COMMENT: Booing the National Anthem

There were a lot of tweets yesterday suggests that some of the crowd at the FA Cup Final at Wembley booed the National Anthem when it was played in the traditional pre-match build-up.



I was watching the match on television and hadn't noticed much in the way of booing. Certainly, though, the crowd didn't quieter down for the anthem.

There were suggestions that the booing came only from the Liverpool fans, but, unless you were in the stadium, I think that's impossible to judge.

There could be many reasons for booing the national anthem:

1) The later kick off time (5.15 rather than the traditional 3pm) probably gave fans more time to consume alcohol before they got to the ground.

2) Maybe football fans have had enough of the pointless traditions before the FA Cup Final which not only include someone (often a quasi- opera singer who they've never heard of) performing the National Anthem but also the old Christian hymn, Abide with Me.

3) It's possible that it wasn't made clear what was happening, and in the excitement of the event the fans continued chanting because they didn't realise it was anthem time.

4) The tide is turning and, in this Diamond Jubilee year, the public are starting to reject the notion of monarchy and privilege. Maybe they link the awful dirge-like French hymn tune with its requests to an imaginary superbeing to look after one person, and one person only, to be out of touch with the mood of a nation that has just electorally rejected the party of the privileged and wealthy.

5) Maybe the crowd were booing something (or someone) specific in the stadium - Suarez and Terry both seem to get increasingly hostile receptions from rival fans due to their unacceptable behaviour on and off the pitch.

I suspect it's beer talking, or booing. I 'd love it to be the rejection of monarchy. Whichever it is, it's worth keeping an ear out for future events.

Maybe it's time for a new National anthem - one that's inclusive, doesn't plead to an imaginary friend, and one that's genuinely about the nation?





~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is the link from the comments below so it's easier to click on: CLICK HERE.

How the F.A. killed the F.A. Cup

The F.A. Cup final used to be the climax of the season - the last match of domestic football before the summer break.

T.V. and radio used to spend the whole day building up to the 3 o'clock kick off - we'd catch up with the teams having breakfast, getting on the team coach, Keith Chegwin would host silly games of supporters of the two teams playing against each other, there'd be the F.A. Cup final songs. Even my mother, a fervent opponent of sport on television, would watch and, on occasions, even wear a rosette!

The F.A. Cup final would transcend football. It was more than just 90 minutes of sport, it was a social event - a national event.

But, in recent years, the F.A. has done its best to kill the F.A. Cup final.

It's been a long slow death but the F.A. Cup is close to the end. It needs to be saved from the F.A... and from television schedulers.

I guess the first nail in the coffin was the play offs. This meant that the domestic season, even though it was just in the lower leagues, went on beyond the natural end of season, and meant that the F.A. Cup final couldn't be the last match of the season.

Then the F.A. decided to remove the possibility of a replay in the final (and semi-final?). Yes, I know the players and managers complain about how many games are played in a season but if they were truly concerned about burnout they wouldn't take their teams on long far eastern tours pre-season, or would agree to reduce the number of teams in the league and, consequently, the number of fixtures.

Sure, if the score is level after extra time in a replay then a penalty shoot out makes sense, but not at the first time of asking. There haven't been many F.A. Cup final replays but that is no reason to stop them happening in the future.

Let's not forget the year that Manchester United were given a bye to the 4th round to enable them to play in the utterly futile World Club Championship.

For the last few years the F.A. Cup final has been a week before the end of the Premier League season. The F.A.'s logic was that wanted the Premier League to be the biggest trophy, the one that counted. Of course, in reality, the league has often been won and most issues done and dusted well before the final weekend, leaving dead rubbers and pointless fixtures as the grand climax to the season.

This season, not only are there Premier League fixtures tomorrow but there's one today - on the same day as the F.A. Cup final (though, admittedly, a few hours earlier). And if you support a League One or League Two side, and go to watch them play this afternoon, the chances are you won't be able to get to a television in time to see very much of the F.A. Cup final.

Then the F.A. decided that the semi-finals would be held at Wembley. It started back in the '90s when Arsenal drew Spurs in the semi-final but is now, apparently, the norm. It should ONLY be the final that's held at Wembley. That's what makes it special. If the semi-finals are held there, why not the quarter finals too? Why not selected matches from the third round?

This year, things were worse because one semi-final was Liverpool vs. Everton. So all the fans travelled down from Merseyside to London (around 225 miles) instead of the match being hosted at the neutral ground of, say, Old Trafford (just 34 miles away). It was an imbecilic decision that brought the game into disrepute and, of course, created a mammoth carbon footprint.

I don't think the years that the F.A. Cup final took place in Cardiff, at the Millennium Stadium (while the new Wembley was built) helped much either. Yes, the Millennium Stadium is a tremendous stadium, fans seemed to like it, but in FIFA and UEFA terms, it is in a foreign country. They may as well have held it at Hampden, or Stade de France, or at the Yankee Stadium in New York!

