The antics of Busquets and Pepe used by a Spannish theatre group to advertise acting classes. In my opinion diving is a clouded arguement at the moment. Many see it as inexcusable and refuse to accept that high speed but soft collisions can result in a fall. In this respect I feel their ire is misguided; for my money the word dive should be distinguished from simulation. Simulation, the likes seen in this photo, is not the same as going down under contact. Simulation is the act of truly deceiving the ref by feigning injury or falling without contact. If a player goes down under contact it is up to the ref to deem it simulation or diving.
I wonder if this is why we often see players who go down under a light touch not given free kicks but also not punished; the contact wasn't hard enough to constitute a foul yet the player was touched and could be (generously) be described as having come unbalanced. Just a thought.
Via: Who ate all the pies
Positive failure, the story of Madron FC. Great video showing the intrinsic value of the positive community aspects on football. Sometimes results aren't everything and this uplifting video shows just that.
With UEFA's distribution of the "Discover the drama" memo to clubs involved in the competition it's good to see that we agree on something: the Europa League is terribly dull. While the Champions League struts onto our TV screens to the sound of horns and choirs proving a highlight of the week the Europa League is something you stick on simply because it's football.
Official memo sent to clubs
-"UEFA Europa League is prestigious -- it provides clubs, players and fans with the challenge of competing in European football and for an elite trophy." That isn't the Champions League.
-"UEFA Europa League is rich in heritage, having provided some of European football's most memorable moments and characters in recent years." If you mean by discovering fresh unknown minnows every year, I agree.
-"The most important quality that we want to communicate is that the UEFA Europa League is dramatic." Those top clubs who fail to make the Champions League not even turning up against said minnows is the height of drama.
UEFA, the Europa League is none of these things and no matter how much you dress it up it is not the Champions League. One is the elite European club competition and the other, well I don't think UEFA really know. It's essentially the ugly girl/boy pretty girls/boys take out to make themselves look better by my reckoning.
When the relatively decent UEFA cup transformed to the Europa League apart from the format change (to the detriment of the tournament - two group stages?) the rebrand included centralised marketing of the broadcast rights, a presenting sponsor and an official match ball, in addition to centralised sponsorship from the knockout stage. Oh, and also a distinctly lackluster new logo. Nothing, in short, by way of attempt to drag the tournament out of its elder brothers shadow.
I was perhaps slightly harsh in saying top teams fail to turn up, this is largely an English occurance, but I can't really fathom why those on the continent do so any way. The equation to me is simple, to get to the final you play almost half a premier league season and in return for winning you receive a paltry 10.5 million euros (3m euros short of the total for simply getting into the Champions League group stage).
So the money doesn't compare to the Champions League and further than that, competing severely impairs your chances of qualifying for the Champions League. It doesn't add up.
I don't have the power to do anything about this but for my money I think there are several things that could be done if someone slipped something in UEFAs drink and they loosened their ties off.
Name
First and in my opinion most critical objective, as already alluded too: differentiating itself from its older brother. The Champions League has the league moniker nailed down and frankly The Europa League sounds rediculous. Solution? Seeing as spots are already allocated largely by winning cups why not bring back the 'Cup Winners Cup' moniker. It has a prestigious ring to it, suggesting those in it have earned the right rather than being Europes second tier (a little more on this later as I realise a CL team winning the League Cup would undermine this). The cup also illicits more excitement at the idea of...
Knockout football
Back in the day the UEFA cup was a straight knock out. Bring that back. The FA cup is the oldest football cup in the world and it's excitement comes from the real prospect of upsets, that's the nature of the knockout tournament as opposed to group stages that typically favour the strong. It would also have a welcome effect of reducing the obscene amount of matches a team has to play to win.
Golden Goal
If the format was shaken up another factor worth putting in the mix is to do away with extra time and penalties. Golden goal would incentivise teams to go out and win matches further adding to the excitement our new tournament would hold. I would add that I'm not saying that golden goal is better than extra time, I think it would be ill suited to the grandeur and prestige of the Champions League. For a new Cup Winners Cup it would be perfect though.
