Ian - 8
John - 5
Stephen - 5
League Standings
|
|
|
Pts
|
|
1
|
Stephen
|
220
|
|
2
|
John
|
213
|
|
3
|
Ian
|
213
|
|
4
|
Sam
|
202
|
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Prediction Results Week 34
Sam - 10
Ian - 8
John - 5
Stephen - 5
League Standings
Ian - 8
John - 5
Stephen - 5
League Standings
Prediction Results Week 33
John - 10
Stephen - 8
Ian - 8
Sam - 5
League Standings
Stephen - 8
Ian - 8
Sam - 5
League Standings
|
|
|
Pts
|
|
1
|
Stephen
|
215
|
|
2
|
John
|
208
|
|
3
|
Ian
|
205
|
|
4
|
Sam
|
192
|
Monday, 15 April 2013
Prediction Results Week 32
Stephen - 10
Sam - 5
John - 4
Ian - 2
League Standings:
Sam - 5
John - 4
Ian - 2
League Standings:
Pts
|
||
1
|
Stephen
|
207
|
2
|
John
|
198
|
3
|
Ian
|
197
|
4
|
Sam
|
187
|
Thursday, 4 April 2013
The Super League or Selling their soul?
Football is 100% unashamedly a business. It’s all about money, making money, and subsequent success. Some are getting to the point now where they can be no bigger in their home countries. Meanwhile, across the world there is an increasing interest in football, particularly in the middle and far East. So what’s the answer for clubs who are stuck in their domestic-goldfish bowl? To think even bigger. John Lavery investigates…
In the news recently there was a story running about the Qatar royal family starting up a Super League where they will pay the best teams in the world £175 Million just for participating. This is more than three times what any premier league club will be given even after the £3bn TV deal that’s coming into effect next season. It sounded too good to be true, and like most things of this nature it turned out to be a hoax. Hoax or not, it isn’t the first time something like this has been suggested.
In the past we’ve had the UEFA peddled European Super League where the powers that be proposed to turn the Champions League into some sort of weird, bastard love child of its predecessor. It would be run like a travelling circus, with a group of games in a certain country. There are persistent rumours from Saudi Royal Family, Dubai business man or Russian Oligarchs who are looking to plough millions of pounds worth of the local currency into a league to put their country on the world football stage. The list goes on, this idea isn’t new and amongst all the hoax and media scaremongering there must be an element of truth embedded in this somewhere.
The idea itself appears on every level to be mental. But what if the idea was put forward as a serious proposition? How many clubs would actually go for it if offered the opportunity? Money being a huge carrot-on-a-stick for the top clubs across the world, it’s likely that many wouldn’t be averse to the idea. Their first response would probably be to say something along the lines of “Go on… I’m listening.”
Even footballs biggest teams in the form of Rangers and AC Milan are not immune to the crippling effects of mishandling finances, as the events of the past couple of years have shown. £175 million would look like a very attractive proposition for a team in financial difficulties. Manchester United and Liverpool have massive amounts of debt and world wide support so what would be different for them if they saw leaving these shores to make more money. You just need to look at the clubs in Spain on the brink of administration to see they would be interested - Deportivo, Valencia, Real Betis to name a few teeter on the verge of administration or bankruptcy, but the list goes on.
The more people start seeing football as a business the more people will want to generate more money out of it and the less sustainable football will be if they don’t try and expand its market to the countries with vast sums of wealth. You could also imagine the clubs such as Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain who are Middle East owned would want to participate because of the owners’ ties with the area. They would see it as an opportunity to bring the game “back home.”
The trouble with leaving your native league is you lose all roots and history you have created. For example would it still be ok to say that Manchester United have won nineteen titles and Liverpool have won eighteen titles when they are playing in a totally different league? Cross-border leagues could be the future for European competition if done correctly. Putting all the best teams in the world together in one super league will cause all history to be thrown out the window and turn all the great clubs into Team A, Team B etc. So surely if they wanted to watch the best teams in the world play in their back garden then why don’t they just make a new league? This would enable teams to buy the best players in the world because as we have found with Manchester City and PSG, most players can be lured anywhere for vast amounts of cash.
What teams would be targeted to participate in the Super league? Would it be just the teams at the top of their league or would it be teams with a lot of history? For example right now Inter Milan are in sixth position so would they be picked over Fiorentina who are in fourth? If you look at the English League assuming Manchester United are picked would the other participants be Manchester City, Tottenham and Chelsea. Would they be picked ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool even though traditionally Arsenal and Liverpool are the more successful clubs? Then there’s Rangers and Celtic - two massive clubs who have world wide support and a global profile but Celtic sit top of the SPL and Rangers are currently top of division three. Essentially it boils down to whether you want the team, or the brand.
