Tonight we continue our Champions League campaign against Lille.
Recently we blogged about how Mikel Arteta needs to approach the Champions League differently this year – rather than chasing perfection, he needs to rest and rotate his squad with the aim of just getting through, not winning the group stage.
To that extent, I expect to see a few changes against a Lille side currently sitting 2nd in Ligue 1.
The main two changes will be Mikel Merino and Viktor Gyokeres coming in.
With Kai Havert’s international injury scare, and his recent poor injury records, we need to continue managing his work load. That should see the German rested today, with Gyokeres getting a chance to perform up top.
Moving into midfield, Arteta has an abundance of choices. It is therefore essential that this season he rotates his midfielders, keeping them fresh. For that reason, Mikel Merino will surely get a start alongside either Declan Rice or Bruno Guimaraes.
I think Arteta would have gone with Martin Zubimendi alongside Bruno, but with the Spaniard having picked up a post-game training session injury, Merino will come in with Bruno or Rice in behind. Much of that later decision will depend on how Bruno is recovering from his slight knocks.
As a result of the midfield make-up, Myles Lewis Skelly will be pushed to left back.
With Piero Hincapie’s injury, we need to ensure that we wrap Riccardo Calafiori in cotton wool. Lewis Skelly can more than do a job at left back without us losing anything from the midfield.
Jurrien Timber will be given the first 60 minutes as he continues his rehabilitation, with Ezri Konsa and Gabriel inside him – although Arteta may also fancy giving Cristhian Mosquera a run out instead of one of the pair.
I would keep Noni Madueke on the left hand side – he did not have a bad game against Leeds and needs to grow in confidence as he will get a lot of game time in the coming weeks. On the right it will be Bukayo Saka, with Eberechi Eze potentially coming in for Martin Odegaard.
Maybe a little disjointed, but it should be enough to overcome Lille. And then it is on to the next one…
In other news, Manchester City have splashed the cash on yet another new lawyer.
According to The Lawyer, Mark Howard KC is now working alongside City’s other barristers, including Lord Pannick and Paul Harris KC.
We all know the delusion of Man City fans over this case, claiming the plan was to always lose the hearing so that they could take their evidence to a higher court. This new appointment shows it was all just a load of waffle and that they are now panicking.
You do not spend millions on another high-flying lawyer if you are confident about the defence your existing high-flying have already presented.
As the case continues to unravel, more and more interested parties will come out of the woodwork.
The SRA are already looking into the role of solicitors in the cover up, whilst both HMRC and the US Government could reopen old cases depending on the final verdict. Then you have the FCA who could look into Man City auditors, BDO. This on the back of Deloitte being exposed for helping Roman Abramovich’s dodgy dealings.
The initial Premier League case against Man City might be concluded within 12 months, but with an ongoing investigation for 2018-present day as well as the above potential investigations, aspects of the case could rattle on for years more. And none of it is good for City or the reputation of their owners.
It was brilliant news that Mikel Arteta has signed a new contract. Anyone that disagrees with this fact must hold some sort of grudge. Likely going back to Arteta snubbing them as a player when, as a grown man, they used to hang about the training ground begging for shirts to be signed.
So 2030. Another 4-years of challenging for titles under Super Mik Arteta. Another 4-years of trusting the process.
Arteta’s Arsenal are in the “WIN NOW” phase. The signings of Ezri Konsa and Bruno Guimaraes, two established Premier League superstars, highlight that Arteta is now building for the future. He wants glory. And it wants it this season. And next.
But this brings with it a risk.
As we have seen with Liverpool, if you do not prepare for the future you end up with a group of players all reaching the end of their peak at the same time. They will be on huge wages, which leaves you little budget to consider signing the “next big things” and what ends up happening is a few years in the wilderness whilst you rebuild a team, rather than a transition as 20-somethings take over from 30-somethings.
Manchester United have spent nearly 15-years in this wilderness following Sir Alex Ferguson’s (and theirs) last league title. It was a championship built on Rio Ferdinand, Nemanja Vidic, Michael Carrick, Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Patrice Evra. The majority of which were beyond 30, and all of which were nearing the end, or at the end, of their peak.
Arteta’s job over the next 4-years is not to only win now, but also to ensure that he does not go into the 30s with an ageing squad past their best, or handover a creaking squad to the next man.
So just how would Arteta’s current Arsenal look in 2030?
Is it too early to start thinking about your Christmas jumper?
Come 2030, David Raya will be 35. As a keeper who relies on reflexes rather than his frame, he will likely be at the end of his time with us. He may not even make it through to 2030. But coming through the wings we have Tommy Setford.
