Platini talking FIFA’s Language

RTG has, in general, been a supporter of Michel Platini. It is no secret we support Financial Fair Play in principle, if it is properly enforced. Equally, however, we have consistently questioned whether he possesses either the financial clout or the resolve to enforce his proposals and suggestions (FFP in particular). Our suspicions as to Platini’s true motives were further reinforced last week when he came out in support of a Winter World Cup in 2022 in order that the tournament does not have to be played in the middle of the Qatar summer.

What is perhaps worse is that M. Platini actually had the nerve to suggest that this was for the benefit of the “fans”. "We have to go to Qatar when it is good for everybody to participate. What is better for the fans?" he told the Evening Standard last week. Might we suggest to M. Platini that, if he really wants to look after the well being of us supporters, perhaps it would be better to hold the World Cup in a location that is easy to travel to and around, has some football stadia in which to play the game and doesn’t boast summer temperatures of 45°C plus. While we’re at it, can we also suggest that you choose locations where all supporters, irrespective of creed, colour and sexual preference will be welcome and free to do as they please.

RTG is not suggesting that this ranks anything like the level of contempt for supporters that led to the Hillsborough tragedy but, if there was one thing that came out of that report a fortnight ago, it was that the needs and views of supporters have been consistently disregarded over a number of years by governments, administrators and law-enforcers alike. Choosing to vote for the World Cup in Qatar shows that we continue to be treated as an afterthought in the minds of these people.

Could it be that, in 10 years time, M. Platini fancies the idea of himself sat atop the stinking pile of corruption that is FIFA and that he may be best placed to “take advantage” of all that a World Cup held in an oil-rich nation has to offer?

UEFA Fair Play Watch

RTG promised to keep posting news about this issue and one of the more “challenging” aspects has reared its ugly head once more: the “related party transaction”. These are the rules that allow UEFA to identify and deal with revenue that has been “artificially” received by a club. So, for instance, Manchester City’s record breaking naming rights deal with a sister company of the City’s owners – apparently the City of Manchester stadium naming rights are worth twice that of Madison Square Gardens (!*£$!?) – should come under scrutiny for “fairness” and “value” in a re-assessment of their compliance.

Now Paris Saint Germain have announced an annual 100 million euro shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatari National Bank, another sister company of the owners the Qatari Investment Authority. This supercedes their current deal of 4 million euros by a factor of 25!

UEFA President Michel Platini has consistently stated that teams will not be able to skirt the rules by getting “sweetheart” deals from affiliate organisations. RTG has also been consistent in their fears that UEFA won’t have the stomach to implement the rules. Fuel has been added to our fire by the comments of PSG President, Nasser Al-Khelaifi, who stated that the club will respect FFP rules, but added somewhat disingenuously “Platini said that we needed to be creative and we have some ideas”.

Supporter Power – The “Worms” are Beginning to Turn

With an economy in free-fall and the highest unemployment in Europe, Spain’s football supporters are providing a backlash to the indulgences of their football industry. And not just through falling attendances. This season has seen the introduction of a new 11pm kick-off time to accommodate, of course, television.

Malaga fans recently turned up to their 11pm home match dressed in pyjamas as a protest. Following this, Deportivo La Coruna supporters displayed a banner reading “We hate modern football, we hate television”. In RTG’s experience, the Spanish don’t seem to start their nights out until about 11pm anyway. All the more surprising to learn of the protests – but we most heartily support the sentiment!

Billionaires’ Largesse Creating Players in Limbo

Whilst undertaking a nostalgia trip flicking through a 1968 football magazine, RTG stumbled upon an article bemoaning ever spiraling transfers fees which, that year, had hit a shock record high…£2 million. Perhaps the biggest surprise was that Leicester City and Aston Villa (then struggling at the foot of old division 2) were by far the biggest spenders. Even mighty Manchester United only spent £37k more than Luton Town of the third division. Basically, it was a far more even playing field.

