Crossing The Line

What’s your defining memory of the 2010 World Cup? The only truly great game of the tournament being a completely dead heat between Uruguay and Germany? The balls on Asamoah Gyan to step up and score the first penalty of a shoot-out after missing a last minute spot-kick which would have seen the first African side reach the World Cup semi-finals ever? Ummmmm, that’s about it, can’t really think of many others, wasn’t exactly a classic tournament.

FIFA’s defining memory of it was the realisation that goal-line technology must happen immediately after the Frank Lampard ‘goal’ debacle (in the game where The Sun was convinced England would have gone on to win, despite the fact they were beaten by a team consisting of a bunch of kids and Per Mertesacker).

Anywho, last month, FIFA invited any company who wished to try their hand at the Holy Grail of goal-line technology in football and last week, the trials took place. Unsurprisingly, every single company failed to meet the criteria set by FIFA.

The criteria were two fold; firstly, to be 100% accurate and secondly, to be capable of informing the match officials within one second of the event happening. To be completed in a month. Tough task. Furthermore, the tests were hardly realistic as they were conducted in an empty stadium, so no mobile phone interference and crowd noise, and on an artificial pitch. Little wonder the company most advanced in this form of technology, Hawk-Eye who has conducted extensive stadium testing at Reading, chose to sit this trial out.

Still, FIFA would be nowhere if it didn’t plough on with its agenda regardless of public opinion and facts, so the next stage of the process will be goal-line technology being discussed at the meeting of the International Football Association Board at Celtic Manor next week. Incidentally, check out the agenda for this meeting just to confirm your faith that FIFA is tackling the real issues in modern football, such as the shape of the goalposts, how far advertising hoardings can be from the pitch and snoods, inspiring stuff that must take place at a luxury hotel and golf course, I’m sure you will agree; (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/ifab/01/37/65/97/fifa_v03_small.pdf)

But let’s not make this into an anti-FIFA rant; it’s been done before and the argument for goal-line technology being placed in football is pretty indisputable these days. The fact that technology has been used so successfully in so many other sports kills the debate stone-dead; a points decision in favour of technology.

However, technology could well ruin a fundamental pillar of the popularity of sport, the fact that in pure rules terms, it is the only sport in the world that is played exactly the same at the highest level as it is at the lowest level. Fernando Torres plays by the same rules on the Saturday afternoon at Stamford Bridge as Big Dave does on the Sunday morning on Hackney Marshes. Same pitch dimensions, same number of players, same goal sizes and so on.

The costs of goal-line technology mean that there will inevitably be a level of the football pyramid where the implementation of technology has to stop. Incidentally if FIFA made it in to law by the way, would they pay for the costs of installing it at the relevant levels? Or would it be left to clubs to foot the bill?

This would inevitably break the one remaining link from the very top of football to the very bottom that has been steadily eroded since professionalism emerged in football; the beautiful last remaining linkage between Fernando Torres and Big Dave would be gone and football would be a much less wonderful sport for it, though a loss of beauty and innocence is the price often paid for progress

This article was written for Football Friends Magazine, who's website is http://www.footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/.

A Third of the Season Left to go but it’s Already Over

There are still twelve games left to play in the League this season. We are only six points off the play-off places. We have only got three games remaining against teams currently in the top half of the table. It might happen, you never know.

Well, it's not going to happen. It just isn't. There is no chance of Reading making the play-offs this year as we have drawn way too many games when a win was what was needed and, as has been proven against the top sides, we just aren't quite good enough.*

However, that is not to say this season has not been a success. At the start of the season, following the sale of Gylfi Sigurdsson and with some very little of the money being reinvested, I felt a good season would be survival, a great season would be a top half finish, both of which we are on course for. Furthermore, we are still in the FA Cup (but only if you are reading this before Tuesday at 10pm or are reading this in January 2012).

But,throughout the season, we have always been there or thereabouts when it comes to the play-off positions but since the New Year we have just been slowly slipping away, dropping points here and there whilst the top teams steadily accumulate points and cement their top 6 finishes.

At times this, year we have looked as good as anyone with a strong attacking three of Shane Long, Jimmy Kebe and Jobi McAnuff, backed up by an industrious centre midfield, a solid if not particularly pacey defence and a above average goalkeeper. That said, we have also looked, at other times, toothless up front, powderpuff and uncreative in centre midfield, dodgy at the back and a distinctly average keeper.

Mikele Leigertwood has made a huge difference in strengthening the midfield but the lack of goal threat up top, aside from Long, has been our undoing, leaving us unable to convert draws into wins in games we should be winning. Plus, the same problem we have had for our three previous seasons at this level, if teams double up on our wingers, we are effectively neutered.

