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.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Saturday, 12 February 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
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 4th 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.
Anywho, here are some of the things we should learn from tomorrow night's game followed by one thing we already know.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Monday, 7 February 2011
(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 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.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
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 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.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
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.
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.
£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.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
10 o’clock Live @10pm, Thursdays- Channel 4- 7 out of 10
You know what the UK television market needs? More current affairs comedy/satire programmes. I mean, there is probably only about five of them currently running at the moment across the main channels, each with their own gimmick and so on. Clearly, it's a formula that works, else there wouldn't be so many of them. But wait, what's this? A live variety? Featuring an all star line up of contemporary leftist comedic stars? And Lauren Laverne? Well, let's see.
Everyone knows that UK TV has been looking for a home grown equivalent of America's Daily Show and this is probably as close as we are going to get to it as the BBC would never be able to get away with a show like this due to impartiality rules and ITV is, well just a bit shit and it would inevitably be hosted by Adrian Chiles so would be worse than shit; something even Fiver wouldn't show.
Basically, the show's premise is like a combination of Question Time, Newsnight, Screenwipe/Newswipe and Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show but whilst at the same time trying to attract a younger demographic. Biiiiiiigggggg challenge.
Firstly, if it wants to be respected as a forum for real political debate, a balance has to be struck between being funny but also letting the experts do their thing, something David Mitchell and Jimmy Carr both struggled with at times. That said, the five guests all contributed and were allowed to articulate their points whilst Mitchell emerged as a very sharp interviewer.
Elsewhere, Charlie Brooker doing what he does, cynicism in nicely put together edited pieces but tends to struggle with live TV, perhaps because he is a far better writer as a comedian than a quick wit like Carr and Mitchell. Although his piece on Tunisia, similar in nature to his edited pieces familiar to viewers of Newswipe, was glorious rant on the Western media full of perfectly formed points and humour.
Carr, acting pretty much as the front man of the group delivered his one liners with customary aplomb but perhaps lacks the real interest in current affairs that Mitchell and Brooker, aside from making the odd layman's point in debates. Should not be allowed to interview people either due to his laughing at most left-field points which leads me on to.
Lauren Laverne doing not an awful lot it must be said which seems a bit of a waste of talent as she is a good broadcaster and occasionally comes out with some good lines. Perhaps could be given Carr's slot for interviews to both get some use out of her.
Mitchell showed a surprising turn as leader and director of a debate but also in his usual high quality rant mode for people who are familiar with his soapbox videos on the Internet. He is perhaps the most multi-talented person working on television today; comedic actor, writer, comedic performer, panellist and burgeoning interviewer, albeit one that is learning.
Certainly, there is some dire pieces such as the World News Now feature and the Holiday Hotspot piece which were very forced and rather lazy but these were offset elsewhere by some lively debate that was insightful, intelligent and reasoned. The show can be a bit slow at times but that's live TV for you I guess, it comes with the territory of strange cuts to cameras pointing at people's feet and stuttering from the hosts
There was a definite lack of impartiality but what's funny about the centre ground in politics? You can only make laughs from a perspective, there is not much funny about beige, neutrality and generally being in the middle, just ask the Swiss.
All in all, a promising start that can improve in time but the last show I said that about was The Event and look how that went
Everyone knows that UK TV has been looking for a home grown equivalent of America's Daily Show and this is probably as close as we are going to get to it as the BBC would never be able to get away with a show like this due to impartiality rules and ITV is, well just a bit shit and it would inevitably be hosted by Adrian Chiles so would be worse than shit; something even Fiver wouldn't show.
Basically, the show's premise is like a combination of Question Time, Newsnight, Screenwipe/Newswipe and Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show but whilst at the same time trying to attract a younger demographic. Biiiiiiigggggg challenge.
Firstly, if it wants to be respected as a forum for real political debate, a balance has to be struck between being funny but also letting the experts do their thing, something David Mitchell and Jimmy Carr both struggled with at times. That said, the five guests all contributed and were allowed to articulate their points whilst Mitchell emerged as a very sharp interviewer.