Today, with billionaire owners bankrolling their clubs to buy success. players and their agents gravitate toward them with the aim of securing big money moves and huge wage hikes or to use “interest” from these clubs as a bargaining tool to force the hand of their own clubs in negotiating a better pay deal.

This has created a body of players for whom wages and transfer moves are confined to only a few select clubs. When a transfer move goes wrong, or a player like this falls out of favour, they become suspended in a professional limbo, unable to ply their trade simply because nobody else can afford them. It also creates absurd situations like Adebayour’s at Tottenham, where City paid 65% of his wages in order to be able to secure the loan deal – a blatant abuse of the loan system which is perhaps for another discussion. With Spurs unable to afford his wages for a permanent move, City effectively had to subsidize his eventual transfer by letting him go for a fraction of his value the previous year.

Players of the calibre of Arshavin, Tevez, and Adebayour himself have severely resticted their options when things haven’t worked out. These weren’t the first multi-millionaire footballers who were happy to sit in the reserves, but some of these players – especially budding England stars such as Wright-Phillips, Parker and Sturridge – would do better to consider the pitfalls of falling into this professional limbo, lured by short term gains – however huge. It could be a career stunting disaster, but then, if you were paid millions to warm a bench on Saturday/Sunday afternoons, with occasional mid week trips to (sometimes) iconic European cities, would you worry?

‘Team England’: We Wish!

Several commentators have come out this week and said how much the England football team can learn from the Team GB’s Olympic successes. Perhaps we can, but the real lesson is that success in sport at the very top level requires a genuine desire from the people in charge, the funds to do it and the implementation of a long-term plan (remember the Olympic revolution in GB started over 15 years ago when we only won one gold medal in Atlanta, 1996).

The funds are definitely there, England being the richest football nation in the world, but too much of them will end up in the wrong hands. Not just agents and players’ salaries but also in the hands of the three archaic organisations that run English football that are still packed full of failed businessmen and fuddy-duddies. To be able to implement any lessons learned from the Olympics, English football needs to first reform the way its run from top to bottom – something RTG feels is right to campaign on.

UEFA Financial Fair Play Update

We’ve already made reference to Ed Thomson’s article on FFP in which he shows quite clearly how far both City and Chelsea are from meeting the current criteria. Chelsea may have netted £50M + from winning the Champions League, but they have reportedly already spent £64M this summer. Either Roman Abramovich has a scheme up his sleeve to address the already huge losses that he continues to bankroll on Chelsea’s behalf or he feels confident that, using the smoke and mirrors of accounting rules, he can circumvent UEFA’s new rules. Let’s face it, every single bank and international corporation have been thumbing their noses at fiscal regulations throughout the world for years. What hope do UEFA have?

Name That Ball

Try to keep calm if at all possible but excitement is brewing as Adidas announce the shortlist of names for the actual ball that is to be used at the 2014 World Cup and voted for by fans. So far Carnavalesca, Bossa Nova and Brazuca are in the running. As discussed in Andrew Jennings’ excellent book ‘Foul’, Adidas, through its founders and sister company, ISL, played the significant role in the now publicly acknowledged bribery of FIFA’s top brass including Brazilians Joao Havelange and Ricardo Teixeira.

Given also that the 2014 stadium construction has been hampered with numerous corruption enquiries can RTG suggest a more appropriate name for the ball - The Backhanderao?

Big Up to Brazilian Football Supporters

On top of the now customary corruption and bribery involved in construction contracts for major football tournaments, the Brazilians have also had labour disputes which has caused consternation to FIFA’s monitoring officials. However, a less reported delay was not so widely publicised. At the Maracana, fans protesting at the introduction of luxury corporate boxes caused further disruption to the construction.

Poder para o povo!

What's In a Name?

Last month RTG was pleased to recommend the Financial Fair Play website as a kindred spirit for the Reclaim the Game campaign. Following the recent rebranding of Cardiff City, in an article from FFP, Ed Thomson explores just how far clubs may go in order to exploit sponsorship opportunities.