This idea of a super league is massively flawed and would never work, the conditions for entry are blurred, a team would lose all of their identity if they entered and would just be called team A or B. The rewards are there in the form of vast amounts of wealth but you would incur a deep cultural and historical loss that not even £175 million can purchase. You would have to think that after the initial season of the Super league people would just return to their native leagues anyway to watch the clubs they support, or you would like to think so or would these people when viewing figures got low would they then buy fans. What about fan power? Would they have a real say? Could we eventually be in a position where money has 100% of the say all the time in football, where managers, players and fans are irrelevant? Or do we already have this. You don’t have to cast your minds that far back to find situations where fans were ignored. The renaming of St James park is a very recent episode in this particular drama. So all be it this story was a hoax but I don’t think we will see the last of it. You just have to look at the IPL in cricket to see what effect that has had on the domestic game. Money talks and the business model of football will surely be listening to everything it has to say.
~John Robert Lavery
In the news recently there was a story running about the Qatar royal family starting up a Super League where they will pay the best teams in the world £175 Million just for participating. This is more than three times what any premier league club will be given even after the £3bn TV deal that’s coming into effect next season. It sounded too good to be true, and like most things of this nature it turned out to be a hoax. Hoax or not, it isn’t the first time something like this has been suggested.
In the past we’ve had the UEFA peddled European Super League where the powers that be proposed to turn the Champions League into some sort of weird, bastard love child of its predecessor. It would be run like a travelling circus, with a group of games in a certain country. There are persistent rumours from Saudi Royal Family, Dubai business man or Russian Oligarchs who are looking to plough millions of pounds worth of the local currency into a league to put their country on the world football stage. The list goes on, this idea isn’t new and amongst all the hoax and media scaremongering there must be an element of truth embedded in this somewhere.
The idea itself appears on every level to be mental. But what if the idea was put forward as a serious proposition? How many clubs would actually go for it if offered the opportunity? Money being a huge carrot-on-a-stick for the top clubs across the world, it’s likely that many wouldn’t be averse to the idea. Their first response would probably be to say something along the lines of “Go on… I’m listening.”
Even footballs biggest teams in the form of Rangers and AC Milan are not immune to the crippling effects of mishandling finances, as the events of the past couple of years have shown. £175 million would look like a very attractive proposition for a team in financial difficulties. Manchester United and Liverpool have massive amounts of debt and world wide support so what would be different for them if they saw leaving these shores to make more money. You just need to look at the clubs in Spain on the brink of administration to see they would be interested - Deportivo, Valencia, Real Betis to name a few teeter on the verge of administration or bankruptcy, but the list goes on.
The more people start seeing football as a business the more people will want to generate more money out of it and the less sustainable football will be if they don’t try and expand its market to the countries with vast sums of wealth. You could also imagine the clubs such as Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain who are Middle East owned would want to participate because of the owners’ ties with the area. They would see it as an opportunity to bring the game “back home.”
The trouble with leaving your native league is you lose all roots and history you have created. For example would it still be ok to say that Manchester United have won nineteen titles and Liverpool have won eighteen titles when they are playing in a totally different league? Cross-border leagues could be the future for European competition if done correctly. Putting all the best teams in the world together in one super league will cause all history to be thrown out the window and turn all the great clubs into Team A, Team B etc. So surely if they wanted to watch the best teams in the world play in their back garden then why don’t they just make a new league? This would enable teams to buy the best players in the world because as we have found with Manchester City and PSG, most players can be lured anywhere for vast amounts of cash.
What teams would be targeted to participate in the Super league? Would it be just the teams at the top of their league or would it be teams with a lot of history? For example right now Inter Milan are in sixth position so would they be picked over Fiorentina who are in fourth? If you look at the English League assuming Manchester United are picked would the other participants be Manchester City, Tottenham and Chelsea. Would they be picked ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool even though traditionally Arsenal and Liverpool are the more successful clubs? Then there’s Rangers and Celtic - two massive clubs who have world wide support and a global profile but Celtic sit top of the SPL and Rangers are currently top of division three. Essentially it boils down to whether you want the team, or the brand.
This idea of a super league is massively flawed and would never work, the conditions for entry are blurred, a team would lose all of their identity if they entered and would just be called team A or B. The rewards are there in the form of vast amounts of wealth but you would incur a deep cultural and historical loss that not even £175 million can purchase. You would have to think that after the initial season of the Super league people would just return to their native leagues anyway to watch the clubs they support, or you would like to think so or would these people when viewing figures got low would they then buy fans. What about fan power? Would they have a real say? Could we eventually be in a position where money has 100% of the say all the time in football, where managers, players and fans are irrelevant? Or do we already have this. You don’t have to cast your minds that far back to find situations where fans were ignored. The renaming of St James park is a very recent episode in this particular drama. So all be it this story was a hoax but I don’t think we will see the last of it. You just have to look at the IPL in cricket to see what effect that has had on the domestic game. Money talks and the business model of football will surely be listening to everything it has to say.
~John Robert Lavery
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Politics, Money, Football
What makes a good football manager? Martin O’Neill’s appointment seemed to tick all the boxes at Sunderland. He had been successful at Villa, Leicester and Celtic, with a clearly defined style of play and a management style that suited the majority of players. People throughout the game respected him, he was the fans’choice, and of course he supports the Black Cats.