Sponsors
Europa League's image isn't helped with Hancook Tyres and Western Union as primary sponsors. Neither are primary players in their markets, or they'd be bidding for Champions League rights. That's a problem. The solution, think laterally. Red Bull would be a prime example. Get young, vibrant brands around the tournament and angle it as a competition where anything can happen.
This might not solve the prize money drawback in the short term (Red Bulls budget is massive but whether they would majority fund a whole football tournament at near CL levels is a non starter) but it isn't going to improve as is. You would hope that if the tournament itself became vibrant and exciting rich brands would hope to cash in on this effect and positive growth could be achieved.
Outside the box
Thus far I believe I've made realistic suggestions. Why not end with a wilder thought. Make the two tournaments symbiotic. That is, split money raised by both tournaments between them.
The Champions League remains the battleground of teams who have shown themselves to be top clubs over the course of a season in their respective league: The Cup Winners Cup becomes a prestigious trophy for those who won domestic cup competitions.
With money split evenly between the two a team coming second but winning the FA cup would be put into the Cup Winners Cup without the stigma of being in a lesser competition and a spot would be passed down the league. Rather than have a first and second European competition you have two fantastic competitions.
You could argue that this might dilute the Champions League and short term that would be a possibility. But, it would enrich the current second tier teams raising the level of competition in all leagues as European money would no longer be top heavy. In the long run both tournaments would be able to fund themselves and UEFA would end up with two cash cows and the leagues and football be better off for it.
Although the BBC were reporting on the redevelopment of Anfield I found owner John Henry's thoughts on Liverpools plans for revenue growth rather fascinating. Though commonly thought of as a key revenue stream that keeps clubs like Liverpool behind your Manchester Uniteds, Henry has other thoughts on this 'myth':
"Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40m of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70m if you don't factor in debt service.
"Our future is based not on a stadium issue, but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe. This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally."
This ambition to strengthen Liverpool commercially can already be seen in the incredibly high sums payed in sponsorship deals from Standard Chartered (same terms as Manchester Uniteds AON deal) and the Warrior kit supplier deal regardless of Liverpool having fallen out of the Champions League places in recent years.
While matchday revenue is a fundamental part of any clubs balance sheet I think Henry is playing it quite smart in this regard. Undoubtedly he looks at the trouble Arsenal have had to go through to get the Emirates and at the fact that income from this is relatively fixed with increases only possible at the irritation of fans via ticket price rises. Commercial deals on the other hand seem to be on the up and up these days, after matching Manchester United's AON deal Utd have swiftly upped the ante with a monumental Chevrolet deal worth around 45m pounds a year doubling the previous package.
I think Henry sees stadium redevelopment as an overly costly way to make what some strong commercial deals can achieve cost free and in a shorter period of time. With TV money about to rise by figures comparative with what an expanded stadium would achieve teamed with some strong commercial deals it seems Henry could well be right about the 'myth' of stadium redevelopment being the cure to Liverpools ills. Now just to sign a striker..
Interesting insight from John Barnes in the Independent about the John Terry case and racism in general:
"I would never, ever say John Terry is a racist, but I would say John Terry is no more or less racist than anyone else. I actually have a bit of empathy with John Terry. Ninety-nine per cent of us, me included, are unconscious racists, because we have an opinion on someone based on history, what we have seen, and what we've seen on television.
"If a man turned up in a turban to manage Liverpool when I was playing for them, I would question him. If a white German, who I've never met, turned up to manage Liverpool I'll question him — but not as much as I would question the man with the turban based on the fact that 'he's from India — so what does he know?'
"People say things without realising. I've had this discussion with a lot of old players from Liverpool and they all say, 'I never called anyone a black this or black that.' I understand that because people do not even realise they are doing it. If John Terry did it I think he probably would not even remember doing it where a conscious racist would remember."
I agree whole heartedly with this, the key is that it should never get further than an immediate reaction to the unknown before open-minded curiosity is given a chance. I do, however, doubt that Terry wouldn't remember it. I don't think he is a racist but I'm confident he was happy to use racist language to try and hurt Ferdinand the most effective way he knew how.
