Liamlcfc1 Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/chose-Leicester-City-playing-Champions-League/story-12844656-detail/story.html New Leicester City signing Neil Danns revealed he turned down the chance to play Champions League football with Rangers to sign for Sven-Goran Eriksson's side.The 28-year-old midfielder had plenty of offers after leaving Crystal Palace on a free but chose City because he feels he can fulfil his ambition of playing in the Premier League at the Walkers Stadium. Danns, who has signed a three-year contract, said he had unfinished business in the English top-flight after his brief spell in the Premier League with Birmingham, and that was why he turned down Rangers. "I sat down and spoke to people a the club and I chose Leicester because I feel the time is right now to push on and challenge for a Premier League spot," he said. "I grew up watching the Premier League and it has always been an ambition of mine. "I feel Leicester are in a good position to have a go and challenge for the Premier League spot. "That was one of the main factors. "I actually sent Ally McCoist (Rangers manager) a text to thank him for the offer of playing at Rangers and possibly playing in the Champions League. "I said I still have ambitions I want to achieve in England and getting into the Premier League is one of those. He understood that and, while it would have been amazing to play in the Champions League, I still feel I have unfinished business in England." Danns said he got the same vibe from City as he did when he joined Birmingham in 2006 when they won promotion to the Premier League. "I know the sort of players the club is being linked with, and they have signed Lee Peltier which shows to me that the club is heading in the right direction," said Danns. "This club is looking at having a real go at getting into the Premier League, and that is something I want to be a part of. "I remember how similar it was when I signed for Birmingham and I have that same feeling signing for Leicester. "Birmingham said they wanted to get straight back into the Premier League and it all panned out that way. I get the same feeling here about Leicester. "This is a club that is really going to have a go and there could be some exciting times ahead." Born in Liverpool, Danns began his career with Blackburn Rovers. He enjoyed loan spells with Blackpool, Hartlepool United and Colchester United, before joining the U's permanently in December 2004. After scoring 25 goals in 74 appearances for the Essex club, Danns made the move to St Andrews when Birmingham City paid £500,000 for him in June 2006. He won promotion to the Premier League in his first season and made a handful of top-flight appearances before Palace paid £600,000 to take him to Selhurst Park in January 2008. During his time in south London, Danns passed 100 league appearances for the Eagles and became a firm favourite with the Palace faithful. With his Palace contract due to expire on Thursday, he will officially become a City player on Friday.
Durnerz Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 I'm sure playing for us every week is far better than going out of Europe to part-time goat-herders from Ljubjana. Good call Neil.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Fair play, I can understand that. If you want to play in the Prem, starting in Scotland is not the best route.
samjohnson Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 In Scotland, if you join anyone but Celtic & Rangers, you'd be playing for 3rd place, its a monopoly. You've got to have a bit of unpredictability, thats why the Football League is so entertaining
Guest Mee-9 Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 HAHAHA Rangers got dumped by text!!! Neil Danns stole my technique.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 What he actually meant was he chose playing for Leicester over being humilated in the Champions League, which is the usual SPL route.
BlueSi13 Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 He's also opted to stay in a stronger and richer league with far greater viewing figures. In terms of revenue the Championship is the sixth richest league in Europe and attendances wise, the Championship has the tenth biggest average football attendance in the world with the SPL in 14th. Then when you consider here his wages will be greater than in Glasgow. Is it really that hard for them to see why he decided to remain in England?
Marmite Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Rangers don't get very far in the Champions League anyway so it would be over very quickly and then back to reality playing Inverness and Dundee 4 times a season, how thrilling
ScouseFox Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Don't see why all this "I snubbed Rangers" stuff is big news. Obvious decision for anyone with half a brain cell.
Les-TA-Jon Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Plus he had this choice: Change from living in London to.......... living in Glasgow Or move from London to Leicestershire
z-layrex Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Playing in the Champions League for a shitty Scottish club that really shouldn't be there doesn't count to be honest.
I am Rod Hull Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Playing in the Champions League for a shitty Scottish club that really shouldn't be there doesn't count to be honest. Rangers are a shitty club ? Thats just WRONG !