Naming Rights - the next step. Could clubs incorporate sponsorship in their name?

Shortly after arriving at Wembley before the 1975 FA Cup final, FA officials insisted that Fulham black out the manufacturer’s name on their boots (you can see their name-free boots in this clip). Obviously a great deal has changed in 37 years and today there is precious little that isn’t sponsored - even the competition now calls itself ‘the FA Cup sponsored by E.ON’.

One of the consequences of escalating wage-bills has been the rather unseemly scramble for increased commercial revenue - clubs look to exploit every avenue in order to increase income. Newcastle abandoned the name St James Park and now play at the Sports Direct Arena. Liverpool and Chelsea are discussing changing their stadium name in the search for extra revenue. Outside the Premiership, Cardiff recently announced that they have changed the traditional colour of their shirt to suit the demands and commercial aspirations of their new owners – a cosmetically simple change from Bluebirds to Red Dragons. With player wage levels being slow to react to the 'soft salary cap' envisaged under FFP, traditionally important aspects of the club’s history and culture are now considered as options for commercial exploitation.

We would probably be foolish to believe that sponsorship has evolved as far as it can do – there is probably more to come. Perhaps, for a view of the future we should look at Indian Premier League cricket – a competition which makes the FA Premier League look distinctly understated – see clip
But what happens when there is nothing else is there to sell? Could a club sell its name? Could we soon see teams named something like ‘Melchester Big Mac Rovers’? We are probably some way off that at the moment but there are some important precedents. In 2010 Stirling Albion considered a tie-in with Compare the Market.com to rename themselves Stirling Albion Meerkats. This rather cuddly concept was vetoed by the SFA - a spokesman advising; "Given that a name change for commercial purposes would have huge implications, the integrity of the game would be paramount in any decision-making process."(link).

For the wealthy benefactor clubs, team naming rights might offer a solution to the thorny problem of how to balance the club’s books for FFP purposes whilst ensuring the club pay top dollar to secure the finest players. UEFA has established the "Club Financial Control Panel" to oversee the licensing process for their European Competitions. One of their duties is to review any commercial contract from a 'related party' (i.e. connected to the owner) and ensure it is for 'fair value' and not artificially inflated in an effort to help the club meet FFP. As the Panel looks at precedents, it would struggle to apportion a 'fair value' to any brand new kind of sponsorship from a related party. A club operating on a 'benefactor model’, willing to add sponsorship to the club name would, potentially, be able to argue that almost any figure (£50m, £80m, £100m?) represents 'fair value'. It is also possible that any naming rights deal could be front-end loaded so that the income could be timed to meet the club's immediate FFP needs. Although the recently announced Premiership TV deal for 2013-16 makes FFP compliance more attainable, the possibility of a top-flight club selling naming rights hasn’t receded entirely (and a lower deal after 2016 might put the issue back on the agenda).

In England, traditionalists can take some comfort from the fact that FA Council approval is currently required for any change of name from the Premier League down the Isthmian and Northern Premier Leagues. Fortunately any change in ‘playing name’ cannot be done overnight – an application needs to be submitted prior to 1 March for the following season (FA rules, page 97).

Headlines were made recently when a potential take-over of Bury by Rangers was muted. Although the story was swiftly denied, the idea was apparently for Bury to play Football League home games at Ibrox in a blue shirts and, ultimately, change their name back to Rangers. It all sounds rather fanciful until we recall events at Wimbledon – the club moved to Milton Keynes and in 2004, the Football League approved the change in club name to MK Dons.

As the FFP requirements start to bite, clubs will increasingly come under pressure to raise income. We should also consider how the Premier League bosses would react to a proposed change in club name for purely commercial reasons. They are unlikely to be at all keen on the idea of selling team naming rights. However, it would be deeply embarrassing for the Premier League to have one or more of their top clubs excluded from the Champions League because they could not meet the FFP criteria. It remains to be seen, but perhaps Peter Scudamore (the champion of the 39th game), or one of his successors, might view team naming rights as the lesser of two evils.

