2011/12 nPower Championship preview

Clichés become clichés for a very good reason; the fact that they have a solid grounding in reality and truth. Usually anyway.

Thus, the cliché that the Championship (no marketing here) is the most hotly contested and difficult league to predict has an element of truth to it. However, certain patterns can be deduced.

For example, the last four winners of the league (QPR, Newcastle, Wolves and West Brom) all had a sense of predictability to their victories.

On the other hand, their respective fellow promotion winners were often just as much bolt from the blues as the winners were as predictable as death and taxation. Who could have guessed Norwich would storm to second place last year, Blackpool to complete a remarkable season in 2010 with a play-off victory or Stoke and Hull to gain promotion way back in 2008?

At the other end of the spectrum, relegation has more of a pattern to it with one ‘larger’ club usually accompanying the ‘smallest’ team in the league and a financial stricken side into League One. Cases in point, last season (Sheffield United, Scunthorpe and Preston, respectively), 2009-10 (Sheffield Wednesday, Peterborough and Plymouth) and 2007-08 (Leicester, Scunthorpe and Colchester).

All of which gives us only a few guidelines to predicting how this year’s league will turn out.

Favourites for promotion, and rightly so, are West Ham and Leicester (both 11/8 for promotion), the former for keeping the bones of a decent Championship side together after relegation and the latter for their  much documented spending spree. West Ham’s fate may rest on how the rest of the transfer window pans out and Leicester’s on how quick Sven Goran Eriksson can get his team to gel.

Elsewhere, other pre-season favourites include Birmingham (7/2), Nottingham Forest (4/1) and Reading (9/2) all of whom are strange choices to be such strong candidates for promotion. Birmingham are in the middle of a rebuilding programme with the added spectre of the Carson Yeung saga, Forest are also in transition but in Steve McClaren they have a drastically underrated manager in this country and Reading have arguably weakened over the Summer with the loss of Matt Mills and will be further hampered should Shane Long leave.

The real play-off challengers lay in the next batch of clubs such as Brighton, Middlesbrough, Southampton (all 9/2), Blackpool, Leeds (5/1) and Ipswich (11/2). The two South-coast clubs are riding high on promotion euphoria, a new ground (Brighton), outstanding managers and lots of financial investment and one of those two would be my choice to possibly sneak a top-two finish. Ipswich, meanwhile, have made astute purchases of veterans (Lee Bower, Ivar Ingimarsson, Michael Chopra and Nathan Ellington) and youngsters (David Stockdale and Jay Emmanuel-Thomas), Blackpool have kept together much of their squad (aside from the big names) and have an astute manager whilst Leeds will benefit from a season’s experience at this level.

At the other end of the spectrum, clubs looking over their shoulders is difficult to call. Perennial favourites for relegation Doncaster and Barnsley (15/8 and 19/10 respectively) could spring a few surprises with Doncaster’s intentions announced with today’s signing of one-time next-big-thing Giles Barnes and Barnsley investing in solid defence cover. Overall Coventry are favourites for the drop (7/4) and perhaps rightly so with just one addition (Joe Murphy) to the squad that capitulated after Christmas least season added to the loss of Marlon King, Kieron Westwood and Aron Gunnarsson over the Summer.

Elsewhere, Watford (13/5), Crystal Palace (9/4) and Peterborough (2/1) are the other teams predicted to struggle this year for financial reasons (Watford and Palace), rookie managers (Watford and Palace) and the curse of the smaller club (Peterborough). That said; don’t rule out two clubs that always seem to come out fighting when their backs are against the wall and a side that scored comfortably over 100 league goals last season.

Mid-table mediocrity is nothing to complain about and for some clubs consolidation may well be the target for the season including Cardiff, Burnley, Portsmouth, Millwall, Bristol City and Hull who are all too good to go down but probably lack the quality to mount a sustained promotion push. That said, a lot depends on who can string together a run of good results and gain confidence from that so no-one can be ruled out.

A final disclaimer, this will all be wrong in nine months time when Peterborough storm to promotion and West Ham get relegated on the final day as that is whole the Championship operates so this has been something of an exercise in futility. Like most predictions really.