I wrote a piece a couple weeks ago about how Arsenal are laying low safe in the knowledge that 2014 is going to be an explosive year financially. These latest results, paired with the start to the season they've had, suggest they're not even breaking a sweat doing so. From the Guardian:
The Arsenal chief executive revealed a group profit before tax of £36.6m for the year ending 31 May 2012, up from the equivalent 2011 figures of £14.8m;
He said in a statement: "Clubs, fans and other stakeholders in the game are demanding a more rational financial approach and this reinforces our conviction that our club is strongly placed to succeed over the long term;
"This revenue growth will provide sustainable funds for future investment in the team whilst keeping within the Uefa Financial Fair Play requirements. We can and will forge our own path to success."
Sounds like the path will be paved with gold if you agree with my previous analysis and we're looking a the very real possibilities of 100m+ a year profits in the years after 2014.
The FA have finally announced the outcome of their over wrought case into John Terry's accused remarks to Anton Ferdinand almost a year ago.
An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Thursday 27 September 2012] found a charge of misconduct against John Terry proven and has issued a suspension for a period of four matches and a fine of £220,000, pending appeal.
The Football Association charged Mr Terry on Friday 27 July 2012 with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
Though found not guilty in a court of law that could not objectively prove Terry made racist remarks to Ferdinand, the FA's subjective approach has decided he did.
Now, I'm not necessarily against a subjective charge for racism, it's disgusting and should be tackled strongly. However, I'd argue they should have found guilt almost immediately after the case. Subjectively Terry had had a spat with Ferdinand and the immediate suspicion was that it was racist. Once all statements have been taken there isn't an awful lot left for deliberation is there? Therefore, ban and fine swiftly and let the crown court objectively prove he had later on.
They did not do this however and Terry was found not guilty in a court of law. As such I was expecting the FA to level the accusation of bringing the game into disrepute at Terry instead. I suspect this has been avoided as, after what came to light in court, surely the same accusation would have to be made at Ferdinand and that is a mess even the FA have the sense to side step.
Then there is the consistency of the FA's approach to racist abuse. Luis Suarez was subjectively charged for racist remarks made to Patrice Evra last year. The FA statement was almost identical:
Mr Suárez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1)
the insulting words used by Mr Suárez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)
Mr Suárez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first-team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000
Yet, Terry has 5 times the financial fine but half the playing ban. Consistent. Apparently the difference in playing ban is for repeated use of racist language but how does that even come into it? A racist offence is a racist offence. Consistent. What too of Rio Ferdinand calling Ashley Cole a 'Choc Ice' on twitter? Now that is an objective fact and breaks all the same rules of conduct breached by Terry and Suarez. He was fined 5k more than Suarez but took no game ban. Consistent.
I think Henry Winter summed the FA's approach to this sort of problem perfectly in a piece he wrote for the Telegraph:
There is always a feeling with the FA chairman of his wondering: ''How will this be viewed down at the golf club?’’
Great comedypiece by Michael Hann on the state of this seasons Premier League home strips. My favourite critique fell upon Everton's home strip:
The problem: What's with the huge white cuffs? It makes all the players look like they're bandaged after trying to kill themselves. Only they were stupid enough to slash their biceps rather than their wrists.
I'm not one for buying the new MUFC strip each year, I think it's a sad fact that clubs now pump them out yearly but at the end of the day if people are going to buy them who is to blame? I'll be avoiding this years United effort and sticking to my 06-07 United strip for the time being, as Michael puts it:
The problem: It's "a design inspired by the club's rich history and close bond with the heritage of Manchester. This relationship is represented by the striking gingham print which runs through the shirt – a tribute to the world-famous fabric that powered Manchester's growth from a small market town to a global centre of cotton textiles. Its iconic checked pattern remains an enduring symbol of the city's culture today." No, it's tartan and it looks ridiculous. Still, United pioneered the shameless-bastardisation-in-the-name-of-history. Why stop now?
