For a while it seemed that football was somehow immune to harsh economic realities facing the world. While Governments talked of cuts and tax rises, the likes of Real Madrid and Man City spent millions to chase dreams of domestic and European glory. It really did appear that Football, certainly the Premier League and other top European clubs were in their own economic bubble.
Within a few days of the new year however and we are reminded that no one is immune. First of all Portsmouth struggled again to pay their wages and received a winding order from the Inland Revenue. A few days later Leeds, now playing in the third tier of English football, took on Man United in a game that could have conceivably been in the Champions League only half a decade ago. Leeds' only realistic cup hopes come in the form of the Johnstone's Paint Trophy, as opposed to trips to Milan and Madrid.
The example of Leeds, along with the likes of Newcastle, Forest, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday and a long list of others shows that success is only temporary but financial mismanagement could have permanent effects. Despite an inconsistant season Man United appear no different since the Glazier's famously bought the club in 20XX, yet a fan of FC United of Manchester will tell you different. FC United was of course set up in protest of the Glaziers takeover, which has seen Man United take on millions of pounds of debt. Using the club as collateral for bigger loans the Glaziers have put a financial weight around the club that seems extremely difficult to remove. Similarly, Liverpool, owned by two US businessmen who are seemingly no longer on talking terms, could face ruin on the scale of Leeds if they don't ensure Champions League football.
Many football clubs across a range of divisions spend outside of their means, taking a gamble to get the next level or in some circumstances, just to remain competitive. Leeds are perhaps the most famous example of this, with the club's demise linked to their failure to gain entry to the Champions League. However, other examples, such as Southampton also come to mind. Southampton took a gamble to spend money they didn't have in their second season outside the Premier League. The gamble of high transfer fees and wages was lost when the club was knocked out of the Championship play-off semi-final on a penalty shoot-out. The club struggled on for two seasons, introducing cost saving measures as wide ranging as selling players to shutting down parts of the stadium but inevitably ended up in relegation and administration. Southampton took a gamble and it failed. Fortunately the club was saved at the eleventh hour by a new owner but it could have been so different.
Of course not all football teams are run in debt and indeed not all of those who are in debt are there through taking a fanciful gamble. Many teams in the lower leagues simple struggle like many small businesses do. However, there does seem a culture of debt and short term gain, over thinking about the longer term. Our credit cards, foreign holidays and new cars can all testify for that. Perhaps football is less in a bubble after all. The fact is clubs as wide ranging as Liverpool, Crystal Palace, Watford and Bournemouth struggle with their debts everyday and if we're not careful we're going to lose one of them forever.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Saturday, 21 November 2009
The luck of the Irish or the cowardice of Platini?
Europe has been dominated by drama this week. Underdogs stole the headlines, with monsieur van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton selected for the European Presidency and EU Foreign Minister ahead of more fashionable, if not always popular opponents. Likewise, Ireland were the unlikely focus of the footballing world, as Irish tears and Henry's hand have been discussed more than the World Cups hopes of a France team with some fantastic individual talent.
The main talking point however is not whether there should be a replay or whether Ireland have been subject to a Fifa conspiracy, but whether or not football should follow Rugby, Cricket and a number of other sports in introducing video replays. Much like the debate about whether the Old Firm should join the Premiership, it seems this particular subject pops it's head up every month or two, with the end no where in sight.
So, after all thats been said, written and argued, should video technology be introduced into the game? Watching Football Focus this week (Saturday 21 Nov) provided two contrasting views on the matter. First of all Lee Dixon and the ever opinionated Mark Lawrenson argued that in this day and age, with the money and attention that football receives it is staggering that we do not use video technology. Drawing the battle lines John Motson chipped in with the cliche but legitimate concern that video replays will slow down the game. Indeed Michel Platini, much loved on these shores and surely now in Ireland, recently said, "It would slow the game down, there would be constant interruptions, nobody knows how it would work".
This concern over wasting time and slowing down the game, comes from the fact that we have never seen video replays in top level or even lower tiers of football. Personally I would rather suffer a world cup qualifying exit, than see football lose it's appeal as the beautiful game. However, many of these arguments occur because no one knows how video replays would work. Thierry Henry's handball was blatant for all to see and led to a goal. So if we have video replays would they be used only for situations which lead to goals? If so, then offsides, fouls in the box, handballs, even dubious thrown ins could qualify for video replays. Or are we just talking about goal mouth cameras for those 1966 type incidents? Here in lies the crux of the problem. The same pundits spout the same shallow arguments, but unless we discuss how and in what situations we are going to use video replays we will keep having this endless debate. Perhaps now is the time for Platini or the FA to take the lead and put forward a structured, formal plan to argue the pros and cons of video replays. The rest of society has consultations on new ideas and intiatives, so why not in football? At the end of this period a trial could take place in a less prestigious competition, perhaps the League Cup or alike. Or indeed we could come out of it having decided that video replays aren't for football after all. The point is, that there are good arguments on boths sides and as a football community we need to come together to make a decision. For all of Platini's progressive work, (which is not stomached by all) I am surprised that he is burying his head in the sand on this issue. For a man who oversees football on the continent that provides the game with the vast majority of it's money, it's biggest clubs and biggestest leagues it is a travesty that he is not at the forefront of this debate.
The main talking point however is not whether there should be a replay or whether Ireland have been subject to a Fifa conspiracy, but whether or not football should follow Rugby, Cricket and a number of other sports in introducing video replays. Much like the debate about whether the Old Firm should join the Premiership, it seems this particular subject pops it's head up every month or two, with the end no where in sight.
So, after all thats been said, written and argued, should video technology be introduced into the game? Watching Football Focus this week (Saturday 21 Nov) provided two contrasting views on the matter. First of all Lee Dixon and the ever opinionated Mark Lawrenson argued that in this day and age, with the money and attention that football receives it is staggering that we do not use video technology. Drawing the battle lines John Motson chipped in with the cliche but legitimate concern that video replays will slow down the game. Indeed Michel Platini, much loved on these shores and surely now in Ireland, recently said, "It would slow the game down, there would be constant interruptions, nobody knows how it would work".
This concern over wasting time and slowing down the game, comes from the fact that we have never seen video replays in top level or even lower tiers of football. Personally I would rather suffer a world cup qualifying exit, than see football lose it's appeal as the beautiful game. However, many of these arguments occur because no one knows how video replays would work. Thierry Henry's handball was blatant for all to see and led to a goal. So if we have video replays would they be used only for situations which lead to goals? If so, then offsides, fouls in the box, handballs, even dubious thrown ins could qualify for video replays. Or are we just talking about goal mouth cameras for those 1966 type incidents? Here in lies the crux of the problem. The same pundits spout the same shallow arguments, but unless we discuss how and in what situations we are going to use video replays we will keep having this endless debate. Perhaps now is the time for Platini or the FA to take the lead and put forward a structured, formal plan to argue the pros and cons of video replays. The rest of society has consultations on new ideas and intiatives, so why not in football? At the end of this period a trial could take place in a less prestigious competition, perhaps the League Cup or alike. Or indeed we could come out of it having decided that video replays aren't for football after all. The point is, that there are good arguments on boths sides and as a football community we need to come together to make a decision. For all of Platini's progressive work, (which is not stomached by all) I am surprised that he is burying his head in the sand on this issue. For a man who oversees football on the continent that provides the game with the vast majority of it's money, it's biggest clubs and biggestest leagues it is a travesty that he is not at the forefront of this debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)