Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Sunday, 13 May 2012
366/134 - Getting ready for the Premier League finale...
Click here for today's Day of Judgement Project 366!
PREVIEW: Last day of the Premiership season
And so, finally, we get to the last day of the Premiership season.
As a Newcastle fan, it's been an incredible nine months that has seen the team rise up the tale o already be guaranteed European football next season (all be it the Europa league)- and,if results do go our way we could still end up in the Champions' League. I'm not holding my breath though. I predict that Spurs will win and snatch 3rd place from Arsenal who will falter against Wigan. ewcastle's result is then irrelevant, but I predict a draw against Everton.
Still, a momentous season that has, quite rightly, seen Alan Pardew voted Manager of the Season. Fingers crossed that he's able to keep the squad together for the next campaign.
At the bottom of the table Wolves and Blackburn are already down, and the final relegation place will be between Bolton, QPR and Aston Villa (though Villa would be very unlucky to go down). I think Bolton, currently in 18th are unlikely to get anything more thana draw at Stoke and will end up in the Championship for next season, but I wouldn't be surprised if the were some twists and turns and Maths involved at various points in the afternoon.
As for the title, it's a straight fight between the Red and Blue halves of Manchester. City have won both the derbies this season (the 6-1 win at Old Trafford being one of the highlights of the season) and Manchester United have thrown away an 8-point lead in the past month. So the momentum is against Fergie lifting the trophy again.
It has been one of the most exciting contests in recent years and is probably the closest battle for the title since the climax to the 1989 season, when Arsenal snatched the title from Liverpool with the last kick of the ball.
Manchester City haven't won the title for 44 years and only have to beat to QPR to make amends for those decades of hurt (let's be honest, Manchester United are going to beat Sunderland but they're not going to get into double figures and that's what it will involve).
I hope it's all not all over by 3.15. I hope for twists and turns and surprises. I hope that next season can be just as exciting. I hope that Alex Ferguson ends the season trophyless. I hope Newcastle do snatch a Champions' League place!
As a Newcastle fan, it's been an incredible nine months that has seen the team rise up the tale o already be guaranteed European football next season (all be it the Europa league)- and,if results do go our way we could still end up in the Champions' League. I'm not holding my breath though. I predict that Spurs will win and snatch 3rd place from Arsenal who will falter against Wigan. ewcastle's result is then irrelevant, but I predict a draw against Everton.
Still, a momentous season that has, quite rightly, seen Alan Pardew voted Manager of the Season. Fingers crossed that he's able to keep the squad together for the next campaign.
At the bottom of the table Wolves and Blackburn are already down, and the final relegation place will be between Bolton, QPR and Aston Villa (though Villa would be very unlucky to go down). I think Bolton, currently in 18th are unlikely to get anything more thana draw at Stoke and will end up in the Championship for next season, but I wouldn't be surprised if the were some twists and turns and Maths involved at various points in the afternoon.
As for the title, it's a straight fight between the Red and Blue halves of Manchester. City have won both the derbies this season (the 6-1 win at Old Trafford being one of the highlights of the season) and Manchester United have thrown away an 8-point lead in the past month. So the momentum is against Fergie lifting the trophy again.
It has been one of the most exciting contests in recent years and is probably the closest battle for the title since the climax to the 1989 season, when Arsenal snatched the title from Liverpool with the last kick of the ball.
Manchester City haven't won the title for 44 years and only have to beat to QPR to make amends for those decades of hurt (let's be honest, Manchester United are going to beat Sunderland but they're not going to get into double figures and that's what it will involve).
I hope it's all not all over by 3.15. I hope for twists and turns and surprises. I hope that next season can be just as exciting. I hope that Alex Ferguson ends the season trophyless. I hope Newcastle do snatch a Champions' League place!
Monday, 23 April 2012
Premier League Manager of the Season
The football season (soccer!) is coming to an end and, alongside who will win various trophies or be relegated or promoted, the question has to be:
Who should be the Manager of the Year?
More often than not it's an accolade that's been awarded to the manager of the team who wins the Premier League and, while that seems logical, it doesn't necessarily say who has been the best.
Yes, it's a great achievement to win the Premier League but whether it's Mancini's Manchester City or Ferguson's Manchester United they will have done it with established Premier League squads, packed full of internationals all on huge salaries and with an enormous budget to support and add to their current players.