It's a bit of a shame that, with still 36 points to play for, our season looks to be petering out but there we go. With a strong spine of the team, making the loan signing of Leigertwood permanent and some youngsters getting some experience, but more importantly, keeping our key players from this season, we could mount a challenge for the play-offs next year. All big ifs though. As the voicemail from the Chairman used to say on Ultimate Soccer Manager 98 "On to next season," though that was always said on the last day of the season…

*Though I'd love to be proved wrong on this and we make a big push for the play off places.   

Five Things We Learned From England VS India

Well, that was bloody tense wasn't it? The first classic match of the tournament, so what have we learnt from it?

1. Andrew Strauss is by far and away England's most complete batsman

Captain Inspiration in Tests is now Captain Inspiration in ODIs, with probably the best innings played by an Englishman at a World Cup, becoming the first England captain to score a century at a World Cup in the process. His innings was the perfect combination of aggression and circumspection, knowing exactly when to accelerate, when to hold back; when to get carried away and when to pull oneself back in. He has already scored more runs in two innings than in his entire 2007 World Cup and while his captaincy in this format still leaves a bit to the imagination, his form, more than anyone's, will determine how well England do in this tournament.

2. This England team has character

We already knew this but it's worth repeating, this team has cojones. Bouncing back from a poor all-round team performance against the Netherlands last week, and all the associated flak that comes with it, losing your best pace bowler on the morning of the game, getting pasted around the ground for 45 overs (the last five overs of the Indian innings we can ignore) and then every single batsmen putting his hand up (give or take) shows this England team has something no other English ODI team has had for a very long; bottle and plenty of it.

3. England's bowling still leaves a lot to be desired

Yes, Stuart Broad was missing and yes, Tim Bresnan took a five-for but this was still a pretty poor bowling performance from England. All but one bowler going for more than 6.40 an over shows a serious lack of control from England's bowling and a definite lack of personnel (apart from Bresnan) for Strauss to turn to when run stemming is needed. Michael Yardy certainly isn't the answer to the second spinner question, Swann's lack of threat and/or ability to keep an end quiet on sub-continental tracks is a concern and Jimmy Anderson's form must be worrying England's management. But, that said…

4. Indian bowlers weren't much cop either

Whilst there were no terrible performances from the Indian bowlers, their own economy rates were nothing stand-out terrible but outside of a brief period where Harbhajan Singh and Piyush Chawla strangled the life out of Strauss and Ian Bell and Zaheer Khan's late flurry, the lack of threat from the Indian bowlers was palpable, allowing Strauss and Bell to accumulate at a fair lick with no real pace and allowing the England tail to finish (sort of) the job. Perhaps it was quite a dead pitch, explaining both bowling performances, but time will tell whether the lack of real, express pace for both sides will prove an issue.

5. We were looking at two semi-finalists

We kind of knew this already but today's game showed the qualities, and indeed the flaws, of these two teams. Both sides have very strong batting line ups, capable of batting any bowling attack out of a game. India's bowling is better than England's, although still lacking a X factor, but England field more intensely (at times!) and more bottle but also the historical weight of failure. What is clear is that of the matches seen so far, this featured two of the favourites and on today's evidence, rightly so.

Five Things We Learned From England Vs The Netherlands

1. Graeme Swann is by far our best bowler

Taking two wickets and going at a measly 3.5 runs an over after flying halfway around the world following the birth of your first child. All in a day (or so) work for England's premier spin bowler. We all knew he would be our best bowling option in this sub-continental World Cup but how much daylight there was between him and the rest was something of a surprise. Not only did he keep things quiet, he took the wickets of a set batsmen (Borren) and a dangerous one (Zuiderent) and should have cut short ten Doeschate's stay at the crease but for some calamitous fielding (more on which later). However, it must be remembered, we were playing the Netherlands.


2. England were due an off day

After the near faultless display of fielding in the Ashes series, where pretty much every chance offered was pouched, England were due an off day in the field, and boy what an off day. Anderson and Pietersen's hysterical-if-it-wasn't-so-tragic lack of communication, the numerous dropped catches and the pièce de résistance, having a wicket struck off as there were only three fielders inside the circle at the time of the ball being delivered, only for the same thing to happen again a few balls later. Let's hope that this was just an off day and not something more serious, not that the two Andys would allow such a drop in standards.


3. England's batsmen look in good shape

Every batsmen getting at least 30 should be cause for celebration as does capturing the third highest successful run chase in World Cup history. Strauss and Trott starred with some very impressive finishing work from Collingwood and Bopara, both of whom were in need of knocks. Hopefully these scores can be converted into 50s and 100s in the rest of the tournament although, it is worth repeating, we were playing the Netherlands.