Champions: West Ham
Promoted: Leicester

Play offs: Brighton, Southampton (winner), Birmingham, Leeds

Dark Horse: Ipswich

Underacheiver: Nottingham Forest

Relegated: Coventry, Crystal Palace and Peterborough (financially stricken club, ‘bigger’ team and ‘smallest’ club in the league pattern in operation)

Top scorer: Shane Long, if he stays at Reading or goes to Leicester and not to a Premier League club(10/1) if not, an injury-free Nicky Maynard (14/1)

Reading 2011/2012 season preview

Writing a season preview for Reading with so much dependant on what happens over the next 27 days seems a little bit pointless but nonetheless, here are some thoughts on the forthcoming campaign.

First things first, it is no understatement to say that the most important developments in the month of August for us will not be played out on the pitch but in the boardroom and at the negotiating table.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the targets for the season depend on whether Shane Long stays at the club or not. With the futures of other key players such as Adam Federici and Jimmy Kebe looking secure, Long is the last player with a question mark over his head. Should he leave the team looks an awful lot less threatening and a mid table finish will be the best to hope for. Should he stay, a play-off push is a reasonable target. He is that important. A front two of Long and Hunt/Manset is more appealing as Long’s ability to play 46 games a year masks the other strikers inability to do the same.

But here is the rub; the same thing was said at exactly the same point last year regarding Gylfi Sigurdsson and look how last season ended. Players stepped up, a new system was found and (relative) success followed.

Further mirror images of last pre-season? The lack of signings prior to the opening day of the season (Williams last year, Khumalo this), the lack of positive talk out of the club about possible signings (a tactic used every year by the club management to drive down a target’s price that both other clubs and our own fans have yet to work out) and the pessimism among the fan base.

However, what’s different this time around is not the lack of investment but the appearance of allowing the squad to stagnate and be weakened, particularly in central defence. The loss of Matt Mills would not be the end of the world if there was experience cover at centre back but this is currently not the case. If there were, there would be less concern about the paucity of our resources there and less anger about the sale of Mills not being reinvested.

Furthermore, despite the faith in Brian McDermott being well founded, it is not to be expected of a manager to dig out diamonds from his squad every season and if Long leaves, that will be needed again. Perhaps Manset with a pre-season behind him is the answer or a fully-fit Hunt but both of those are not entirely plausible right now. McDermott seems less pleased with the club’s monetary policy now 18 months into the job though that is a personal observation rather than anything concrete.

In theory, a staring XI of Federici; Griffin, Pearce, Khumalo, Harte; McAnuff, Karacan, Leigertwood, Kebe; Long, Hunt is competitive at this level with more than adequate cover in most positions with Andersen, McCarthy, Cummings, Robson-Kanu, Tabb, Gunnarsson, Howard, Manset and Church to name seven. However, once injuries and suspensions strike, the squad looks very inexperienced and slightly threadbare. It will take a lot of stepping up from the likes of Williams (Brett and Marcus), Antonio and Morrison as well remarkable progress from youngsters like Gage, Obita and Taylor to supplement the first team.

Beyond the issues of who will be playing for Reading come the start of September, the remainder of the transfer window is the acid test for the club’s ambition and targets. If Long was to be sold to a fellow Championship club (Leicester being an admirer), even for an exceptional price, this would smack of a club more than happy to plod along at this level and occasionally mount a play-off push. It could determine the medium-term future of the club as a whole. But is this a bad thing?

It’s quite a nihilistic view on football as success in sport is dictated by winning trophies and gaining promotions but is the prize worth the cost or is the journey better than the destination?

As unambitious as it seems, the Championship, for me, is the league to be in right now for the sheer unpredictability of every game. Yes, promotion is the end goal but it’s not the be all and end all as it was when we were promoted back in 2006. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt now keep giving me the entertainment we’ve had over the last four seasons at this level and it cannot be denied we have had entertainment.

But the fear is that we would drop back to the lower reaches of the table with relegation a distinct possibility in the near future. That is unlikely this season as there is enough quality in the squad (with or without Long) to comfortably survive but the lure of the club to future signings will be made or break this year and potentially in the next four weeks.

Overall, I predict us to finish in the top 12 but not to mount a serious push for the play-off places but as anyone that read this blog in February knows; I’m rubbish at predictions and this one could be null and void by the end of the month.