Playing the F.A. Cup out of the F.A.'s domain took away some of its significance. It dulled the silverware and made lifting the trophy less important.

This year, the F.A., in it's infinite wisdom, has bowed to pressure from television broadcasters and moved the F.A. Cup final from its tradition 3 o'clock k kick off to a 5.15 kick off. 5.15?! WTF?! This is simply nonsensical. Rarely do I find mysf agreeing with Akex Ferguson, but he has spoken out about this saying that the oldest cup competition in the world (it started in 1871) should be saved from the whims and fancies if television schedulers. As far as I am concerned this, alone, is a good enough reason to stop ITV having the broadcasting rights to the F.A. Cup ever again.

This year Chelsea play Liverpool in the final and then, on Tuesday, they'll play each other again in the Premier League totally belittling the final and making a mockery of footballing history.

Teams, of course, have increasingly taken the F.A. Cup less seriously too. It's not worth as much financially, as achieving a higher league position due to the way television money is paid out, and so "squad rotation" has meant several top sides, serious contenders for the trophy, have fielded heavily weakened sides in early rounds. Thankfully, the situation hasn't got as bad as the League Cup whi h is now a discredited and Mickey Mouse trophy. It is time that the League Cup was scrapped or, at the very least, the European place given to its winners was removed.

The F.A. Cup should be the F.A.'s crowning glory. It helped to bring football to the world, but, I suggest, it is no longer safe to be left in the hands of the F.A. Something needs to be done to rejuvenate this great, world-famous trophy and put it back at it's rightful place as the climax of the football season.

Cissé's amazing goal

Cissé's amazing goal that keeps Newcastle in the hunt for a Champions' League place:

COMMENT: Video technology - why not?

Why on earth FIFA, or UEFA, or even just the FA, hasn't introduced video technology is beyond me. This evening the FA Cup Semi-Final became a nonsense after Chelsea were awarded a goal that despite the fact that the ball hadn't crossed the line.

It's been a bad weekend for British sport, what with the bloodbath that was the Grand National and now goals being awarded that clearly weren't goals, and in both instances it's the authorities who are to blame.

Ok, so the ref was unsighted - it happens - and apparently neither if his assistants could see either - I guess that can happen - but despite not seeing the ball cross the line the ref still awarded the goal. Why? What made him decide that the Chelsea celebrations were more genuine than the Spurs players' protests? Surely, if he didn't see it he shouldn't award it?

And what of the Chelsea players who did see that the goal hadn't crossed the line, but still celebrated as if a goal had been scored? I do hope that the FA take action against these cheats. John Terry, in particular, should never be chosen as England captain again and, I'd go as far as to say, he shouldn't be selected for the national team ever again. Today he blatantly cheated to ruin an important match. If there was any justice he should be banned for life from all football - his cheating was as bad as Ben Johnson or Dwayne Chambers drug offences. He is morally corrupt and his prescience on any football field again is unwelcome.

So what should happen?

The FA should order an immediate re-match. The ref should be struck off - you can it award something you didn't see. And the Chelsea cheats should be banned for life.

I know it won't happen. The football authorities don't act in the interest of fair play. After all, they upheld Shaun Derry's red card for QPR against Manchester United last week, when everyone who saw the replay clearly saw that Ashley Young cheated by taking a dive. This weekend the same cheat took a dive in the match against Aston Villa, again resulting on a penalty for Man U - he shouldn't even have been on the pitch.

Football must weed out the cheats. They subvert the sport, they ruin the game, they make a mockery of the rules of the game. Ashley Young, along with John Terry, should be banned for life.

And then video technology has to be introduced. It happens on cricket and rugby, why not football? The delay, at crucial moments, is a matter of seconds, but it ensures fairness, justice and the correct result.

If Chelsea win the FA Cup, Manchester United win the league, and John Terry represents the national team they may as well insist that, in future, all players wear a red nose and have a squirty flower.

COMMENT: Alan Davies, Hillsborough and Liverpool F. C.

Yesterday, Twitter, or the portion of Twitter that cares about such matters, exploded in indignation at some comments the "comedian" and actor Alan Davies had made about Liverpool F.C.

Twitter often manages to get its knickers in a twist over the smallest minutiae of a story, and wo betide anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of a Twitter spat, faced with a beyong mob of accusations and insults all carefully restricted to 140 characters.

what was it that Alan Davies said that was so outrageous?

In a discussion for an Arsenal podcast, Mr. Davies is a well-known gooner, he had said that it was silly that Liverpool F.C. had asked not to play their F.A. Cup semi-final against Chelsea on the 15th April because it was the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. He pointed out that other clubs, including Rangers and Manchester United, have played matches on anniversaries of disasters that had affected their clubs, and, indeed, Liverpool themselves have never asked not to play matches on the anniversary of the Heysel disaster, which took place only four years before Hillsborough.