The pensioners regenerate to defy financial fair play
Financial fair play is coming into force and its got a lot of people fretting, not least of all the pesky press. The nouveau riche Chelsea are certainly coming in for a curious amount of flack. I’ve said it before but until it’s tested FFP is an unknown quantity, especially, it seems, to the press who have a bit of catch up to do in financial analysis. Will Platini really exclude an elite club, a champion of their league, from European competition should they fail? Take it lightly at your own peril I suspect, a glance at Serie A and the self imposed fire sale the Milan clubs have undertaken in the name of financial prudence tells you clubs are taking this seriously. So, do Chelsea have anything to worry about with FFP? I really don't think so.
First, wages and who receives what.
This is a huge indicator of the change in Chelsea’s priorities. With many aspirational clubs a sensible wage structure has to take a backseat as they attempt to climb the slippery pole to success. The instant success traditionally demanded by said sugar daddies makes this a necessity. It demands players currently in good form, typically in their prime or coming off it and is often paired with trophy winning experience. These type of players demand high wages. It’s something traditional clubs will typically do with one or two players a season as they look to improve a specific position but for these aspirational clubs it means a full squad renovation. This is true of Chelsea in the past but recent developments suggest an evolution of this approach.
No longer, with the exception of Torres, are Chelsea simply trying to poach ready made players off other elite clubs or those who stand up above the teams they play in with high wages. Though the likes of Hazard, Oscar and Mata are no undiscovered talents their significance is that between them they are only 22 years of age on average. Take all of Chelsea’s signings since the 11-12 season and the average age falls to 21 with only Gary Cahill older than 23 upon signing for Chelsea. All good players but with vast scope to improve, grow as a team and though on by no means small wages they are undoubtedly on smaller wages than Shevchenko, Deco or Ballack were when they each signed for Chelsea. They are also sellable assets rather than financial black holes older players represent.
Ashley Cole offered only a one year pensioner contract as age creeps up on him
It’s also been well reported about the financial benefits the departure of Drogba has had in freeing up wages. One suspects the departures of Essien, Benayoun on loan and Meireles permanently where at least in part similarly financially based due to the lack of cover in central midfield Chelsea now face. Benayoun is the best example of the shift from older, high paid non starters to hungrier youth. Also gone are the days of older players taking home long contracts. Ashley Cole is the first of Chelsea’s old boys to find this out as his contract talks continue to stall over the fact he’s only being offered a single year contract. This is more similar with the way with the likes of Arsenal sign over 30s that Chelsea of old. I wouldn’t be surprise if a reduction in wages was also slowing things down.
Chelsea aren’t looking for cut the wage bill in half in light of FFP, that isn’t an option if remaining an elite club is, as you would expect, a desired position. They are simply getting their house into a similar order of the classic established teams. A young team supported by a core of mature players across the pitch that has longevity, requiring only occasional big spends to fill out singular positions. Alex Ferguson is famous for having built and rebuilt teams at Manchester United and the basis of this is always a wave of youth that in its prime can be added to with youth again and peppered with one or two big names continuing a cycle that offers stability, both on the pitch and in the books. Chelsea today look very much to be taking the first step onto this cycle having established themselves, but before wages how do Chelsea afford this?
Amorisation.
Ok, not a term frequented round pub tables during super sunday but this is the fundamental measurement of clubs spend on players. What it is, is the break-down of a players cost over the length of his contract. It’s the accountants measurement as opposed to Jim Whites deadline day totaliser. If a player renegotiates his contract after the last amortisation payment is made he no longer goes on the books as his cost has been written down. Whatever is left is diluted by the new contract length. Should a player be sold before his cost has been written down whatever is remaining is taken from the profit of the sale or taken as a loss if let go.
Excellent break down of amortisation from The Swiss Ramble
As of June 2011 Chelsea’s amortisation stood at roughly 40m. If we look back five seasons (the average length of a Chelsea contract) the majority of this would be; about 7m for Torres and Luiz’s half season; 5.4m for Bosingwa; 4.5m on Ramires; 4.5m on Zhirkov; 3.4m on Anelka; 2.5m on Ivanovic ; 1.6m on Benayoun; 1.5m on Malouda and the rest made up of multiple 1m or less players. Some amortisation can come from further back but is minimal due to dilution after contract extensions. Future accounts should therefore miss the likes of Zhirkov (sold) and Bosingwa (let go) others like Ivanovic will have their amortisation diluted by contract extension (Ivanovic signed a 5 ½ year contract in 2011 taking his yearly amortisation down to 273k a year).