The news for you

Watching ITV News last night, I was struck by something. Not how ridiculous the ITV News studio looks or how a half-hour news programme could possibly have time to convey the whole story of every significant event that occurred on the day in question (this is why we still need online newspapers to succeed by the way).

No, I was struck by something else; the pure abstract nature of ‘news’ and how little what constitutes news directly affects the average person. For example, the political wrangling between the Democrats and Republicans in the American Senate over how best to combat the country’s debt. To the man on the street, this has nothing to do with him, why should he care or pay attention?

It probably contributes to the general apathy of people and their lack of engagement in the system. If there is not a direct impact on you, why should you care? It’s all about self-preservation and looking after one. Everything else is for others to worry about.

So, here is my solution. With every news broadcast, there should be a “how will this affect you” option, accessible through the yellow button on your remote. Here, each news story is dissected by experts for your benefit where they explain the impact the event has on you as an individual.

The US debt crisis? The US is the world’s biggest economy and, should it fail or fall back into recession, the rest of the world will suffer. This may lead to further economic problems in the UK which may affect your ability to find a new job, buy a new iPhone, go on three holidays a year and so on.

A child has gone missing in some provincial Northern town? No direct impact upon you, apart from a tug on the heartstrings, as you do not know this child. However, an indirect impact is that you will become more suspicious of strangers and not allow your child to play outside as they will be out of your sight which may lead to your child getting less exercise which may result in health problems for them and a fear of society for you.

The ongoing conflict in Libya? NATO’s involvement here means Britain has a vested interest in the outcome of the conflict as too much money has been put in to pull out now. Furthermore, the outcome will impact upon the oil industry in the region and just who gets that oil. Should the rebels win, you can bet your last petro-dollar that the NATO nations will have some Pro-Western oil contracts written up for Libyan oil. The benefits of these oil contracts will mean that petrol prices will not rise considerably giving you more money to spend on cars and vodka in the medium term at the price of short term monetary investment supporting the Libyans.

And so on with every news story. Perhaps it would not be cost effective but you could offset this by not doing the breakdowns into specific social groups rather than individuals but, you never know, it might get people interested in the news again.

Either that, or some kind of phone app is the solution. Angry Gaddafis or something.

Life (and cricket) is what you make of it

Perspective makes the world go round. Different interpretations of situations leads to different opinions and outcomes. More often than not, the two foremost opinions make the most sense.

Take the American debt crisis. The USA has a large spending deficit (some $13 trillion or so) which needs trimming. However, the perspectives of the Republicans and the Democrats lead to different preferred outcomes. The GOP wanted huge spending cuts which make sense as to fight a debt, you spend less. On the other hand, the Democrats wanted less drastic spending cuts as they reasoned that would leave a vacuum in the public sector that may well lead to further economic problems later down the line. Both sensible policies which were each watered down to a compromise.

Naturally, this leads me on to cricket and the latest Test between England and India at Trent Bridge.

The decision by MS Dhoni, the Indian captain, to reprieve Ian Bell after he was run out in bizarre fashion has been lauded by both newspapers and TV coverage; showcasing the unique sporting nature of cricket and the ‘Spirit of Cricket’ notion.

For the unaware of the event, Bell, having thought he had hit the final ball before the tea break for four, walked towards the pavilion, only to see Dhoni whip off the bails of the stumps, meaning Bell was run out. However, as was fairly clear, Bell leaving his crease had been a misunderstanding (although a somewhat ditzy moment for the batsman) and Dhoni withdrew his appeal for the wicket after the tea interval, leaving Bell to resume batting. As veteran Indian batsman Rahul Dravid put it “it didn’t feel right”.

The aftermath of the event clearly benefitted England with Bell going on to get a further twenty runs and provide the base to allow Eoin Morgan, Matt Prior, Tim Bresnan and Stuart Broad to meat out more batting punishment against the Indian bowlers to give England an unassailable lead and crush the Indian bodies and minds in the process. Finally, the resultant England victory means that they are more than likely to supplant India as the foremost Test-playing nation come the end of the series.