The FA aren’t as rooted in the past as many would believe and perhaps we shouldn’t rely on them indefinitely to protect our current value structure. We should remember how things have changed since 1975 – it now seems inconceivable that the FA would once have insisted that Fulham stick tape on their boots for the good of the game.

Across Europe there are some notable examples of clubs that have considered changing their playing name for commercial reasons:

Getafe/Team Dubai

Last year, it was announced that La Liga team Getafe had been bought for around E90m by the Royal Emirates Group and would in future be known as Team Dubai. It has since transpired that the REG have more in common with the Portsmouth’s former Arabian owners, than Sheikh Mansour. The funding for the purchase has stalled.

SV Austria Salzburg/Red Bull Salzburg

Red Bull Salzburg took over ownership in 2005 and have since changed the name, moved to a new stadium and changed the strip from purple to the Red Bull can colours (with, unsurprisingly, a bull on their badge). A splinter club has been formed under the old name and plays in the third tier of Austrian football.

PSV/Philips SV

PSV stands for Philips Sport Vereniging (Philips Sport Union) and for a couple of seasons tried to rebrand themselves as Philips SV. This change wasn’t very effective and was unpopular with the fans and the club has stopped pushing the Philips name.

Llansantffraid/Total Network Solutions/The New Saints

After winning the Welsh Cup in 1996 and qualifying for the Cup Winners Cup, Llansantffraid FC (nicknamed ‘The Saints’) accepted £250,000 from an IT company and became Total Network Solutions Llansantffraid FC. The ‘Llansantffraid’ was soon dropped and the club was generally referred to as ‘TNS’ by fans. In 2006, British Telecom took over the IT company and the sponsorship ended. After trying to sell their naming rights on ebay, the club settled on the name “The New Saints FC”.

RTG Recommends Financial Fair Play

Last month RTG reported on the likelihood that Manchester City or Chelsea would fail UEFA’s financial fair play rules (FFP) and whether UEFA would have the stomach to enforce them. Without looking at the empirical evidence RTG suspected that neither would meet FFP rules or make much effort to do so. We have found a site – www.financialfairplay.co.uk that provides detailed evidence and analysis to suggest we were correct.

Astonishingly, the assumptions made are generous to the extreme i.e. City to win the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup and that they would continue to increase their commercial revenue as dramatically as they have done so over the last couple of years. And still, they do not come close. We strongly recommend a visit to the site.

New TV Deal – Same Old Rip Off

The new TV deal that has been struck between the Premier League, Sky and BT is the richest ever and will be worth just over £3bn (a 70% increase on the last agreement). The team finishing bottom in season 2014/15 will actually make more money from TV than Manchester City did last season as champions. The deal is worth 10 times the original Premiership deal back in 1992 – considered even then as a ridiculously large amount of money.

Like the original deal, the money will be coming from supporters’ and subscribers’ pockets. Note also that, in that same period, admission prices have increased by a similar amount. Again like the original deal, this huge windfall will not be spent at grass roots level or in the development of our national game, but will go on players’ wages and agents’ fees. And once again it will be the supporters who are short changed.

Adding injury to insult is the announcement that the number of games shown live will increase to 154 – nearly 43% of all matches. Expect even more disruption to supporters with changes to kick off times and disruption to travel plans.

Media Reporting Fans the Flames of Euro Racism

When the media reported on the potential for racist chanting and violence in the run up to Euro 2012, it appeared that they were almost licking their lips in anticipation of trouble – particularly with the now absent English hooligans to follow and bait as in previous tournaments. In fact, some of the language in relation to the Ukrainian and Polish supporters was positively offensive.