4. England should have brought a second spinner of quality

Yes yes, we did bring Michael Yardy and James Tredwell but come on. Yardy, who is one of our most important players in T20, does not have the same wicket-taking and run-smothering impact in the 50-over game and Tredwell has very little experience at this level and spins the ball the same way as Swann. It couldn't have hurt to bring Monty Panesar or Adil Rashid along instead of Tredwell as other options, with Panesar's experience in the sub-continent and Rashid's batting ability both bringing something else to the table. Perhaps their fielding counted against them but they probably would have got the dolly Swann put down.


5. Losing the Associate Nations will be something of a travesty

The best World Cup memories this century have been of the Assoicate nations; Kenya reaching the semi-finals in 2003, Ireland beating Pakistan on St Patrick's Day and reaching the Super Eights in 2007. But the ICC has deemed these nations surplus to requirements from the next World Cup in 2015 which is a great shame. There are often some embarrassingly one-sided games, such as Kenya Vs New Zealand the other day, but there are some stormers such as England Vs the Netherlands. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh started out as Associate nations and became Test playing nations through the experiences of high-class 50-over games. With Associate nations only being allowed to play top-class 20-over games from now on, where is the incentive for growth into the other formats of the game, to diversify Test match cricket to new outposts.

What Exactly is Administration?

Plymouth look set to become the 25^th club in the top four tiers of English football to enter administration this century, probably not the most fun trend to come out of football in the 2000s, I'd give that accolade to rumblesticks but there we go.

Anywho, as a result, the term 'administration' has been bandied about so much that it's the meaning of administration have become just a little lost, a bit like the phrase "I did not see the incident". So, just what exactly is administration and what are the effects it has on football and the community?

First of all, let's explore the boring legal bit. Businesses that are taken to court (usually by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) and are defined 'insolvent' if they meet one of the following two conditions; it is proven to the court that the company cannot pay back its debts on time OR that it is proven to the court that the company's debts outweigh the overall value of the company's assets.

If the company is declared insolvent, an administrator is put in charge of the entire business to attempt to facilitate a sale and to provide the creditors with their money, who are often given a lot less than the money they are earned. Administration also prevents a winding up order being issued.

To put this in a football context, a football club will bring in an administrator, usually an accountant, to do all in his power to service the debt and find a buyer, essentially taking over the entire non-playing side of the club. This buys the club time from being wound up by HMRC as the worst thing that can happen in this situation is a community losing its football club.

However, the local community also suffers a blow due to administration. The creditors of a football club are a pretty ragtag bunch. In this bracket, you will have other football clubs awaiting money from transfers, players and coaching staff with their wages to be paid, stewarding, transport and catering companies for their services and various other small, local businesses such as builders or electricians.

Due to the Football Creditors rule, the first creditors to be paid, in full, are other clubs and playing staff whilst HMRC and other creditors do not have to be paid the full amount, often getting a couple of pennies for every pound that they are owed.

Whilst this is good for preventing a domino-effect where one club's failure to pay another club will result in the latter going out of business too, the negative effects are two-fold. Firstly, HMRC has an estimated outstanding £30 million tax bill over the last 7 years solely from football clubs meaning the taxpayer is losing out. Due to this, HMRC is fighting the Football Creditors rule. Secondly, local businesses lose out as they are not paid the full amount they are owed by clubs, potentially damaging their own business's long term stability.

From a fan's point of view, administration is bad news. In an attempt to prevent football clubs using administration as an easy escape clause from debt, by paying a fraction of their debt and then to start borrowing again, the Football League (and later the Premier League) introduced a points penalty to make administration a last resort. As the problem of debt will have been attempted to be serviced early by a club selling its best players, with poor performance in the league often following, which when compounded by a points deduction, relegation may well follow (Portsmouth, Stockport County, Leeds, Luton, Bournemouth to name but five examples), leading to a lower standard of football for fans.

Over the last 10 years, an unprecedented number of football clubs have entered administration. In contrast, just three clubs were declared insolvent from 1985 to 2000, two of whom were liquidated. However, whilst more often than not clubs do not go out of business, Chester and Halifax are rare examples; the effect of clubs entering administration has impacted way beyond the realms of football and into local communities as football clubs are big players in local economies.



This post also appeared on the online football magazine, http://www.footballfriendsonline.com

The Price of Being a Promising Youngster

Earlier this week, the Premier League (that well-renowned beacon for fairness and equality only matched by the Soviet Union under Stalin) actually outlined plans that were for the benefit of not themselves, although they would get some of the riches from it, but for the betterment of English football.