Here’s where the question of perspectives comes in. If the roles had been reversed with England calling back an Indian batsman and the decision contributing in large part to the loss of the Test and our place as No. 1 in the word, would the media have been so gushing in its praise of Andrew Strauss? Or would they deride him as weak and use the eternal comparison to the Australia of Steve Waugh (mental disintegration and all that) and whether they would have acted the same?

Shane Warne wrote this morning about the Australian-like attitude of this England team and the need to be mentally tough and demanding to command the No.1 spot in Test cricket for an extended period of time and the withdrawal of the appeal by Dhoni can be seen as a lack of this attitude in the Indian team which hastens their descent from the summit.

As Steve James put it in the Telegraph, the notional ‘Spirit of Cricket’ is just that, a notion and the aim of the game is to win. However, perspectives regarding the spirit of the game are seen differently by different sporting cultures and different media cultures (indeed, double standards) which dictate the unwritten conventions of the game. Where these conventions lie is a matter of debate and context surrounding the incident.

Perhaps if England had been the generous party and it had led to a crushing defeat, maybe the reaction would have been different.

Richard Hammond’s Journey to…@ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC1- 7 out of 10

First things, first, technically the name of the show isn't correct as Richard Hammond doesn’t actually journey to the bottom of the ocean, merely to a couple of hundred feet. I say merely, it’s probably about a couple of hundred feet further down than I’ll ever go seeing as my record is six feet at a beach by which time my head was submerged so I aborted, retreated to the beach and had a beer.

Anyway, there is a good reason he does not go down to the bottom of the ocean as only two men ever have been to deepest point on Earth (the Marianas Trench in the Western Pacific, 7 miles down as you asked). That’s ten less than the number of people to stand on the surface of the moon, for the record.

Perhaps the show should have been called “Richard Hammond hits you with some super-awesome CGI that will knock you for six” as that is basically what happens. In a big huge hangar somewhere is a big huge computer-generated Planet Earth. And a cherry picker, for some reason. From his cherry picker vantage point, Hammond can play God and God he does play. Drain all the water from the face of the Earth? No problem. Although he still interchanges between metric and imperial measurements and calls the Earth “The Earth Machine” for some reason. Perhaps I missed the memo on the rebranding of the Earth.

The content of the show is largely drawn from the chapter on the oceans from Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” which makes it both very interesting but also slightly well worn.

However, the addition of the graphics is welcome as it presents the information in an engaging and accessible way. This is combined with some wonderfully put together ‘classic’ documentary skills such as beautiful camera work (particularly of underground geysers and burning sulphur inside volcanoes) and interviews with one of the men who has reached the deepest point on Earth and the people who fix broken Internet cables on the ocean floor.

What is striking about the programme is the amount we still do not know about this area of our planet. Each trip to the bottom of the ocean using machines ends with half of the animals encountered being new to human scientific knowledge. The fact that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which forms a chain volcanoes and mountains 44,000 miles long, is one of the most active geological features in the Solar System begs more research to be done.

However, like the curtailing of the NASA missions, money is a problem when it comes to areas of discovery like this which is a crying shame.

Overall, despite the depressing but pointless apocalyptic ending thought (if it can’t happen, why show it?!) this is a very engaging and informative way to spend an hour. If not, gaze in wonder at Richard Hammond and his ongoing battle on the side of continuity errors. His hair changes from mid-life crisis long in some of his shows to short and vaguely sensible in others. Hell, even in this show it’s all over the place, changing dramatically from scenes shot on location to scenes short in the hangar. Really, check it out.

The Hour @ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC2- 8 out of 10

What are the two best things in the world? Not the two best individual things in the world cos sex and a toastie doesn’t really work together, let’s be honest here. The crumbs would get everywhere meaning the clean-up process would be a nightmare and what would you start with? Would you make the toastie first thus meaning that it would be cold once foreplay is completed? Or would you commence the sexual warm-ups and then take a break to make the toastie resulting in either loss of wood or forgetting the toastie making altogether? Such a conundrum.

Anyway, I digress. What I mean to say when I ask what are the two best things in the world is what two things, with their own relative individual merits, combine to make something truly awesome? For my money, it’s period journalism and conspiracy theories. Hells yes, I am a nerd. This brings me neatly on to the BBC’s latest drama attempt; ‘The Hour’.

