swedish referee receiving death threats. Referees have been harshly criticised by managers before and while it is correct to punish the managers when they are too outspoken, they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a few (English) cretins.

According to UEFA, Chelsea created "a poisoned and negative ambience" for the return leg. Which is certainly true, but in the climate of hype and millions of Euros that characterises top-level European football (which in turn generates the money for UEFA) is it a surprise that not every game is carried out in a fair spirit?

And while I may be beginning to be of the opinion that Jose has made a bit of a tit of himself, if UEFA are to remain unbiased they should surely take into account that Barca did not exactly contribute to the Corinthian spirit after the first leg with comments such as "...the only team that played football was us." or "...everyone had talked about super Chelsea before the game, but I didn't see anything super out there."

(Later Edit) After reading the comments so far, I strongly suggest a little light reading before you comment on this post. I've just read an excellent article by Martin Samuel in today's Times on Jose, Chelsea, Barca and UEFA. It does make some very valid points and raises a few interesting questions; the .pdf version is here.

No, really it is. Man Utd have called for a revamp of the knockout stage of the Champions League.

United chief executive David Gill said on the BBC Sport website: "At the moment we effectively have a random draw after the group stage. Maybe we should use a system where the holders are rated number one and they play the 16th ranked team, number two versus 15, and so on."
Alternatively, perhaps he should tell Ol' Rednose to concentrate on winning the group stage. That way he might avoid teams such as AC Milan.

Apparently, Gill is concerned that the competition will lose some of its pulling power if the 'glamour' clubs go out early.
It's nice of him to be so thoughtful, isn't it?

Funnily enough, Arsene Wenger, manager of the other English team that went out two weeks ago, is also calling for changes.

He said: "You can't afford to have Real Madrid and Manchester United - big clubs who invest so much money - going out in the last 16."
Who can't afford that? The fans? UEFA? Or the clubs that have considerable loans to pay off?

"You will have a revolt if it continues like that."
Who is this 'you' that he keeps going on about?

"Seeding teams is a possibility. I don't think the formula at the moment helps the best teams."
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I generally believe the "best" team is the team that scores the most goals over two legs, and not the one that blows its entire transfer budget on a single player and/or concedes three away goals with a display of shockingly inept defending.

Every week I have to read the same old crap about the Big Three. Why? An example: "...their dominance has reached the stage of tedium...it’s an unhealthy state of play for the Premiership...". So what if Arsenal, Man U and now Chelsea dominate the Premiership? Why do so many media types complain about the state of affairs?

And why does everybody automatically assume it's always about money? These clubs have intelligent managers and players who are not necessarily better than their opponents, but play well consistently over the course of a league season. If the other teams provide drab and uninspiring football, then should we really be surprised that the Big Three remain unchallenged?

Apologies for the lack of posts, but I've broken my hand playing football. Normal service will resume soon.

However, I will leave you with the news that some über-referee chappy at UEFA has accused Jose of being "the enemy of football". A tad OTT surely? Admittedly, he has been quite harsh in his criticism of Anders Frisk after the Swede's half-time chat with Frank Rijkaard, but then show me a manager in the professional game who would ignore an incident like that. Sir Alex and Arsene certainly wouldn't.

In any case, we all know that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy of football.

"Collina helped Chelsea, he denied me a clear penalty and in the fourth goal they fouled Victor Valdes, but those things happen."

Ok, so Barca did have some cause for complaint about John Terry's goal (which reminded me of the situation in the England - Portugal game), although it was unlikely that the goalkeeper would have made the save if he hadn't been impeded, but did anyone see this penalty incident that Samuel Eto'o is going on about?

If you watch or read UK media coverage of Scottish football at European or international level, particularly at the beginning of a season, journalists always appear to be under the impression that either Celtic or Rangers actually have a chance of achieving anything in the Champions League. And that the national team for some reason deserves to be punching above its weight internationally.

Can someone explain why this is? The Old Firm consistently lose (and in some cases thrashed) by a variety of European teams, while the national team is still stumbling around blindly looking for a way back to Archie Gemmill's goal against Holland. Yet the media still feign surprise when things go pear-shaped.

In this month's When Saturday Comes, this weblog and a number of others came up for some fairly damning criticism from their web reviewer, Ian Plenderleith.

"Bland", "unremarkable", "lacking a certain punch", "long-winded" were some of the aimed at the weblogs he reviewed. But I feel he somehow missed the point of the football weblog.

There are certain similarities between the weblogs currently popping up all over the internet and the fanzine culture of the 80s from which WSC itself was born. Much like those fanzines, some of the football weblogs around at the moment are not as well written (I'll hold my hand up here) or as entertaining as others. Some are more professional, while others are more amateurish.

I wasn't aware that weblogs (football or otherwise) have to subscribe to any rules regarding their content, design and wit. Therefore, it becomes slightly hard to compare one weblog with another one objectively. As they all offer different styles of writing and content it would've perhaps been more interesting to look at the football weblog "community" as a whole, rather than picking on the failings of individual blogs.

He also suggested that those authors worried about the lack of response to their posts should keep them short and witty. But a flippant remark isn't always so appropriate when you're trying to explain why a nominal fine for racism is pointless.

However, all criticism should be regarded constructively and even bad publicity is useful, so thanks for the reviews Ian. Still, I was surprised to see that you failed to mention Arseblog though, as it's one of the best and (apparently) most popular football sites around. Afraid of the competition perhaps?

The Spanish FA has finally got round to fining Luis Aragones for his comments about Thierry Henry. The grand total of 3000 Euros (£2060). Hmmm.

It will be interesting to see what fine Chelsea receive for Jose's no-show after last week's Champions League game. Admittedly, in each case the governing bodies aren't really influenced by one another and Spain were fined £44,750 by UEFA after the England match in Madrid, but the size of the fine will perhaps indicate where the priorities lie in European football (cf. this post as well as this one on Blog FC).