Now I’m not going to get ahead of myself guessing exactly what Chelsea’s amortisation is going to be in the 2011-2012 accounts, but I think its safe to assume that before new signings it should have taken a good fall. Infact, I reckon if we take out Ramires, Torres and Luiz (part of the project anyway and brought into the equation later) it could be very low indeed, as after those sold and let go most other previous signings have either renegotiated or have written down their cost completely.
So, after a bit of grunt work my, admittedly wide open to criticism, mathematic skills suggest roughly 34m in amortisation added to whatever is still being paid in the season ending 2012 statement covering the 2010-11 and 2011-12 signings. After this seasons signings amortisation rises to 47m in 2013, player sales could lower this just as much as new signings will lead it to rise but for a purely theoretical debate I’m discarding these unknowns. That said, I believe 2013 represents a peak in amortisation costs for the foreseeable future. The key to understanding why is the aforementioned contract renegotiation effect.
Working on a presumptious assumption that half way through a players contract the same length of contract is negotiated again (for the sake of showing the results a 5 year contract is negotiated at the start of the 3rd year) amortisation goes to 34.9m in 2014, then 27.4m in 2015. No more signings (unlikely) would leave this the total amortisation as any residual amortisation from 2011’s figures should be gone. So far the total cost of wages and transfers has been assessed and look healthy rather than obese, ultimately, though, it wouldn't matter how high these got aslong as Chelsea's revenue can afford it. So how is that looking?
Revenue growth.
Sky TV has powered the Premier League since its inception, 2014 Sky and BT will almost double current levels of TV money for clubs.
In terms of revenue growth between then and now the most obvious significant factors are:
Chelseas new lucrative but undisclosed deal with Gazprom
In 2014 the new Premier League tv deal kicks in roughly doubling TV revenue
There is also, as ever, the constant chatter of an stadium naming rights deal which would prove lucrative, as would a stadium redevelopment or new build which wouldn’t affect FFP calculations
These three would all greatly boost the three primary revenue streams a club has in commercial, match day and TV money as they stand in the 2011 books. TV money alone looks to inject around 30m+ depending on league position. Man City received a record breaking 400m as part of a 10 year deal covering the stadium name and the shirt front before they had the recognition of winning the Premier League. Of course, continued success in the Champions League is also a big factor in TV money as Chelsea took home 47.3m for winning the tournament in 2012 up from 35.4m for getting to the quarters in 2011.
Managerial musical chairs also looks to be on Abramovich’s mind, though Villas Boas early termination will hit the books, the internal hiring of Di Matteo (undoubtedly on a much lower wage to boot) has proved an especially shrewd move. Not simply for the success he’s delivered but also as a stop gap if we are to believe that Abramovich is holding out for Guardiola, a man who would have no cost above his wages to bring him to the club.
Platini and financial fair play, not as scary for Chelsea as many first thought.
It is of course worth noting that Chelsea have until 2017 to perfect this new model after which they can no longer make covered loses of up to 30m. Significantly, though, with the shift in focus to young talent, an actual wage structure, more sensible managerial changes (perhaps) and with these foreseeable rises in revenue Chelsea don’t appear to have many worries about financial fair play as they attempt to shed for good their tag as one of England's aspirational clubs. I just wish more journos understood a bit more about FFP and a bit less about hysterical headlines. Wishful thinking perhaps.
Good to see Miroslav Klose own up to the ref about the fact it was his hand not his head doing the scoring for Lazio against Napoli last night. Continuing a bit of a tradition in Italy for fair play (who'd have thought), I remember De Rossi doing the same thing in 2006 against Messina. Top stuff!
When four-man midfields play ahead of three centre-backs, they’re necessarily more conservative than when playing ahead of a back four, because the wide players have to defend the flanks more keenly. When two of these midfields face each other, the result is generally a cagey battle. To use a chess analogy, it’s as if all sixteen pawns have been moved two spaces forward, and there’s a mass block either side of the halfway line. There’s space in defensive positions, but little forward movement for the likes of David Pizarro and Andrea Pirlo (the queens?) to look for.