For the unaware, ‘The Hour’ takes a dramatised look at the creation of a new BBC current affairs TV programme, and with it the dawning of the golden age of British TV journalism, in 1956 with a subplot involving intrigue and conspiracy and murder and general murky stuff presumably the fault of Russian spies. It is 1956 after all so the Russians are the go-to villains and scapegoats should something bad happen (the Muslims of today pretty much).

As dramas and conspiracy theories are a bad combination due to the overlap between fiction and reality, what follows is a short description of the plot of the show laying out what is real and what is fiction, just in case things need clarifying.

Basically, the show follows Freddie Lyon (fictional), played by Ben Whimshaw (real), a BBC current affairs journalist who, along with his long-time friend and target of his love (real/fictional), Bel Rowely (fictional), played by Romola Garat (real), are chosen to head up a new BBC (real) current affairs show based on real issues, called the “The Hour” (fictional). The show would showcase important news like the upcoming Suez Crisis (real) and the possibility of John F Kennedy being chosen as a running mate for Dwight Eisenhower (real), rather than the contemporary current affairs generally regarding the “outing” of young heiresses. Meanwhile, Lyons (fictional, remember) uncovers a sinister plot (fictional) involving the murder of a (fictional) academic on the London Underground (real), a murdered heiress (fictional, probably) and a man in a hat (fictiona/real) that arouses all kinds of suspicion as in a world where many people wear hats, a bowler hat stands out as evil. Further meanwhile, Lyon’s love for Rowley (and vice versa) cannot be expressed due to their own high-mindedness and history of friendship. This situation is compounded with the arrival of suave older gentleman Hector Madden (fictional) (Dominic West, real) as the anchor of “The Hour” to flirt lots with Rowley despite having the constraint of a marriage but hey, it’s the 50s, post-war laissez-faire-ism is all the rage baby. “We’re the greatest generation ever and we do what we wanna do.” was probably their catchphrase.

Played up as the British “Mad Men”, “The Hour” is something completely different. It is its own show. Yes, the casual alcoholism and the excessive smoking  and the casting of a curvy lead woman in figure-hugging dresses and the sexism (a woman producing a current affairs television show?! Heaven forefend) is all present and the fact that the show is set in the same period leads to such comparisons but that is about it.

What “The Hour” is is a very impressive drama around a very important time for British journalism when (for better or for worse) the fourth estate started questioning the establishment. This is embellished in the character of Lyon who wants to chase stories that are out from the left-field like chasing up landlords who don’t admit “blacks or Irish” onto their premises. His character may well be hot-headed and temperamental and arrogant but hey, that’s journalism and that’s journalists. His summing up of why he hates Madden (hard work vs contacts to get where they are) is a terrific summing up of the class battle of the time and the portrayals of editorial battles is wonderfully enacted.

Whilst the linking of a conspiracy theory and journalism is a good mixture as one leads naturally to the other, my one concern so far is the balancing act between the two. Both story arcs are written and directed well enough so far but it will be interesting if this is carried on to such a high standard for the rest of the series.

But other than that, there is more than enough in this show for not just journalism nerds like this writer but for everyone. The cast for every role is perfect and the writing (from Abi Morgan) is as tight as any British drama around right now with the added bonus of the stunningly ironic/suitable/well-timed plotline of the relationship between the press, the police and the government (Hell, Lyon even gives a copper a few fivers in the first episode, albeit for a look at a corpse rather than anything really bad).

Overall, “The Hour” is well worth keeping up with whichever direction the plot looks to go in and if all else fails, marvel at the very 1950s stylings of just everything; the clothes, the hairstyles, the buildings, the transport and Rowley’s suspiciously looking modern watch.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- 12A- 9 out of 10

Some eras end with a blast and a bang, like the second Millennium (hell, did you see those fireworks in Sydney?!) or the career of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, now that was a blast and a bang. Some end with a whimper after many years of slow decay, like the Soviet Union, Family Guy or the career of Jim Carrey. Well, what to make of this end of an era that defined my generation?

To start out, this is a pure, stripped out action-movie. There is little tenderness or romance (apart from THAT kiss) and, aside from a few throwaway Ron Weasley quips, very little comic relief.  Hell, even Fred and George Weasley are subdued, though that maybe due to the fact they appear on screen for approximately five seconds, total, alive or dead (SPOLIER!). Thos two-hour long cinema-going experience (hype!) is one long, heavy piece of drama and action.