Their proposals were to revolutionise the way academies and youth development are run in England with the aim to bring through better quality young players and more of them by allowing coaches to spend more time with promising youngsters like systems across Europe.

The new regulations involve scrapping the current rules that all clubs can only recruit young players into their academies that are within 90-minutes travelling time from the club and developing residential centres for the youth squads at training grounds, similar to the Clarefontaine facility in France, only at club level.

Naturally, this is a good idea, more coaching time means better technical quality of players at youth levels and more time spent with players of their own age, even living together, boosts team spirit and younger players become accustomed to how their teammates play, similar to the legendary La Masia academy at Barcelona.

However, here is the kicker, the new system would impose a Grade system on youth academies across the 92 professional clubs in the top four divisions, ranging from a grade one to grade three and the fear is that only the very top clubs will have the finances to run a grade one facility as its costs are estimated at £2.5 million a year. Obviously, in theory, this works as the best teams should have the best youngsters as they will then have access to the best coaches, but, the grade one academies will be able to pick up promising players from the age of 9 whereas grades two and three will have to wait until a player is 12 before they can sign them up.

Greg Clarke, the Football Chairman, has warned that this system will lead to children being "sacrificed on the altar of football efficiency" as children who are deemed to be not good enough will have been in the system for so long and trained so extensively they will not have had experience of any other life. Thus, they go into the real world of work with no prospects and no qualifications and no real idea of how to cope. The pressure on them to make it would be unimaginable.

Furthermore, Clarke has warned that the new system would lead to up to 40 football league clubs closing their academies as they will not be able to attract good enough young players (as they will all be snapped up by the heady lights of London, Manchester and Liverpool at the age of 9) and therefore the academies will not be sustainable and not be able to justify the funding that lower league clubs give to their academies. A problem Clarke has warned will destroy lower league football.

I for one, am much prouder of the fact that our league system can support 92 professional football clubs, unlike systems in other countries which these plans are based on, rather than a successful national team, but if the Premier League can dress up these proposals in the wrapping that they will improve the national side, it may well win them public approval.

However, the impact that these proposals have, particularly in terms of the affect on talented young football players, need to be seriously considered. Perhaps a system whereby promising youngsters are not only given football coaching, but proper education may well be a solution but don't count on that being considered as it will cost clubs a bundle to fund and as Lord Triesman pointed out last week, the FA is pretty much a toothless institution these days.

Or even promoting a similar system to the Glenn Hoddle soccer school out in Spain where cast off youngsters are given a second chance to make it in the game by being offered contracts at this club and attempting to impress league clubs. Even a case of if a young player is deemed not good enough by a top club at the age of 16, allowing him to move on for free to his hometown club as he would have still had the benefit of all the best coaching from a grade one facility, but lower league clubs would also benefit from the best coaching, even if they do not have the best facilities.

But, with the power of the Premier League so huge, settle in for the slow death of lower league football and youngsters flowering at their hometown clubs once these proposals are inevitably approved.

A History of Ancient Britain- @9pm, Wednesdays BBC2- 9 out of 10

There appears to be something of a checklist when it comes to history programmes these days that producers, directors and narrators all seek to adhere to when making these shows, like a shopping list for scene setting.

For example, a host must talk to the camera whilst walking forward in a busy high street, talk to the camera in a library or lab or museum, take on some bizarre quasi-hardman challenges such as abseiling down a cliff face or walking in some heavy snow or living 24 hours in a Mesolithic lifestyle to prove how rugged he is and there must be long establishing shots from helicopter over a rocky outcrop of land or lots of field and the host must talk about our ancestors hard lives whilst the camera pans over people in a high street for some low level contrast and so on.

However, just because something is clichéd doesn't mean to say that it isn't very good, just take a look at the Rocky movies.

Bad example perhaps. But the fact is A History of Britain is rather good.

Hosted by Neil Oliver, a member of the more rugged band of historians with his Scottish accent and long hair, the show traces the period of British history that is perhaps the most mysterious, Ancient Britain. The first show deals with Britain from around 500,000 years ago to around 8,000 years ago, encompassing the Ice Age and the emergence of modern human beings on this island of ours.

Whilst not offering a complete history, as the simple fact is that so little archaeological evidence has been found in Britain of human existence that it would be impossible to trace a definite arch of human history from much beyond 6000BC, the show is both entertaining and informative.

I didn't know it was only 9,000 years ago that Britain was occupied full time by humanity and even then, only by 1,000 people or so and it is genuinely fascinating how a few fragments of bones found in a cave in Wales or in Cheddar Gorge can be dated, discovered what species of humans they were and even what kind of lives they led and how they died.