Yojoe36 Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 I think he just hates Scotland. *whisper* don't tell Gallagher *whisper*
lcfc"weasel" Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 Playing in the Champions League for a shitty Scottish club that really shouldn't be there doesn't count to be honest. How the fvck do you work out that they don't deserve to be there? I hate them, but they won there league and the country is in Europe, therefore they deserve to play in the European Champions League.
Guest Bilo Posted 28 June 2011 Posted 28 June 2011 That awkward moment when Neil Danns decides Rangers aren't even worth using up the included talk time on his phone contract.
MC Prussian Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 How the fvck do you work out that they don't deserve to be there? I hate them, but they won there league and the country is in Europe, therefore they deserve to play in the European Champions League. Hardly a big achievement having to win a two-horse race year-in, year-out in a mini-league of twelve teams. The Scottish Premier has become boring and repetitious as fvck. Aberdeen were the last club outside of Glasgow to win it - and that was 26 years ago!!! Seriously, someone invest in another club up there and come up with some good competition.
davieG Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 Hardly a big achievement having to win a two-horse race year-in, year-out in a mini-league of twelve teams. The Scottish Premier has become boring and repetitious as fvck. Aberdeen were the last club outside of Glasgow to win it - and that was 26 years ago!!! Seriously, someone invest in another club up there and come up with some good competition. And the Premier League is what, a 3/4 horse race with nearly 20 teams, only 4 teams have won the league since it became the Premier League in '92 - Blackburn (1), Chelsea (3), Arsenal (3) and Man U (12) hardly a bastion of open competition. Of course massively sustained by the money received from the Champions League, somewhat like Celtic and Rangers.
MC Prussian Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 And the Premier League is what, a 3/4 horse race with nearly 20 teams, only 4 teams have won the league since it became the Premier League in '92 - Blackburn (1), Chelsea (3), Arsenal (3) and Man U (12) hardly a bastion of open competition. Of course massively sustained by the money received from the Champions League, somewhat like Celtic and Rangers. I wasn't drawing any comparisons to the PL. But of course, you're right about the four-horse race. Yet the general standard of play in the Scottish Premier is rather poor, and here I'm comparing it to the Championship, probably the most competitive 2nd tier in the World. You have to be up for it for 46+ games each season and the competition is much tougher. Which in turn, makes it more exciting for the neutral (but much more nerve-racking for each team's set of fans ). There's much more money involved generally - it's not just spread over two, three clubs like in Scotland. Rangers and Celtic fans have been spoilt by their team's successes in the past, but from an outside point of view, having a 50% chance of winning it (based on the results from the past 25 years) is just unreal. Much like a football duopoly. This can't be the future of football. And four out of twenty is still better odds for the teams involved than 2 out of 12. Besides, there's a couple of teams in the Premier League that show glimpses of hope that the four-team barrier can be broken (Tottenham, Manchester City).
Christoph Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 And the Premier League is what, a 3/4 horse race with nearly 20 teams, only 4 teams have won the league since it became the Premier League in '92 - Blackburn (1), Chelsea (3), Arsenal (3) and Man U (12) hardly a bastion of open competition. Of course massively sustained by the money received from the Champions League, somewhat like Celtic and Rangers. The main difference is though is that there are other teams who at times look like they have just as good a chance of getting close like tottenham and liverpool. Plus if you look at the SPL compared to the prem there isnt such a massive gap in points between the top 2 and the rest. Same with the spanish league though maybe thats because Real madrid and Barca are just soo good though
Guest Bilo Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 It's not even about winning it in the short term. There are plenty of very wealthy teams with players on good wages who aren't anywhere near the top four. Mid-table clubs like Sunderland can bring in £11m players for example. I don't think the Old Firm can realistically match that, or indeed pay their wages of that type of player. Hence the reason Celtic ended up going for Kris Commons rather than competing with top Premiership teams for bigger names. They're both massive clubs, and I'd rate both of them among the top five or six British clubs in terms of their size, but they're hamstrung by being in the SPL.
Houdini Logic Posted 29 June 2011 Posted 29 June 2011 Hardly a big achievement having to win a two-horse race year-in, year-out in a mini-league of twelve teams. More like two shetland ponies competing against ten guinea pigs
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.