Because of this, it makes the film all the better as it strips out any distractions and focuses on the plot.

It gives the cast a chance to perform without having anything else to focus on and boy do they perform. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all shine, erasing their tendency to overact that appeared in the later films. But, as usual, it is the stellar supporting cast that provides the real weight with three names in particular standing out.

Helena Bonham Carter is electric as Bellatrix Lestrange, as she has been throughout the series. Not only portraying her creepy, chilling narcissism, but also the terrific scene where she plays Hermione disguised as Lestrange, bringing together the two very contrasting characters stunningly.

Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Voldemort, shoving the most amount of intensity, menace and fear into every single word that comes out of his mouth. Surely, if you are looking for an actor to play a villain, he is your man?

And Alan Rickman; as the ultimate anti-hero. Whilst not getting as much screen time as his character deserved, he dominates every scene. In particular, the series of memories explaining to Harry how he loved Lily Potter expressing the pain and grief he had for her loss. Although, it....does....at times...seem...like...he's...having a contest....with himself...to see...how long...he...can...make...a sentence...last.

Right, to the plot. At first, I was a little disappointed how quickly the plot accelerated to the Hogwarts castle and the final showdown. I felt more time could have been used building the tension but I suppose it is a part two so all the tension was built in the first ‘episode’. However, despite spending probably around 90 minutes of the film at Hogwarts, the action never let up and the film kept coming at you.

As would be expected from the Potter franchise, no expense is spared on special effects with the battle scenes truly glorious; a veritable feast for the eyes. The fear was probably to avoid looking like a The Lord of the Rings battle scene and this was avoided. Weaving together epic battle scenes with cutaways to the ongoing individual battles of other characters such as Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville and the others would have been tricky to time together and fit in but the balance is about right.

You could see that every single little detail had the utmost care devoted to it, from the make-up to make the goblin facemasks to the sets for the Lestrange vault and the Room of Requirement. If these things were done poorly, you would rightly feel annoyed by it and aspects of the film would feel out of place. However, every single detail is done so well that the whole picture fits together perfectly with no weak link in the cinematography, musical accompaniment and the whole viewing experience.

As a Potter fanatic (nerd alert), this review could be seen as biased so, for good measure, a few criticisms, mostly stemming from the fact I re-read (for probably the tenth time, also nerd alert) the book last week. The lack of exploration of the family history (and related torment) of the Dumbledore family is largely overlooked. This was an important facet in the book as it was the mystery surrounding it that made Harry doubt the path laid in front of him by Dumbledore. Understandably, however, time constraints means some things have to be cut and the film worked as a screenplay without it.

Secondly, the scene in which Voldemort kills Snape (SPOLIER!), in a somewhat grizzly manner for a 12A, happens in what appears to be the Hogwarts boathouse which makes its first appearance in either book or film. Surely the director could have used the Shrieking Shack from the third film again to correspond with the book?

Anyway, I’m not gonna go on about discrepancies between the book and the film; that would be tedious. Perhaps, once again, this is the fanatic in me but I would have liked to have seen a longer film as two hours seemed a bit on the short side. Never thought I’d say that about any film. This led to many characters getting little onscreen time leaving the deaths of periphery characters like Fred, Lupin and Tonks not as harrowing as they are in the book. Put simply, there was not enough time to develop a bond with the characters to feel the pain of their onscreen deaths.

However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. There are some truly iconic moments in this film that did justice to the series; both the books and films. The ending drew a line under the whole thing as neatly as could be deemed possible with the whole thing essentially going full circle. Which is what I shall be doing when the film comes out on DVD; going full circle and watching all the films together back to back. Come join me; we can dress up and drink Butterbeer and do awkward Voldemort hugs. It’ll be a blast.

What Dispatches Told Us

One of the failings of sport journalism, it has often been said, is its unwillingness to call to account the powers in football. This is for a number of reasons not relevant right here right now. Which is why investigations into sport (from sport journalists or otherwise) are so important as it presents concrete evidence of wrongdoing. This is what Channel 4’s Dispatches programme set out to do on Monday night.