Nobody wants to see a return to the UK’s dark old days of neo fascist supporters groups so it is essential that these issues are brought to the fore. But if we are to pinpoint racism amongst football crowds, there are very few (if any) European nations who remain totally guilt free. It seems hypocritical, therefore, for the English media to take this rather patronising and holier-than-thou attitude in the way they did (not to mention the fact that the ex-England captain will shortly be making a court appearance on racism charges).

Rather than going on the offensive toward the Poles and the Ukrainians, they should really have focused on UEFA’s constant inability over the last ten years to punish perpetrators across Europe as a whole (including players, coaches and supporters) and paying lip service to the campaign against racism.

Italian PM Laments Football’s Warped Morals

“Football should be stopped for two to three years. It is not a proposal by the government but a question I am asking as someone who was passionate when football was still football. It’s particularly sad when a world which should be an expression of the highest values – sport, youth, competition, fairness – turns out to be a mass of foul play, falsehood and demagoguery.”

Mario Monti, Italian Prime Minister

Words of wisdom from Mario Monti, Prime Minister of Italy, in response to yet more match fixing and corruption allegations within the Italian game.

As RTG has written previously, the more money that floods into the game, expect to see more corruption – a situation not helped when the world’s governing body is one of the worst culprits.

Olympic Sponsors Pick GB Team

Adidas are one the major sponsors of the summer 2012 Olympics. It has embarked on a major ad campaign featuring David Beckham as its ‘main man’. Some of the ads seem to have it as a given that David Beckham would feature in the GB football team.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a sponsor has chosen a team. In France 1998, Brazil had to bow to contractual obligations with Nike that meant that Giovanni had to feature in the team, despite bad form and not deserving his squad place. Brazil obliged by playing him in the first half of their first match against Scotland. He wasn’t seen again in the tournament. Infamously, in the final, it was said that a clearly not-up-for-it Ronaldo played also only at the insistence of Nike.

RTG would love it for GB to do well in this tournament, but a lot of our passion for it will evaporate if it’s viewed as another corporate vehicle promoting its products and celebrity at the cost of sporting endeavour. There are many, many better choices than David Beckham.

UEFA Financial Fair Play Update

In June 2010, RTG wrote a piece about UEFA’s impending Fair Play Rules. Further details have since come to light which have clarified some of the rules. Firstly, we bemoaned the fact that the ‘carpet baggers’ like the Glazers, Hicks and Gillettes of this world, would still be allowed to continue to undertake highly leveraged buy-outs of football clubs. We now understand that this is not the case.

The amount of debt allowed by any club will be limited to the annual turnover of the club. Currently, both Chelsea and Manchester United fail this test. This explains United’s reported effort to make shares available on the Singapore stock market - a move that will turn that debt into shareholder equity but without the business restrictions that a London placing of the shares would entail.

Secondly, the ‘sugar daddy’ element, which up to now has seen Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour financially dope their teams over the last few years, will also have restrictions in place. At the time of our first article, it was widely reported that any extra investment could be made as long as that investment was turned into equity and not debt. Again, this is not the case. UEFA have clarified the rule and there will be a gradually reducing level allowed, thereby progressively curtailing the ability of such sugar daddies to influence unduly transfer markets.

The real test, though, will be in the ability of UEFA to control and monitor its own rules effectively. Given how British football authorities have failed so categorically to enforce simple tests of ownership rules, RTG is really not confident. The real indicator will be to see how this summer’s transfer dealings go. If half the rumours that abound are true, then both Chelsea and Manchester City will embark on yet another transfer splurge. If so, you can bet that they are not the slightest bit worried by Financial Fair Play despite both failing by miles to meet the terms of the new rules.

Gary Neville Is Our Mate

Following the appointment of Roy Hodgson, some of the media immediately laid bare their disappointment by poking fun at Hodgson’s rhotacism (yes RTG had to look it up also) – “Bwing on the Euwos”, screamed the Sun.