I've become a little fascinated by 3 man backlines after Italy's showing at the Euros, more than partly aided by a great love for De Rossi. So this article from Michael Cox on Fiorentina versus Juventus, both playing a 3-5-2 formation was of great interest to me.
Though a 0-0, I still find it interesting how much this formation depends on attitude. It can be both a very attacking and a very defensive formation and demands a lot from the players in the system as Biesla is proving at Atheltic Bilbao with players like Llorente becoming dissilusioned with the physical demands it makes.
As mentioned I have great love for De Rossi and as such rather than Pirlo or Pizarro would have him or someone similar at the base of midfield so the back three can quickly become a back four. This means you can have two out and out wingers rather than defensively capable full backs pushed forward that is required if you play a deep lying playmaker that doesn't fall back into the backline.
I read an interview in 442 recently which had Frank Leboeuf call this moment a marketing masterstroke. While I very much doubt Zidane even comprehended that aspect of his action its undoubtedly the most memorable aspect of the 2006 final and is now immortalised in statue outside the Pompidou Centre in Paris.
And a player could win the ball with one foot and still endanger their opponent with the other. A decade ago, if a player won the ball, the tackle could be seen as legitimate, but now the emphasis is on the safety of the players.
Head of referees in the Premier League Mike Riley speaking to the BBC about what constitutes bookable challenges. Something that frustrates me more than most thing pundits do wrong these days is exclaim 'he won the ball' as if it has any relevance in the decision to award a red. It doesn't. And hasn't for a long time.
Dermot Corrigan reporting for ESPN on Jose Maria Gay de Liebana, Spain's most prominent football economist, talking about the impending financial doom of La Liga proved interesting reading. I'm not alone in thinking Spain need to seriously re-evaluate their system for auctioning broadcasting rights. Classic game theory tells us that what benefits the group benefits the individual but this isn't seen as the case in Spain. Still, it's troubling that such a well respected economist can have such damning words:
"If things go on like this, Spanish football will kill itself," he said. "A year ago I predicted that La Liga had only ten seasons left, now I see that five more would be a lot."
He continued with:
"La Liga's television rights are badly sold because they are shared between two operators, when in the rest of Europe negotiations are with one party,"
As money escalates among the Premier League like a runaway train and Germany standing strong it's imperative that Spain sort this out sooner rather than later. Barca and Real are never gonna be in trouble but nobody likes watching big boys beat the shit out of wee laddies, the Scottish Premier League is testament to that.
via http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1166215/spanish-football-could-kill-itself-in-five-years?cc=5739
But the key difference this time is Hart is English. It’s one thing to take on a dressing-room rebel if he’s Tevez, an Argentine (and it seems many of the others Mancini has taken on were also Argentine). All you need is some decent spin, a few mentions of Kia Joorabchian and the shady entourage guiding his every move, and everyone will get on your side. With Balotelli, it’s even easier: okay, his mistakes are usually harmless and more eccentric than malicious, but you would hardly need Malcolm Tucker to brief against him.
Interesting article on Mancinis dressing down of Joe Hart post Real Madrid disappointment and his management style in general. I drew similar conclusions upon hearing his conference at first. However, on reflection I'd argue that the main difference in this case is simply an assertion of who's in charge and not much more.
It's 1974 and Muhammed Ali is about to go toe to toe with the sheer brute of George Foreman for the Rumble in the Jungle. Leaning against the ropes Ali went 8 rounds of punishment from the grilling, sorry, boxing machine that was Foreman in his prime. What happened next has gone down in the annals of sporting legend. Ali, following a secret plan he had concocted for the bout rallied in the 8th and laid Foreman on the canvas knocking the world out along side him.
He had let it be known beforehand he had a plan to win the fight, yet people thought he was going to be killed right there in the ring all through the first 7 rounds. Few believed there even was a plan. Being a footballing man few things are spared from forming the basis of a good footballing analogy to me. This event is no exception, and I can't help taking the story of this legendary fight and asking a question: are Arsenal rope-a-doping us all?