The investigation revolved around a ‘Football Fund’ called London Nominees which was based in Thailand and was fronted by Bryan Robson, manager of the Thai national team at the time of recording.

The reporters posed as a Chinese and Indian consortium looking to take over a lower league club, take that club to the Premier League and then sell on for a big profit. The initial investment would be £15 million (with an additional £10 million to be paid later) to London Nominees who would provide expert advice and contacts within the English game through Robson and a man by the name of Joe Sim.

SIm claimed to have a close relationship with Sir Alex Ferguson who would lend players to the club the Fund would buy to help the club rocket through the leagues, thus making the turnaround time between buying and selling considerably shorter. Sim also has contacts with the current owners of Leicester City, Cardiff City and former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra

As it transpired, London Nominees would not put in any of their own cash but were more and advisory company. Crucially, they advised that the ‘Chinese/Indian consortium) could take over more than one English league club if they wanted to; an idea also supported by Sim.

Overall, to this viewer, London Nominees appeared to view the reporters as very naïve and were exaggerating the ease with which quick money could be made out of football. For example, they stated that it would take “two to three years” to get a club from League One to the Premier League; possible but nothing in football is as set in stone as that. Furthermore, their “expertise” included singling out Sheffield Wednesday as a good club to invest in due to its huge fanbase and current league standing; an insight any football fan could tell you and not charge £25 million for.

London Nominees appeared to be a company designed to take money off naïve investors with their ‘expertise’ persuading investors how simple it is to make a quick pound in football, whilst keeping its nose out of the whole business as much as possible. Robson was keen to stress that under no circumstances should potential investors attempt to asset strip a chosen club (of its stadium etc). Not due to the club folding and the effect it has on the local community of that club but as it would not go down well “against his name”.

The programme highlighted the real problem of financial governance and regulation in football. London Nominees way of getting round the issue of not being able to own two league clubs was simple; create two special vehicle companies and loan money into each one from the fund. From this, it becomes difficult to track down where the money is coming from. As Greg Dyke, Football League Chairman put it; “it’s not difficult to track down the owners of a football club but tracking down the owners of the owners and so on” is next to impossible. When you throw in offshore ownership and the resultant lack of tax and ownership records, the job becomes more impossible still.

As Dyke observed “a loose alliance of 72 league clubs that mostly lose money cannot pursue the sources of investment.” There is simply too much money involved and too many avenues to chase down for organisations such as the FA or the Football League to make a real impression on due to financial and time restrictions. Government regulation may be the answer but where do you draw the line on government intervention into business? Sport is a different matter but as Robson said himself; “Football isn’t a sport anymore. It is a business.”

Furthermore, when potentially dodgy investors come a-knocking, it is not in the interests of football club owners to run background checks. As most clubs do not make profits, owners who can get out of the cycle by selling to new foreign owners (who think or have been told) that they can make a profit, it is in the interest of the club’s owner to sell up as soon as possible.

The most depressing thing of the whole hour-long programme? A throwaway line from Sim speaking of the need to get a PR company in after a take over as “the fan is a headache”. No business would dare say that about their customers but in football, that’s about par for the course; we are here to be exploited and let it slide.

You can follow the Layman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/Dan_Whiteway

You can watch the Dispatches investigation here

This article appeared over at http://www.footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/

Four talent shows ideas for ITV primetime

At the start of the decade, talent shows were the sole property of failing social clubs and pubs; a desperate alternative to a raffle to raise some cash to fix the roof or repair the urinal in the men’s room or to make a fully fledged ladies bathroom.

Nowadays, they are the new reality shows for TV; cheap, cheerful and clogging the airwaves of terrestrial channels like fat in the arteries of a McDonalds addict.

They come in two distinct flavours; the first features people who have appeared in the gossip pages of tabloids (no need to apply the word ‘celebrity’ here but that’s their defining feature; exaggeration; of the standing of the competitors, of the complexity of the tasks they perform, of the whiteness of the smile of everyone, all exaggerated).

The second involves ordinary people showing off their talent (or wares) to a panel of judges begging for approval with the hope of winning a prize that will further their career and give them a living in the profession. A fantastic example of how society has moved on from a time when better off people played God with the futures of desperate lower classes...