Now it is notoriously difficult to come through at a top team as a goalkeeper. You just do not get the game time to develop, to make your mistakes as you grow. That is why Setford’s loan deals, and patience, are going to be important.
Come 2030, Setford would be 24. Still young for a keeper. Hopefully he would have had 3 progressive loan deals under his belt (currently at Stevenage), the last of which being either in the Premier League, Bundesliga, or other top league. If he is good enough, he will get his chance.
Jurrien Timber will still only be 29 in 2030, as will William Saliba. Riccardo Calafiori and Piero Hincapié will be just 28 and Cristhian Mosquera 26. These guys will have plenty still left in the tank. There is also Marli Salmon who will be just 21…
Gabriel Magalhães at 32 might be coming to the end of his time, but then again he has never been a defender who has relied on his pace. You could easily see him playing through till he is 34 or 35 at the highest level. Likewise, Ezri Konsa will also be 32. We do not really need to think too much about succession planning for these guys as those mentioned above will still in in their late 20s. Succession planning for the defence will probably start in 2030, not need to be done by.
In midfield, Martin Odegaard will be 31. I would not be surprised if he leave us before 2030. Maybe even next summer. Eberechi Eze (32), Mikel Merino (34) and Bruno Guimaraes (32) will likely all be either gone, or in their last season.
That will still leave us with Declan Rice (31), Martín Zubimendi (31), Myles Lewis-Skelly (24) as midfield options, with Bukayo Saka (29), Christos Tzolis (28) and Max Dowman (20) as attacking options. Despite being just 28 in 2030, I expect Noni Madueke to have departed to make way for Dowman.
Up front it is a bit more tricky. Kai Havertz will be 31 and Viktor Gyokeres 32. I would be very surprised if either are still with us in 2030.
So lets now look at 2030/31. What would be the starting XI based on players currently with us who would still have plenty to give. And where do we need to look to recruit?
Declan Rice would be the only man in our 2030/31 that would be over 30, and he would be just 31. With his footballing brain, playing a more static role, or even going back to centre back, would be an easy transition for Rice as his legs go.
Then backing the above up, we would still have the likes of Zubimendi, Salmon, Hincapie, as well as Gabriel or Konsa as an “older” option at just 32. This leaves us, in the next 4 years, to only really need to recruit a new right back, central midfielder, Odegaard replacement, left winger and two strikers.
Arteta can be in his win now phase because most of his players are all just entering their peak. There is not a huge amount of succession planning needing to be done. Much of it is already done. And the reast will happen naturally as we improve our squad year on year rather than having to buy the future.
Let’s get it right, Manchester City’s defence of the 115 was nothing short of a disaster.
114 of the 115 charges stuck, the Premier League labelled it a “sham”, and key witnesses and irrefutable evidence on behalf of Manchester City either did not materialise or could not be proven.
Manchester City’s sole defence of the entire situation is that it was not Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) that subsidised the huge sums paid to Man City by sponsors, But the Abu Dhabi Government (AD).
This line of defence directly contradicts what Etihad Airways told the US Government back in 2015.
And this is exactly why the Man City case has fallen the way it has.
Whilst City may have claimed that the sponsorship money was subsidised by AD, and not ADUG, they were unable to provide any evidence. Neither AD, Etihad, or alternative organisations would have been able to provide proof of where funding comes from because it would have completely contradicted that 2015 investigation.
City fans across social media are claiming that lawyers defence is “genius” and that they are playing 4D chess. This is laughable.
You do not go into a hearing, a court case, or anything else, with the aim of losing so that you can win on appeal. It does not happen. And it is ludicrous that anyone is claiming that City lawyers were hoping to lose so that they could “expose the Premier League on appeal”. Especially when you consider the cost of those lawyers.
High up executives at Man City, ADUG and AD know exactly the predicament they are in – and there only two paths out.
Man City or Etihad Airways. The will have to choose a fighter.
The evidence needed to exhonorate Man City throws Etihad under the bus with the US Government.
If evidence is presented to show that Etihad were funded by AD, then the US will reopen their 2015 investigation. That could have huge implications for not only one of the biggest airlines in the world, who are also AD’s flagship brand, but also for those who presented the evidence in 2015.
Not only would presenting the evidence in support of City be an existential threat to Etihad, it would likely lead to criminal proceedings for those who then lied in the evidence above.
The alternative for AD is to back Etihad, and it is Man City who are then pushed under that bus.
Without AD or Etihad being willing to corroborate Man City’s claims, the Premier League can rightly disregard Man City’s claims of where the funding came from.