As well as the history of people explored, geographical history of Britain is traced such as how glaciers impacted upon the landscape of Scotland and Northern England so heavily and how one of the largest tsunamis in the history of the world tore Britain from Mainland Europe around 6,300 years ago.

Always nice when the host of a show can be seen that he seriously enjoys the subject he is talking about and the amazing links he places between events and how he makes you think about them, such as amazing discovery of human footprints in Gwent left 6,000 years ago and the fact how oblivious they were to the tsunami that hit the east of the same landmass they were on at around the same time.

Seriously, give it a watch, not least of all for the way Oliver says "Scotland" in a reverential manner and the wonderful landscape shots taken of Britain's beautiful countryside.

Urban Annoyance #1438

I do love cities and towns; I do so very much love them. Where else are all your human needs catered for within the radius of about 500 yards? Want some bread and milk? No problem, there is a Tesco Express around the corner. Want some souvalaki? Easy, there is a Greek restaurant just up the road. Want to read a Jane Austen novel in solitude? Look there is a library (take that villages!). Want to get beaten over the head with a pool cue by a fat, shaven-headed EDL fascist? There's one of 'those' pubs in every urban area. Want some oral sex delivered by a Romanian mother of five? Look down yonder dark alley and ye shall find your exotic bounty.

My point is that everything you can possibly want can be found in a city and quite possibly everything you don't want too. However, there are certain things that get on all of our collective tits when it comes to city life. Here is one.

Neighbours who lack empathy

So, it is around 8.30am in the morning and it's a lie in day. There you are all safe and warm in your bed, fast asleep with your head filled with nothing but your odd dreams when BANG you are awoken by the sound of a dog tied to a rail barking and barking and barking and barking. It doesn't matter what type of dog it is, little poodle or big wolfhound, you ain't going back to sleep, sucker. And don't try to do something constructive, there's no concentrating when one single repetitive noise is coming at ya, constantly.

So, you get out of bed, have a shower, get dressed and open your windows to the sight of your neighbours looking right back at you through the window, as if you were some kind of naked deity with a message, trapped inside a hourglass (I have no idea what I'm talking about either). This will prove to be a regular feature of your day, everytime you get close to a window, the same neighbours will be staring up at you through your window, get used to it.

Later on, in the evening, when you want to relax in the peace and quiet, maybe with the TV and your special other half, a nice film, a glass of wine setting the mood, this could be a perfect night. But oh no it won't, those voyeuristic neighbours of yours have decided to stop gazing at your window and get into a drunken brawl with lots of shouting. Mood sufficiently ruined, thanks strange alcoholic man and fat, bald dude. All this to the background noise of your other neighbour's ATM machine alarm going off.

Then you have the sound of DIY, the monotonous banging of a hammer on a piece of wood, the foul screeching of a drill making a hole in something that shouldn't have a hole in it and the shouts of the people operating these tools as they struggle to convey their gentle whimsy over the sound of their machines to their other companions as they go about changing their big, huge, neon sign.

Did I mention I live above a Co-op convenience store and opposite a pub? Oh, well, now you know. Kind of essential to the story actually. Ah well, continue on with your life.

Five things we will learn from the Denmark-England friendly (and one thing we already know)

Tomorrow night's England friendly with Denmark probably poses more questions than what answers will be provided, the most important question being; why? Why are we playing a friendly game a) so early in the season b) so far away from our next competitive fixture and c) in the week when FA cup 4^th round replays are meant to be played, thus scuppering the layout of the system for the rest of the season causing monumental problems at all levels of the English football league pyramid.

Anywho, here are some of the things we should learn from tomorrow night's game followed by one thing we already know.

1. Jack Wilshere has had a terrific season for Arsenal this year, cementing himself alongside Alexandre Song as the Gunners perfect defensive midfield platform, combining Song's aggression and defensive play with Wilshere's eye (and indeed, foot) for a pass. However, tomorrow night will see Fabio Capello, most likely, a 4-4-2 formation with Wilshere playing alongside skipper for the night Frank Lampard in centre midfield. We will see how Wilshere does in a two-man midfield without a natural enforcer alongside him.
   
2. One £18 million move in January and a couple of goals for your new club and a place in the England squad is yours. Welcome back Darren Bent! On a serious note, Bent has been consistently the best English goalscorer (if not forward) in the Premier League since 2005 and deserves a chance to prove himself at this level and tomorrow night, most likely playing up front with Wayne Rooney, Bent will have the best chance to show that he is good enough up against a strong Danish defence featuring Daniel Agger and Simon Kjaer.
   