Anywho, the latest ITV creations of this format come in the forms of Penn and Teller: Fool Us and Show me the Funny which must have been pitched by the same producers who use the ‘Find and Replace’ tool on Microsoft Word a lot. Basically, the only differences are the presenters, the judges, the prize and the fact that magicians perform in the former, comedians in the latter. Similarly, BBC3 ran more shows of this kind last year where they sought to find Britain’s best young butcher or mechanic or fellatio exponent (only two of those three are true).

Using this formula, here are four more template talent shows that ITV can have, free of charge from me (not really, I’d want at this least 24 pence, a Boost bar and a Peroni-branded beer glass).

1.    1. 'Pork sword sculptors'

Judged by a panel of MPs (for the hell of it), Ross Kemp seeks to find the best sculptors of medieval weapons from meat products. The competitors have 15 minutes to make their creations, with no bug spray allowed, before the judges deduce who has the best chicken shield, turkey mace or indeed, pork sword. Winners have their products dispalyed in Reading Museum for a week before it all gets a bit smelly.

2.   2. 'I-spy'

A series of wannabe spies show off their various methods of espionage and ways of getting hold of confidential information with the aim of getting a job in the Russian secret service. It will be judged by various members of a major media corporation (executives with red, curly hair, that sort of thing) who know this area inside out but need new exponents of the arts, hosted by David Cameron who has no idea what is going in the show but his PR guy said it might get some public support back.

3.  3. 'Britain’s most incompetent'

A kind of anti-talent show where contestants attempt to do various extraordinary talents but fail magnificently for the pure entertainment value. Points are awarded for cramming in diverse acts into one performance, for example, singing and gymnastics at the same time. Judges include notables failures like John Darwin, George Bush Jnr and Kerry Katona. Winners prize; their own Youtube channel.

4.  4. 'Football bore'

Gary Lineker hosts the longest show ever recorded by man where various keepie-uppie experts from across Britain compete to who can do this act for the longest amount of time. Broadcast nonstop, the judges (consisting of Wayne Rooney, John Terry and, the brains of the panel, a banana with a crudely-drawn face on it) can do whatever they like to distract the contestants using the contents of a bag of randomly chosen products from Tesco. Fee for advertising slots in the breaks? About a quid. The winner receives some sleep and a ticket to one night with Imogen Thomas.

James May’s Things You Need to Know @ 10pm Mondays- BBC2- 4 out of 10

In life, there a lot of things you need to know to get by. Some things you learn naturally like how to walk, how to talk and that some things (fire, sharp objects, corners on cabinets and so on) hurt when you come into contact with them etc. Other important things are taught to you; how to shave, how to operate a knife and fork and how to cook meat without spending the next two days losing an awful lot of weight one way or another.

This Monday night show isn’t designed to teach you these latter essentials but things in the world that you need to know. However, a show where James May teaches you how to shave (for both men and women) or showing the effects of food poisoning would be pretty awesome in my book; the natural next step on the road to TV replacing real world parents. Perhaps another presenter would be needed for a segment on haircuts and drinks that aren’t ale.

Anywho, what this show teaches you what you need to know is stuff about how the world operates, in particular, things that are very stereotypically British to have an interest in. For example, the first episode covered the effects of alcohol on the human body and the last episode in the series covers that most British of subjects; the weather.

The format of the half-hour information overload is simplistic; lots of diagrams and pictures on a green screen, some sound effects thrown in with May providing some voiceover work and occasionally appearing in front of the green screen looking ironically like a weather man or the people that do the hand signals for the blind on late night TV.

The plus side of this style of television show making is that the production values cost less than a Tesco sandwich but the downside is that it looks like it was designed on Adobe Flash by a 15 year old.

The show may well have been informative and might have had some interesting facts but I can’t really remember any right now which probably highlights the main problem with ‘Things You Need to Know’. For simple folk like me, the amount of information crammed in means it’s hard to keep up. Although after studying the water cycle about 76 times at various times in school, I might have just zoned out through the whole thing.

Summing it all up? It filled half an hour on BBC2’s schedule, it cost about £1.26 to put together and might have taught some people some things. For fans of getting value for money for their TV licence or lovers of James May, it’s a win. For fans of high quality television, it’s less of a win.