The question ultimately for AD is do they want to sacrifice Man City to the Premier League to protect Etihad, or do they want to sacrifice Etihad to the US Government in an attempt to protect Man City.
And that leads us to where we are now. The bullying stage.
AD and ADUG can not keep their two flagship operations clean. One will have to fall. So in an attempt to get two favourable outcomes, they are now using political, legal and PR posturing to bully the Premier League and UK Government.
Firstly we have Etihad threatening to sue the Premier League.
The headline is that they have hired “the world’s most feared litigation law firm” in Quinn Emanuel.
Firstly, the chances that they have only just hired Quinn Emanuel are laughable. Major companies like Etihad will likely have major global law firms on retainers. We’ve all watched Suits. We all know how this works.
Secondly, I am not really sure what the basis of any case by Etihad against the Premier League could be built on.
It is an independent commission panel that heard the case, and made the judgement. Not the Premier League. The PL merely presented their case, their evidence. And when it came to evidence around where the funding came from, everything that mentioned Etihad came from Man City or ADUG emails. You can no sue someone for presenting the facts as they appear.
If Etihad are to sue anyone, it would actually be Man City, as it is them that have made the claim that their sponsors, including Etihad, were subsidised by AD. If this as an untrue statement by Man City, then that is where the lawsuit sits.
As for the posturing by the UAE, there is zero chance that they will pull investment in the UK due to the decision against Manchester City.
A move like this would have huge ramifications across the globe. It would show to the world that the UAE and the Emirati that make it believe that they are above the law in whichever county they have organisations, companies or sports teams operating. It sends out a sign to governments worldwide that they believe their organisations can operate however they want, and if they are sanctioned then government level investment will be pulled.
This position is not a position of strength.
Whilst on the short term, the UK may lose out on investment, it would not be a catastrophe.
In the grand scheme of things, the UAE is not one of the biggest investors in the UK. The are no where near the US, India or France. The billions they claim that they will pull from the UK is only around 0.3-1.4% of the foreign investment in the UK. Although it must be said that is public money. There is also a private side, such as the millions pumped into Manchester by ADUG.
Whilst pulling investment would not be catastrophic for the UK, it would be a catastrophic decision by the UAE.
As we briefly outlined above, why would any foreign government want to do investment deals with the UAE if the UAE show themselves as willing do drop their investment due to one of their organisations have been sanctioned? It would lead governments being less willing to make deals with UAE. And we all know those deals are massive for the UAE as they attempt to invest the email money before the income dries up.
The estimation is that oil in the UAE will dry up in 80 years. Due to this they have a global investment strategy with the aim of reducing the reliance on oil – in 1980, 55% of the UAE GDP was based on oil, that is now just 23%.
UAE need to continue investing in both themselves (tourism) and foreign countries to ensure they survive once the oil runs out. If they fail to do so, the area will just become a desert. Pulling investment in the UK would directly damage this strategy, especially if other countries decide the UAE are no longer trustworthy enough to strike big deals with.
Etihad will not sue the PL. The UAE will not pull their investment in the UK. It is just bullying and PR.
The hope is to force the hand of the PL or UK Government into coming to a settlement. The aim is to also paint Man City as victims in all of this. To continue the sportswashing of the blue side of Manchester.
And whilst the bullying will not be successful, we are seeing the PR side of the project become a success. City fans from Manchester to Lagos, and across Asia are ignoring the facts and trying to paint City and ADUG as victims.
Abu Dhabi, and by extension the UAE, basically now have millions of online warriors who will go out to battle for them, who will defend them no matter what they do. And that is what sportswashing is all about.
We have also seen the success of this sportswashing already in the way UK Primer Minister Andy Burnham came out swinging for Man City’s owners. He has since had his wings clips, although there could now be political ramifications followings calls to investigate the Labour leader’s relationship with the Manchester City owners.
Having triggered the appeal, it must now take place in 12 weeks. The verdict must be delivered within 30-days of the appeal ending.
Regardless of the verdict, Man City’s online warriors will continue to fight for their owners. They will paint City and ADUG as the victims. They will claim it was always the goal to take the PL to the High Court, Supeme Court, The Hague, Nuremberg, the Earth Supreme Court or Wizengamot. And that this is all part of the bigger plan to spend millions dragging the reputation of their club through the mud.
And my final point of all this is all this posturing only deals with the sponsorship related charges.
The claim that sponsors funding came from AD, and not ADUG, does not defend the PSR breaches, nor the lack of cooperation charges. And these alone can lead to huge point deductions, life bans for the officers and executives who failed to cooperate, and even the expulsion of Manchester City.