3. Solid seasons from such players as Leighton Baines, Scott Parker, and Gary Cahill will not be rewarded with starts in the international set up as Capello instead opts for Ashley Cole, Lampard and John Terry respectively, all players who we know what they can do at this level, in more of a case of something we will continue to learn rather than will learn.
   
4. Just who are Capello's preferred options on the wings? With perhaps only Aaron Lennon missing from the squad, the wingers are the strongest area of depth and quality in the team this time around. We should learn whether Walcott is still first choice or whether Young is the choice on the left wing when we play an orthodox 4-4-2 or is the left-footed option of Downing the best choice and does James Milner have the pace to play on the wing in international football.
   
5. Will reputation take precedent over form, or should I say will reputation continue to take precedent over form in the shape of Glen Johnson starting (who is admittedly looking back to something near form under Dalglish) instead of the more worthy Kyle Walker who has been superb wherever he has played this season, providing an attacking threat mixed with sound defensive composure.
   

Oh, and the thing we already know, international friendlies are boring, dull, monotonous, uninteresting, uninspiring affairs largely arranged for the benefit of television companies and sponsors. Still, could be worse, could be playing in front of 25,000 people at the Aviva Stadium with your best playing not bothering to turn up for the 'competition'.

(Penalty) Spot-Fixing in Football?

A story was circulating on mainland Europe last night that German authorities were planning to investigate the epic 4-4 draw between Newcastle and Arsenal on Saturday. The story came from a French television station who stated that senior Interpol officers were looking into suspicious betting patterns in the game. (Full story here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/8308192/Interpol-deny-investigation-into-Newcastle-Arsenal-game.html)

The article goes on to state that, of all the parties concerned; Interpol, the FA, UEFA and the Premier League had neither notified each other, or set into motion any plans themselves to investigate the issue. Furthermore, Interpol, do not conduct independent investigations themselves, they work in conjunction with all of the relevant authorities and have done in past examples of fixing in sport, not just football.

Either, there is a big cover up and all the parties are playing along to hide the fact the investigation is happening or, far more likely in my opinion, this is a case of a suspicious press putting 2 and 2 together and making 632,981. For absolute starters, the winning goal on Saturday from Tiote was such a magnificent goal and with only a couple of minutes left to play, at such a time in the game to make it unbelievable to be able to plan it to finish that way. Furthermore, the odds on the comeback happening must have been so high that they are attractive to punters, even for a couple of quid as the returns would be so high, leading to more money being put on the outcome.

Overall, I find it very hard to believe that match fixing in football, at Premiership level, games are incredibly difficult to fix for a number of reasons. Firstly, the fact that it is a team game with 18 players involved for each team means each player has to be bribed to play badly in front of millions of people, as opposed to, for example, tennis whereby not all events are played in front of such a large crowd and a shock defeat can be put down to an individual having a bad day at the office.

And secondly, the wealth that players at level have means they have not the need for the carrots that crooked bookmakers can dangle in front of them. Unlike the recent spot-fixing case in cricket, footballers at Premiership level do not come from a poor background and are not poorly paid whilst bookmakers cannot threaten their families. Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammaed Amir, whilst their actions were not right, they have the cover that they are from a poor background, are poorly paid and bookmakers can threaten their families with violence, all meaning the bookmakers can exercise incredible amounts of power over them.

The combination of these two factors mean that match fixing in football at Premier League level is rather unlikely. However, that's not to say that fixing in football cannot happen. As the Pakistan case in cricket proved, matches do not have to be fixed for bookmakers to make huge profits from the sport. Betting on when a no-ball or a wide will be bowled can now be done in the age of online gambling and it is far easier and cheaper to coerce or tempt a couple of players than a whole team, as was the case with Butt, Asif and Amir.

Similarly, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the advent of in-match gambling in football can lead to a situation whereby a player, for example, aims to get booked on a certain minute to win some money for bookmakers and in return, get some cash themselves or other incentives. Or perhaps, conceding a penalty on a certain minute in a game, spot-fixing. Geddit?

Which is not to say that this regularly occurring in football in this country, far from it I would say, but perhaps it's something that needs to be considered and kept an eye on in the future.

The Dangers of the 3pm Kick-offs on TV

I've been following the case of Karen Murphy and her battle against Sky Sports for about a year or so now. For those that are unaware, Ms Murphy owns a pub on Fawcett Road in Portsmouth, The Red, White and Blue, just up the road from where I used to live.

The case revolves around Ms Murphy, BSkyB television, a Greek broadcaster called Nova and a decoder box. Basically, as we all know, pubs pay to screen football on their premises, with the money going largely to Sky as they are the broadcaster of English Premier League Football in the UK. However, other countries have the broadcast right for the Premier League (and other leagues across Europe) for their own countries; Nova was the broadcaster for English football in Greece.