Alex Ferguson has had a mixed season with notable failures along the road - not only was Man U's first half of the season poor on their own terms, but their exits from various cup competitions, including Borg European trophies, suggests a manager who is no past his best. Surely, Ferguson's days at Okd Trafford are numbered?
Roberto Mancini has continued to transform the blue side of Manchester under great pressure and expectation from the wealthy owners. He has assembled an impressive squad who have made advances on previous seasons but his position is still under threat and, unless they do win the Premier League in the next few weeks, he has failed to win any cups of make an impact in Europe.
Harry Redknapp was having an amazing season with Spurs, right up until the point when Capello left the England job and he became the red hot favourite to take over the national team. Spurs could still finish in the top 4 and qualify for next season's Champions' League, which is an amazing achievement, but, I think it's fair to say, they have back pedalled this season and there must be many who are now less certain at the prospect of Harry being the England manager.
Arsene Wenger's season has been too mixed, with, at some points, fans calling for his head on a silver platter. Kenny Dalglish's domestic cup success has been eclipsed by a cataclysmic descent in league form. Roberto di Matteo has done well but only been in charge for a small proportion of the season.
That leaves one serious candidate, and my choice as Manager of the Season...
Newcastle United have exceeded all but the most most die-hard of fans expectations and have played with style and flair. They've certainly qualified for Europe and, as I write, have a very good chance of qualifying for the Champions' League. They have sustained their performances throughout the season and, while their cup performances weren't good, their league form has gone from strength to strength despite limited finances and continued uncertainty about the ownership of the club. This is only their second season back in the top flight, and Pardew's only been in charge for a year and a half. A fantastic achievement. I just hope the FA steer clear and don't try to lure him to Wembley...
My manager of the year, by a long way, has to be:
ALAN PARDEW
Who should be the Manager of the Year?
More often than not it's an accolade that's been awarded to the manager of the team who wins the Premier League and, while that seems logical, it doesn't necessarily say who has been the best.
Yes, it's a great achievement to win the Premier League but whether it's Mancini's Manchester City or Ferguson's Manchester United they will have done it with established Premier League squads, packed full of internationals all on huge salaries and with an enormous budget to support and add to their current players.
Alex Ferguson has had a mixed season with notable failures along the road - not only was Man U's first half of the season poor on their own terms, but their exits from various cup competitions, including Borg European trophies, suggests a manager who is no past his best. Surely, Ferguson's days at Okd Trafford are numbered?
Roberto Mancini has continued to transform the blue side of Manchester under great pressure and expectation from the wealthy owners. He has assembled an impressive squad who have made advances on previous seasons but his position is still under threat and, unless they do win the Premier League in the next few weeks, he has failed to win any cups of make an impact in Europe.
Harry Redknapp was having an amazing season with Spurs, right up until the point when Capello left the England job and he became the red hot favourite to take over the national team. Spurs could still finish in the top 4 and qualify for next season's Champions' League, which is an amazing achievement, but, I think it's fair to say, they have back pedalled this season and there must be many who are now less certain at the prospect of Harry being the England manager.
Arsene Wenger's season has been too mixed, with, at some points, fans calling for his head on a silver platter. Kenny Dalglish's domestic cup success has been eclipsed by a cataclysmic descent in league form. Roberto di Matteo has done well but only been in charge for a small proportion of the season.
That leaves one serious candidate, and my choice as Manager of the Season...
Newcastle United have exceeded all but the most most die-hard of fans expectations and have played with style and flair. They've certainly qualified for Europe and, as I write, have a very good chance of qualifying for the Champions' League. They have sustained their performances throughout the season and, while their cup performances weren't good, their league form has gone from strength to strength despite limited finances and continued uncertainty about the ownership of the club. This is only their second season back in the top flight, and Pardew's only been in charge for a year and a half. A fantastic achievement. I just hope the FA steer clear and don't try to lure him to Wembley...
My manager of the year, by a long way, has to be:
ALAN PARDEW
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
OPINION: Football finances
Football (soccer) finances in the UK have been a mess for decades now. Clubs overspending on players who receive gargantuan salaries, underwritten by sugar daddies as hobbies, few clubs, in their current state, are sustainable.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Monday, 13 February 2012
COMMENT: Rangers FC goes into administration
With the ongoing financial worries for many clubs it was, perhaps, thought that the major problems were restricted to the likes of Portsmouth and Darlington. No one, it seems, was prepared for a big club to get into trouble and go into administration, but that's exactly what's happened today.