Elsewhere, Charlie Brooker doing what he does, cynicism in nicely put together edited pieces but tends to struggle with live TV, perhaps because he is a far better writer as a comedian than a quick wit like Carr and Mitchell. Although his piece on Tunisia, similar in nature to his edited pieces familiar to viewers of Newswipe, was glorious rant on the Western media full of perfectly formed points and humour.
Carr, acting pretty much as the front man of the group delivered his one liners with customary aplomb but perhaps lacks the real interest in current affairs that Mitchell and Brooker, aside from making the odd layman's point in debates. Should not be allowed to interview people either due to his laughing at most left-field points which leads me on to.
Lauren Laverne doing not an awful lot it must be said which seems a bit of a waste of talent as she is a good broadcaster and occasionally comes out with some good lines. Perhaps could be given Carr's slot for interviews to both get some use out of her.
Mitchell showed a surprising turn as leader and director of a debate but also in his usual high quality rant mode for people who are familiar with his soapbox videos on the Internet. He is perhaps the most multi-talented person working on television today; comedic actor, writer, comedic performer, panellist and burgeoning interviewer, albeit one that is learning.
Certainly, there is some dire pieces such as the World News Now feature and the Holiday Hotspot piece which were very forced and rather lazy but these were offset elsewhere by some lively debate that was insightful, intelligent and reasoned. The show can be a bit slow at times but that's live TV for you I guess, it comes with the territory of strange cuts to cameras pointing at people's feet and stuttering from the hosts
There was a definite lack of impartiality but what's funny about the centre ground in politics? You can only make laughs from a perspective, there is not much funny about beige, neutrality and generally being in the middle, just ask the Swiss.
All in all, a promising start that can improve in time but the last show I said that about was The Event and look how that went
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Most Annoying People 2010- BBC3- 4 out of 10
Dictionairy.com defines irony as “a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion. “
Or, if you prefer 150 minutes of a visual description, check out BBC3’s ‘Most Annoying People 2010’ in which the most annoying people of 2010 are counted down with inputs from, and here’s the irony, a range of talking heads who are MORE annoying than the people they are having a go at.
From Big Brother contestants, to no name comedians, to Jedward, to countless vapid, air-headed celebrity ‘journalists’ from magazines called Heat and Star and Now and Hello and Toilet Paper and Arse Gravy, it’s a sea of the untalented expressing their anger at the talented and the small things they do that annoy them. It’s even narrated by Richard Bacon, a man so devoid of personality and charm he can only just about get a show on ITV4 on a frigging weekday.
One celebrity journo says “Peaches Geldof has done nothing with her life.” This coming from a person whose job pretty much solely involves writing about how one idiot may be going out with another moron and then snap them falling out of a club together with their clothes torn and vomit down their fronts. Stones and glass houses my friend?
You have to wonder what kind of universe these people live in, where their biggest concerns in the whole world are Lady Gaga’s dress sense, Tiger Woods’ infidelity and Kristen Stewart being a depressive star. Still, keeps everyone’s mind off our impending doom I guess. Heat magazine, the opiate of the masses.
Thankfully, some of the talking heads are funny or insightful such as the hilariously insane Rich Fulcher, the underrated (and owner of the biggest nose in the world) David Schneider, the Irish named but not-Irish born Mickey Flanagan and the surprisingly intelligent Maggot and Eggsy from Goldie Lookin’ Chain.
It’s all a lovely recap of 2010 but in a soft news kind of way, like looking at the news through a Daily Star kaleidoscope (patent pending) where bankers and politicians that royally screwed us all over are slowly airbrushed out of our collective memories to be replaced with anger at people that don’t really matter. Jedward and Lindsay Lohan are more annoying than Tony Hayward, what?!
Oh, and one of the other irritating things about ‘Most Annoying People’ is its length. Weighing in at a mammoth 150 minutes long and appearing on the BBC causes many problems, as do any programmes that last longer than 90 minutes on the BBC, lack of breaks for natural, bodily functions. Every 45 minutes or so, a three minute blank screen should be broadcast to allow one to go for a whizz or make a cup of tea or have an extreme quickie or whatever. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)