However, many pubs across the UK, buy a decoder box so they can receive the satellite signal from places such as Greece and Morocco as it is far cheaper than paying BSkyB, some £800 a year for Nova compared to between £1000 to £6000 (depending on who you read) a year for Sky. For this, Sky sued Ms Murphy for breach of copyright law and the corporation won the case with Ms Murphy paying around £8000 in fines and costs.

The case has now been taken to the European Court of Justice where today, the Advocate General, Julianne Kolkott, has said that the way broadcasters only broadcast to their own countries, with rights being sold per country from bodies such as the Premier League, is "contrary to EU law" as it is questionable whether a rights holder can sell their content on a country-by-country basis in the entity that is the EU. Largely, this had led to leagues maximising the value at which they can sell their rights. Overall, the Advocate General states that the current system constitutes a serious impairment to the freedom to provide services.

In the context of EU law, this can have a large effect as it may set a precedent whereby rights holders cannot sell their rights to one broadcaster per country, a form of protectionism as the holders can charge whatever they feel like pretty much, leading to more competition and lower prices for the consumer.

However, other EU broadcasters do not have the same restriction placed on them as BSkyB do to NOT be able to broadcast any game played in England at 3pm on a Saturday as, quite rightly, they believe that this will lead to a drop in attendances at over games as people stay in to watch the bigger teams play. If this case changes this, the implications could be huge for English football.

Whilst taking Sky down a peg or two is as nice a feeling for me as much as the next person, this rule is very important to English football as without it, the attendances, particularly at lower league level, could fall dramatically as more people decide to stay at home to watch Arsenal or United leading to real financial issues in an already very tight fiscal circumstance at that level. Less punters through the turnstiles leads to less income which may well lead to clubs going out of existence.

Furthermore, kids are unlikely to want to go to Edgeley Park or Gigg Lane on a cold Saturday afternoon with their dads or uncles or mates when they can sit in the warm watching events unfold at Old Trafford, leading to the future fanbases of smaller clubs also dwindling.

Clearly, in the EU, customers have the right to pay for the service they choose and should be able to choose the cheapest, particularly in the case of pubs who need to save all the cash they can, but the flip side is that the impact this case could have on English football is huge, especially with the possible decrease in the amount the leagues will be able to charge for their content, this money being the lifeblood for all teams in England, Premier League to League Two.

However, it should be stressed at this time that the advice of the Advocate General has no legal binding to it and this case has plenty of twist and turns in it yet, not over til the fat lady sings, only at half time etc. etc. etc.

The Cleveland Show @ 10pm, Tuesdays- E4- 4 out of 10

Spin off shows have a richly deserved reputation for not being particularly watchable or good or worth making and rightly so as they usually smack of trying to squeeze a few more pounds or dollars out of a franchise that's already been bled drier than a virgin at a vampire orgy. As you may have guessed from the rating, The Cleveland Show is another show to add to this list.

For those who are unaware, The Cleveland Show follows the adventures of Cleveland Brown, Peter Griffin's erstwhile neighbour from Family Guy and his new family in the town of Stoolbend, Virginia including his new wife Donna, his son from the first series, pudgy Cleveland Jnr, and his two step kids, an uber-intelligent infant and a forgettable teenage girl, which sounds vaguely familiar. This is now the second series of the show, the first series kind of passing me by after watching the first two episodes, that was that. But now, it's the second series and is it anymore rememberable? Well, no.

Back in the days of yore, moustachioed Cleveland with his laugh like Sky Sports' Soccer Saturday's stooge Paul Merson was a loveable enough character but it's been quite comprehensively now, not enough of a character to base a series around. All that he is left with now is an insanely catchy theme tune that you couldn't get out of your head with an ice cream scoop.

Largely, the storylines are strange and with no real overarching progression of the story or sufficient enough interaction between the two story arcs per episode whilst, as can be expected from a Family Guy type show, there are jokes that hit here and there with flyers such as the David Carradine funeral gag but largely there is a severe dearth of laugh out loud moments.

Every so often references are made to the show's stablemates (Family Guy and American Dad) merely serve to remind you of the golden days of the mid-2000s when Family Guy was the edgiest and funny show on TV. Not any longer. The Cleveland Show suffers from the same problem as the later series of Family Guy and American Dad, in that it just seems very strained and forced with only the occasional high watermarks such as the third episode of this season's 'Cleveland Live!' which is a wonderfully offbeat 20 minutes of television where the show is broadcast 'live'.