Rangers has a long and successful history in the Scottish League and many would see them and their fierce rivals Celtic as clubs who were surely safe from financial woes. The past couple of years have, though, been financially problematic for Rangers, despite big crowds and revenue being generated. Today they have announced that they're going into administration. This could save them or it could end with the club going out of business.
Surely, Rangers are too big a club to go bust?
It's time football sorted itself out. The UK can only really sustain 16, maybe 20, fully professional clubs. Players have to play their part and accept that their excessive wage demands are at the heart of many team's worries. And we need a UK league.
A UK league has been discussed many times before and, in all reality, it would be an Anglo-Scottish league, but that could the one saving grace for Rangers.
Alex Salmond won't like this because it shows how fragile many Scottish businesses already are. How many will go to the wall if he manages to win independence?
Personally I'd favour a franchise system for UK football, as in American sports, so that each part of the UK was guaranteed a team. Sure, it bucks with history but a new approach is what is needed. After all, if Rangers go bust, how long til Celtic follow? Liverpool? Manchester United?
Rangers would, in all likelihood, struggle in the English Premier League but the television money might help savd their scalp.
The FA and SFA need to act now to stop the implosion of lots of clubs on dodgy financial footing, or being propped up by one wealthy benefactor who could turn their back on a whim. HMRC would be doing the future of football a lot of favours if they forced some of the clubs with huge tax bills hanging over them out of business. It's time for a professional game fit for the 21st century.
Rangers has a long and successful history in the Scottish League and many would see them and their fierce rivals Celtic as clubs who were surely safe from financial woes. The past couple of years have, though, been financially problematic for Rangers, despite big crowds and revenue being generated. Today they have announced that they're going into administration. This could save them or it could end with the club going out of business.
Surely, Rangers are too big a club to go bust?
It's time football sorted itself out. The UK can only really sustain 16, maybe 20, fully professional clubs. Players have to play their part and accept that their excessive wage demands are at the heart of many team's worries. And we need a UK league.
A UK league has been discussed many times before and, in all reality, it would be an Anglo-Scottish league, but that could the one saving grace for Rangers.
Alex Salmond won't like this because it shows how fragile many Scottish businesses already are. How many will go to the wall if he manages to win independence?
Personally I'd favour a franchise system for UK football, as in American sports, so that each part of the UK was guaranteed a team. Sure, it bucks with history but a new approach is what is needed. After all, if Rangers go bust, how long til Celtic follow? Liverpool? Manchester United?
Rangers would, in all likelihood, struggle in the English Premier League but the television money might help savd their scalp.
The FA and SFA need to act now to stop the implosion of lots of clubs on dodgy financial footing, or being propped up by one wealthy benefactor who could turn their back on a whim. HMRC would be doing the future of football a lot of favours if they forced some of the clubs with huge tax bills hanging over them out of business. It's time for a professional game fit for the 21st century.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge
Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Monday, 2 January 2012
Friday, 2 December 2011
EURO 2012 Draw
Euro 2012 takes place in Poland and Ukraine between 8th June and 1st July 2012.
There are 16 competing nations:
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland (co-hosts), Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Russia, Spain (Holders), Sweden and Ukraine (co-hosts)
The Group stage sees 4 groups of 4 teams compete against each other On a round robin basis, the top 2 from each group qualifying the the quarter finals.
The 4 groups were drawn, in Kiev, on 2nd December 2011:
Group A
*Poland
*Greece
*Russia
*Czech Republic
Group B
*Netherlands
*Denmark
*Germany
*Portugal
Group C
*Spain
*Italy
*Republic of Ireland
*Croatia
Group D
*Ukraine
*Sweden
*France
*England
There are 16 competing nations:
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland (co-hosts), Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Russia, Spain (Holders), Sweden and Ukraine (co-hosts)
The Group stage sees 4 groups of 4 teams compete against each other On a round robin basis, the top 2 from each group qualifying the the quarter finals.
The 4 groups were drawn, in Kiev, on 2nd December 2011:
Group A
*Poland
*Greece
*Russia
*Czech Republic
Group B
*Netherlands
*Denmark
*Germany
*Portugal
Group C
*Spain
*Italy
*Republic of Ireland
*Croatia
Group D
*Ukraine
*Sweden
*France
*England
Friday, 11 November 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)