Gary Neville immediately tweeted: “Disgusting headlines, good journos under pressure writing pieces for their mates and a certain paper needs putting out of circulation”. Rightly, Neville has gained a worthy reputation for his insightful and honest punditry on Sky Sports but he must have forgotten that the Sun is a sister company to Sky, both being owned by News International. Let’s not forget what happened the last time a Sky pundit, Andy Gray, crossed News International during the phone hacking scandal. Biding their time, News International waited for Gray to slip up and took their revenge.

RTG can’t believe that Neville didn’t fully comprehend the implications of his tweet and we are, therefore, all the more impressed by him not being kow-toed to the evil empire that News International is. But watch your back Gary!

Hodgson – The Smart Choice

Finally, the FA has appointed the next England manager; Roy Hodgson. Vastly experienced and erudite, by English football standards, he was chosen ahead of Harry Redknapp, the football media’s choice, and by extension, the ‘people’s choice’. Whilst the selection process appears to be a bit of a mystery, it seems that Redknapp didn’t even appear to be in the running. Of course, rumours abound about the enmity between him and Sir Trevor Brooking costing him any chance of a successful appointment to the post.

However, it is clear that the prime qualifier for the job was to be English. With that in mind, Roy Hodgson is the right choice. It may be true that Hodgson’s main trophy winning feats occurred on the continent but he has a successful track record, at least, winning many championship titles and cup competitions throughout Europe. He also turned an international ‘minnow’, Switzerland, into the number three FIFA-ranked international side. Redknapp, on the other hand, has just one FA Cup credit to his name with what turned out to be a ‘financially-doped’ Portsmouth. Arguably, Hodgson taking Fulham to the Europa Cup Final was a more impressive feat than Redknapp reaching the last eight of the Champions League with Tottenham.

Many people, especially in the media, have voiced their extreme disappointment that the ‘people’s choice’ didn’t get the job. Given the experience when the last ‘people’s choice’, Kevin Keegan, was appointed, thank god this time we didn’t.

Cheat! Cheat! Cheat!

Those of us who can recall the playing days of Rodney Marsh and Francis Lee in the 1960’s and 70’s, will know that today’s commentators bemoaning players’ diving to gain penalties, as a modern blight, are totally wrong. Usually those same commentators betray their Little-Englander instincts by adding that diving was a direct import that came with foreign players and that all us solid British types would never have gone down this road without the lessons taught by and learnt from foreigners.

At least one of them, Gary Neville, had the balls to state quite categorically that diving had been commonplace amongst players that he played with and against. And he included himself, as well as naming English icons such as David Beckham, Wayne Rooney and Steve Gerrard as all ‘going down easy’. However, Neville went on to differentiate going down without contact and going down with contact. The former being a cheat, the latter as not cheating. Needless to say Sky Sports, who had broadcast his views, was inundated by supporters appalled by his easy dismissal of the practice as part of the modern game.

Again, those of us who have followed football over the last few decades could certainly attest to numerous incidences of players winning penalties with little or no contact. RTG can even recall a teenage ‘butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth’ Gary Lineker doing his aquatic acrobat stuff with Leicester City. It can also recall Glenn Hoddle specifically encouraging a raw Michael Owen to learn the dark art of diving to ‘improve’ his game at a press conference in France ’98. Michael certainly learnt quickly, as he found Argentine legs to plunge over in that World Cup and the next one. That the first one was balanced by an earlier equally dubious Argentine penalty is beside the point.

The real question is: does it happen more often than it did? With multiple cameras, better technology and rolling 24 hour coverage, more dubious cases are more able to be spotted, highlighted and endlessly debated nowadays. We just don’t have the data available from previous eras. Sadly, therefore, it is a question of which RTG can only provide an answer based on anecdotal evidence and experience.

Yes it is more common, but then with potentially multi-millions of pounds at stake resting on one incident, it’s really not that surprising. What has changed is that, increasingly, modern players, pundits and supporters see it as ‘professional’ and a ‘duty’ – as illustrated by Neville’s recent public pronouncements.