Things went wrong. Vast amounts of money were spent on players, some of whom haven’t delivered. The tactics smacked of someone who was set in his ways, unwilling to adapt to the changing flow of the game (for a familiar tale, see Bruce, S. 2008-2011).
But why did it go wrong? It speaks volumes about the man that he still had the support of most Sunderland fans, and it was perceived in the media that his sacking was harsh. This isn’t a view that would have been bestowed upon many football managers. However the harsh truth is that O’Neill, judging by previous precedent deserved to get the sack.
Because the only thing that makes a good manager is results. This season, for Sunderland they haven’t been anywhere near good enough. There was always the feeling of being one or two results away from disaster, and it has come to pass.
There probably couldn't have been any more polarising appointment than that of Paolo Di Canio. Firstly, he’s a manager with little experience – 18 months or so at Swindon in League One and Two is all he has to refer to. His time there was a success, but he was given a large amount of money to spend, a la Keane in 2006-2007. He’s volatile, speaks his mind and incredibly, overtly passionate. The final point is certainly something that could work for or against him.
Some will (and have) said that they can no longer back a club that employs a man who has made comments about fascism in the past. Whatever he says about it being misquoted you cannot misquote the picture that earned him a fine and a ban following a Lazio match.
However some will say that it's the club that matters, and the fans who define who we are. As after all they are the ones that will be around long after staff, owners and managers have occupied various positions within the club.
If Paolo Di Canio was a BNP supporter, would Sunderland fans who have backed the new manager feel the same? Would they be outraged, disgusted and refuse to return in the future? And if Alan Shearer or Lee Clark was appointed, would they think similar? So what's the difference here? It's the weird, illogical moral compass that many football fans will live by. I can't explain it, there is no way of squaring off the circle that many Sunderland fans are no doubt battling with. Personally, I've just chosen to accept it and concentrate on the football and let others discuss the issue further.
Margaret Byrne's comments saying that to say he was a fascist was insulting are ridiculous. That's just complete blindness on the part of the club and it makes her, and Sunderland, look pretty stupid. It’s debateable whether anyone actually looked up his political persuasions before appointing him. If he was a teacher, a lawyer, a police officer, he would never have got the job. Not so in football, because all that matters is the business, the profitability and the money – and Ellis Short clearly believes that Di Canio is the best person to bring success to the club. One thing’s for sure – it’s a massive gamble.
~Ian Bendelow
Things went wrong. Vast amounts of money were spent on players, some of whom haven’t delivered. The tactics smacked of someone who was set in his ways, unwilling to adapt to the changing flow of the game (for a familiar tale, see Bruce, S. 2008-2011).
But why did it go wrong? It speaks volumes about the man that he still had the support of most Sunderland fans, and it was perceived in the media that his sacking was harsh. This isn’t a view that would have been bestowed upon many football managers. However the harsh truth is that O’Neill, judging by previous precedent deserved to get the sack.
Because the only thing that makes a good manager is results. This season, for Sunderland they haven’t been anywhere near good enough. There was always the feeling of being one or two results away from disaster, and it has come to pass.
There probably couldn't have been any more polarising appointment than that of Paolo Di Canio. Firstly, he’s a manager with little experience – 18 months or so at Swindon in League One and Two is all he has to refer to. His time there was a success, but he was given a large amount of money to spend, a la Keane in 2006-2007. He’s volatile, speaks his mind and incredibly, overtly passionate. The final point is certainly something that could work for or against him.
Some will (and have) said that they can no longer back a club that employs a man who has made comments about fascism in the past. Whatever he says about it being misquoted you cannot misquote the picture that earned him a fine and a ban following a Lazio match.
However some will say that it's the club that matters, and the fans who define who we are. As after all they are the ones that will be around long after staff, owners and managers have occupied various positions within the club.
If Paolo Di Canio was a BNP supporter, would Sunderland fans who have backed the new manager feel the same? Would they be outraged, disgusted and refuse to return in the future? And if Alan Shearer or Lee Clark was appointed, would they think similar? So what's the difference here? It's the weird, illogical moral compass that many football fans will live by. I can't explain it, there is no way of squaring off the circle that many Sunderland fans are no doubt battling with. Personally, I've just chosen to accept it and concentrate on the football and let others discuss the issue further.
Margaret Byrne's comments saying that to say he was a fascist was insulting are ridiculous. That's just complete blindness on the part of the club and it makes her, and Sunderland, look pretty stupid. It’s debateable whether anyone actually looked up his political persuasions before appointing him. If he was a teacher, a lawyer, a police officer, he would never have got the job. Not so in football, because all that matters is the business, the profitability and the money – and Ellis Short clearly believes that Di Canio is the best person to bring success to the club. One thing’s for sure – it’s a massive gamble.
~Ian Bendelow
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Prediction Results Week 31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)