Davies then went on to say that his gran died on August 22nd and, while it's a significant date in his life, he doesn't just sit at home or refuse to work on that day.

Here's the recording:



Superficially, Davies has a point. In 1971, 66 Rangers fans were killed in a crush at Ibrox Park, and the same club suffered a similar loss in 1902, when 25 supporters lost their lives, but they haven't asked for those dates to remain clear each year when the fixtures are being organised.

And surely, I guess Mr. Davies' logic would go, that an event that happened in 1989, is now long enough ago that it should no longer have the same significance it had, say, 12 months after the disaster which saw 97 Liverpool fans crushed at an F.A. Cup semi-final against Notttingham Forest.

But then, that's the point. The match against Chelsea is another F.A. Cup semi-final - this will, naturally, mean a heightening of emotions, and remind more people of the events that took place in Sheffield 23 years ago.

And the other point that Mr. Davies has ignored, is that there are still legal proceedings continuing with regard to Hillsborough while all the other disasters he mentioned were both earlier and, legally, closed.

I'm no fan of Alan Davies. I think he is a bit of a numpty, and has, on Twitter, made an a bit of an arse of himself on more than one occasion (particularly with his blind support for Stephen Fry at times when Nr. Fry is being particularly precious or attention seeking), but, yet again, a Twitter spat has escalated a silly, ignorant and ill-judged comment into something that seems earth shattering and important.

Alan Davies should think more carefully before he opens his mouth to criticise the fans from other teams, but the whole explosion of hate and indignation against him is out of all proportion. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Akan Davies, this is just an idiotic comment.

OPINION: John Terry's punishment

The fact the maximum penalty John Terry can receive for his race hate is a fine of £2,500 highlights a couple of issues which parliament need to address.

1) Race hate crimes need to have more serious punishments. A fine of £2,500 is simply not sufficient.

2) Fines need to be as a percentage of income/worth NOT a flat tariff for everyone. £2,500 is a month's salary for many. For John Terry it is less than a morning's work. This is wrong.

3) Court cases cost a lot and, currently, this is paid by the tax payer. Court costs SHOULD be recouped from the guilty.

4) Any crime which has an anti-social element, as the race hate charges Terry has been accused of, must have a custodial sentence. Anti-social behaviour means you should give up your place in society for a fixes period of time.

5) This isn't Terry's first scrape with the legal system. Clearly his previous punishments were insufficient. Two strikes and you're out, now matter what the crime is.

OPINION: A ground by any other name...

This week, Mike Ashley, the owner of Newcastle United, caused uproar on Tyneside, with ripples across the whole football world, when he announced that St. James's Park, the iconic ground that the team has played in since 1892, would be "rebranded" the Sports Direct Arena.

My gut reaction, along with most football fans, was how dreadful this decision was; a commercial brand trampling over decades of football history purely for financial reasons. Ashley's millions come from Soprts Direct, a firm that produces cheap sports gear, and he defends the decision as a temporary example of what a big external sponsor could do - he reckons a deal with ground naming, shirt sponsorship, etc. could bring in an extra £10 million, enough for a new player.

So, the grounds name is changing now and will probably change again in a couple of years. Tramp down the years of history why don't you?

But actually, is it a problem? Has Mike Ashley got a point?

Newcastle are riding high in the Premier League (currently 3rd, the highest they've been in over a decade) but, in the international market for fans, memorabilia and replica shirts, they're nowhere compared to the Manchester Uniteds and liverpools of this world. Newcastle United need to get more cash from somewhere if they hope to compete on anything approaching equal terms.

Some clubs, like Chelsea and Manchester City, have incredibly wealthy owners who plough tens of millions of pounds into those clubs. The owners of those teams make Mike Ashley look poverety-stricken. many argue that their success has been bought. the fans of those clubs don't seem to care while the silverware keeps being collected.

So, maybe the fans need to just bite the bullet and accept the change; the history is still there, that can't be taken away, the team are the same, does the name of the ground matter?

What if the team changed names?

A few years ago Wimbledon was taken over, moved to Milton Keynes and renamed MK Dons. It was a very controversial move, lead to protests and and questions in parliament, but it saved a team on the brink of a financial precipis.

If Mike Ashley wants big money why doesn't he rebrand the team? Anyone for McDonald's United? Microsoft Athletic perhaps? Daily Star Toon?

I don't see that happening just yet but why not? In the world of brass bands many bands have sponsored names attached to an existing historic name or simply replacing it. The band gets the money it needs to operate, the sponsor gets the publicity it wants and everyone is happy.

Would it matter if the team name changed? Really?

I think it'll have to happen within my lifetime if football is to survive as a major business. Without new and imaginative ways of financing the sport many teams will go to the wall over he next few decades.