There has been some wild talk of retrospective punishments for divers using the camera technology available now as routine at Premiership grounds. But until someone comes up with a camera that measures the force of a push and the brain waves of intent, no current technology will solve the problem. Retrospective refereeing is frankly an area we should not go down at all for reasons that RTG will cover in a later piece.

No, the real danger in redefining the modern morals of sport is best shown by a story from American Baseball. In 1994, the top batter for the Cleveland Indians, Albert Belle, was accused of using an illegal corked bat. One umpire removed the bat for testing, locking it up safely in the umpires’ room. One of Belle’s team-mates, Jason Grimsley, acting the cat burglar, broke into the umpires’ locker room and replaced the tainted bat with a legal one. The deception was easily spotted by the fact that it looked totally different and had a totally different player’s name on it. The dim-witted Mr Grimsley was treated as a hero by fans and colleagues alike and Mr Belle got a paltry minor ban. Hmmm…dim-witted sportsmen….sounds familiar.

This relaxed view of cheating has led directly to wide spread performance enhancing drug use within baseball. It has directly affected results and the record books. RTG is not saying that football will go the same way, if it hasn’t already, but collectively we need to address this moral issue. And fast.

But then who amongst us England supporters would genuinely complain if Ashley Young’s 89th minute dive wins us the European Championship this summer? RTG would like to think that it would bother us.

Help join the debate to Reclaim our Game.

Marching Into The Abyss 2012 Style

The 2012 part of the 2011-2012 season has already given plenty of opportunities for RTG to get blogging. From criminal courts to bankruptcy courts, from racist allegations to resignations, through players refusing to play and then having to play, the first two months of 2012 have certainly illuminated the issues on which RTG has been campaigning.

RTG can’t be the only ones who were astonished by the flimsy criminal case that the tax authorities brought against Harry Redknapp, basically one that rested on his word against another. But it seems RTG is amongst the very few who were even more astonished as to the ethics, accepted as normal by all in court and by most of the media (as far as we know), of managers taking a commission on player sales. Add to that ethical question the fact that this was at the time that the financial implosion at Portsmouth started, and then it should raise alarms for all true minded football supporters.

As if by divine coincidence within a few days of the trial, Portsmouth was put into administration again, ten points were deducted from them again and the administrators now say that it’s very likely that they will fold before the end of the season. Meanwhile, step forward the next England Manager…..Whatever the future holds for Portsmouth, it is clear that their problems were sown by some very ethically dubious dealings and compounded by the continuing failings at the FA in applying their so called ‘fit and proper’ rules on club ownership.

We may complain about the English FA incompetence and we could continue to bleat about the fact that most of its bigwigs are failed business men, but for once the Scottish FA seem to have outdone their southern rivals. The financial mess that Glasgow Rangers find themselves in and the reports and rumours circulating as to some of the irregularities that Rangers owner, Craig Whyte, may have perpetrated, leave even a cynical RTG astounded. How Scottish football could have allowed one of its jewels in the crown to get to this sorry state is a salutary lesson for all supporters – even those that feel they are behind an impregnable financial force field. Basically, there are just so many examples of how football’s administrators throughout the world are either financially corrupt or incompetent – or both.

All this doesn’t bode well for UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. If football administrators can’t spot “bad ‘uns”, how on earth are they going to work through the smoke and mirrors of financial accounts, offshore companies and subsidiaries to make their fair play rules work? Watch this space because RTG is planning on raising this issue many more times.

On the plus side, racism has been elevated into the football consciousness. Plus side? Well yes. The casual racism as exemplified by the Ron Atkinsons and other little Englanders of his ilk, was never really addressed by football which, as a body, seem to content itself that monkey-noises and banana throwing were a thing of the past. The Suarez case and the pending criminal case against John Terry, whilst distressing to the injured parties and the defendants, gives all involved in football, the chance to debate and address these issues.