Perhaps if the show wasn't so associated with Family Guy (Seth MacFarlane is the executive producer and voice actor for both shows and the animation is the same) then it might be able to stand on it's own as a show but the impact Family Guy made on the animated adult cartoon was so huge that the goalposts have shifted hugely in this genre of television that everything else just isn't quite good enough anymore. Sadly, even this review has to be concluded with a reference to Family Guy such is the shadow it casts over The Cleveland Show.

All in all, much like the more recent series of Family Guy, watching The Cleveland Show has become something of a chore, just hoping that maybe the heights will be hit again but ultimately being disappointed and the urge to watch it the next week and the next week and the next week gets duller and duller.

Why it no longer pays to be financially prudent in football

Well, what a day that was, "momentous" as sliver-haired, one man hype generator Jim 'Six Phones' White put it on Sky Sports News late last evening. Momentous because enough money changed hands on the final day of the football January transfer window to finance a war large enough to wipe out a couple of post-Soviet, East European states, not to mention preventing hundreds of libraries being shut down across the country.

£50 million for a grown man with freckles to wear a blue shirt instead of a red one? £35 million for a man with a court case pending and half of a decent season at Premiership level (not Premier League, up yours Barclays)? The world of football has gone literally mad, but, you already knew that.

Despite the fashion of pissing away money like everyone in society did in the Blair years returning for just one day, all in all, football was a rather prudent business, all thing considered, in the January transfer window with just Chelsea, Manchester City and Aston Villa having a net spending of more than £5 million, a lot of money but not enough that would run a business the size of your average top-flight football club to the brink of ruin.

However, in the wider context of the state of football right now, there is another point to consider. Every team in the top two divisions in England did some sort of business (transfers in or out) in January, in the pursuit of either promotion, a place in Europe or to avoid relegation. Now, the only reason football clubs aim for these goals is for matters financial; you have more money if you get promoted or are playing in Europe, you get less money if you get relegated. Let's be clear, in the world of business, which football is clearly in, money is the be-all and end-all, the glory of promotion is not in the minds of owners, just the balancing of books. Leave the emotional side of the game to the plebs who fork out fifty quid a week to watch the team play.

To balance these books though, owners take out huge gambles to achieve these aims. For example, Darren Bent for £18 million plus add ons is looking a good gamble as he is a proven goal-scorer and Villa have since hit a bit of form since he joined, thus probably saving their Premiership status and getting more money.

Largely, it's called chasing the dream. Evokes images of Leeds and Portsmouth doesn't it?

And here is the rub, taking out these gambles are, well, gambles, as you are breaking the bank either to fork out the cash for a player or paying the wages of a bigger name player, to get money in the future. But, there appears to be no real risk in the long term of taking these gambles.

To use Leeds and Portsmouth as examples, these clubs were run well beyond their means and rightly, fell through the leagues as punishment for spending way more than they could possibly afford. One hopes that the same chronic overspending in recent years of Chelsea and Manchester City similarly comes back to bite them in the arse. Despite the obvious facts in the cases of both Leeds and Portsmouth, how could they afford the price they were paying for players and their wages increase so much when their income cannot have risen by a similar amount, these clubs were allowed to carry on spending this money and making something of a mockery out of the league.

The owners of both clubs, Peter Risdale and Alexandre Gaydamak respectively, did not care for the long term futures of their clubs and looking back, they needn't have had to as it appears that both the Premier League and the Football League do not want a club to go out of business under their watch as it would be a horrible blow to the marketing of their product and so clubs are very unlikely to go completely out of business in these leagues. For example, note how Portsmouth were granted their TV rights money early last year and the loopholes in which both clubs attempted to operate to save themselves money.

All this begs the question, what is the incentive for clubs, particularly at Championship level, to be financially prudent? If clubs can run up huge debts and 'chase the dream' with no likelihood of going bust, why should other football clubs be run prudently and be businesses that balance their books?

My team for example, Reading, is believed to run at an operating loss of around £2 million a year, which is largely paid for by selling players, Gylfi Sigurdsson, Kevin Doyle, Stephen Hunt, Nicky Shorey and Dave Kitson to name five over the last three seasons, with occasionally the Chairman paying for this loss. This is the correct way to run a business, only pay for what you can afford and balance the books. As a result, we are roughly in the same position in the league this year as we have been for about the last decade (but for two seasons in the Premiership) knocking on the door of the Championship play offs.

But, for how much longer is balancing the books going to be seen as enough from the fans perspective as teams around us spend, spend and spend so more with no real consequences of their actions? Having your house in order financially as a football club isn't going to get punters through the turnstiles, only investment and top quality football does that which leads to the overinflated market we saw in action yesterday whereby clubs pay over the odds for players and yet do not endanger their long term life as a football club thus undermining pretty much the whole point of being fiscally responsible in the first place.