UEFA Champions League: Echiejile happy to go past Arsenal

Elderson Echiejile

Super Eagles and Monaco of France defender, Elderson Echiejile, has expressed great joy over his team’s qualification for the quarter finals of the UEFA Champions League ahead of EPL giants Arsenal.

Echiejile, who was omitted in the roster of players invited for the two friendly games ahead of the Super Eagles, came in as a late substitute as Monaco eliminated Arsenal from this season’s Champions League on the away goals rule on Tuesday night.

The Nigerian defender was an 86th minute replacement for Tunisia’s Nabil Dirar as Monaco slumped 2-0 at home after they won 3-1 at Arsenal last month.

Olivier Giroud and Aaron Ramsey did score for the Gunners but their effort was not enough to see the London club through.

“For us it was important to make it through to the next round. It’s now time to get focused on other task ahead”.
“Great qualification looking ahead to the next round,” an excited Echiejile who is the last Nigerian standing in the prestigious club competition wrote on his twitter handle @EldersonEch.

Aside Monaco, Spanish side, Atletico Madrid, on Tuesday night also joined the quartet of FC Bayern München, FC Porto, Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid CF on the list of teams already through to the quarter finals of the Champions League.

Two more teams are expected to emerge later tonight to complete the roster for the quarterfinals while the draws will be held on Friday.


DOWNLOAD THE PREMIUM TIMES MOBILE APP

Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: Revealed!!! The Only Way Left of Getting an Extra Large Manhood and also Last Up to 38Mins+. Get the Insider Secret Here


TEXT AD: This NAFDAC APPROVED Solution Will Make You Stay Longer Than 40Mins In Bed Tonight And Help Your Erection. Click Here To Read The Free Reports


All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.


  • Sanmi Falae

    Professor, you are wrong. Perhaps it is for the very reason that people would not say ” Osinbajo says Nigeria is indissoluble” that he called a meeting of all the state governors to canvass their opinion on the issue. This means in simple logic that what Mr Osinbajo said in the aftermath of the meeting was a unanimous decision and consensus of all of Nigeria’s thirty six (36) governors. In other words, contrary to what you are saying, it was not Mr Osinbajo UNILATERALLY proclaiming that ‘Nigeria is indissoluble’ but Nigeria’s leaders MULTI-LATERALLY making that assertion.

  • Remi

    Constitutionally speaking, Osinbajo is correct; however,
    realistically speaking, he is wrong. No country has an inalienable right to
    perpetual existence. A country’s right
    to exist is guaranteed only to the extent that
    such country meets the needs of
    her people. The moment a country fails to meet the aspirations of her peoples, then it forfeits the right to exist. Subsequently,
    it’s stakeholders should either re-jig the system ore agree to an amicable separation.

    While it is true that we had been re-structuring since 1914,
    however, it is also true that we had
    always been doing so, for the wrong, or indiscernible, reasons. First off, the
    creation of the structure called Nigeria was
    done to serve the ends of imperialist expansion and economic
    exploitation and never to serve the ends of nationhood. Though, she was referred to as a country at
    birth, but in reality, Nigeria was no more than an exploitation area and an
    outpost for the projection, and showcasing, of imperial power. As the author
    rightly pointed out, the re-structuring of 1914 a.k.a. amalgamation, was purely
    an imperial bookkeeping necessity; because,
    as far as the colonialists were concerned, the political structures they had
    created was working fine for them. The next major re-structuring of 1963, was carried out by a vengeful
    NPC-NCNC federal coalition government to split the stronghold of the
    opposition, AG, and weaken them. However, this re-structuring stands out, among
    others because, though the stakeholders
    never requested for it, they were nevertheless, formally consulted about it –
    being the only time that stakeholders were ever consulted – prior to the
    conduct of such exercise. The next political re-structuring in 1967 was carried
    out to sabotage a secession. While it
    could be argued that subsequent re-structuring exercises – in 1986, 1991, 1995
    – were carried out in response to
    “popular demand”, however, stakeholders
    were never consulted prior to the exercises and ultimate responsibility for these exercises rested with the military
    juntas , who alone could explain the arcane logic behind some of their creations.

    Evidently, economic viability had never been a serious consideration in all our re-structuring efforts, over the
    years. Hence, today we have so many
    economically unviable “federating units” , who depend on the central government
    to survive, thus defeating the whole essence of federalism.

    • Chym

      Nice one

      • Remi

        Thanks Chym.
        Cheers

  • Jibrin Ibrahim

    Sanni, actually he was quoting what is already in the Constitution. What I tried to do is to reflect on the assertion by showing stresses that are real and have persisted for long but also to make the argument Remi makes that any country can break up. The important issue is to pursue policies and processes that encourage unity and cohesiveness.