On the downside, the Terry race row seemed to give the perfect opportunity for Fabio Capello to jump ship. Now RTG was a great advocate of Capello’s appointment. This was based on the premise of “if he can’t do it, then no one can”. Well it’s clear he couldn’t do it and that he really didn’t want to continue to do it, even for the remaining few months of his contract. Where this leaves England, RTG has written about before and will again in the future. Suffice to say that RTG is not impressed that Capello walked away with a pay-off of £1.5 million – Capello seemingly having a media gag applied, says much also.

These are just some of the issues that emerged/re-emerged since RTG last published. We haven’t even begun to address the Tevez situation and the player power issue, but suffice to say that since we last wrote, football marches ever more steadfastly away from the sport that we love and into the cold spiny embrace of corporate values, marketing plans and incompetent/corrupt football administrators.

Help us stop the rot and sign up to Reclaim The Game!

E is for Elite Not Education

The beginning of next season sees the introduction of the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) which changes radically the way leading clubs scout, sign, coach and develop young players. The relative under performance of the current England team, the spiralling transfer fees and the scrutiny of coaching in the game in general means that the subject of young player development is right at the forefront of issues affecting the modern game in England. There is little doubt that the current system does not develop young players of sufficient quantity or quality to turn the England team into potential world beaters so the very fact that efforts are being made to change it is perhaps a step in the right direction. However, RTG has some severe reservations about the plan given that it seems to favour the ‘elite’ Premier League clubs and appears to ignore what RTG considers is a fundamental factor missing from current player development – education.

EPPP itself has been cooked up by the Premier League and the FA which suggests that most of the upside is going to benefit the Premier League rather than football in general. The Football League clubs did vote in favour of EPPP by 46 to 22 but that in itself does not necessarily prove they are behind it. In truth, there was a certain degree of Hobson’s choice about it as the Premier League, pending the vote, had suspended £5.4M of its annual solidarity payment to the Football League that is set aside for youth development. RTG tends to treat with cynicism, therefore, any change to the game initiated by the Premier League as it invariably tends to involve money or influence passing from the lower levels of English football into their already bloated pockets and egos respectively. And EPPP is likely no different. However, leaving cynicism aside for a moment let’s look at the positives. Firstly, it removes the rule banning clubs from recruiting from beyond a 60-minute journey radius for players under the age of 16 (or 90 minutes for over 16s). While it is easy to see the reasons behind this rule, it was never a level playing field. Physical geography and proximity to other clubs made this rule a nonsense. Secondly, EPPP presents coaches with much more face time with young players than before. Naturally this is a good thing.

Another key change is the end of the tribunal system under which disputed academy transfers are currently resolved. The Independent describes the detail extremely well here but the basic essence is that there will be in place set rules for compensating clubs when one of their academy players switches clubs where initial fees are far lower than at present but downstream earnings are potentially more depending on the success of the player.

But in RTG’s opinion education is just as important to the development of players but glaringly omitted from any plans the Premier League have made under EPPP. La Masia at Barcelona and Ajax’s academy could both be cited as shining examples of how to develop young players to a consistently high standard. Both of these place huge importance on educational development as an integral part of the make-up of a good footballer.

The brain is like any other muscle in the body. If used and exercised it works better. If ever you wanted a clear example of the educational failure of English players, look at England’s performance against a relatively inexperienced German team in the World Cup in 2010. Yes, England was unlucky not to be awarded a goal that would have evened the game up at 2-2. But even at 1-2, we were not out of it. If the England players had had the intelligence to adapt to the situation the game was in, they might have been able to weather the storm and respond. Instead we were treated to the embarrassment of watching English players mindlessly charging forward while the Germans calmly picked them off at the back. Sorry everybody if it sounds a bit harsh but the 'Golden Generation' was simply too thick to ever win anything.

RTG has long been a fan of a co-ordinated approach to coaching and development covering all aspects of the game from grass roots upward. We applauded the fact that the National Football Centre at Burton was finally being developed only to find that it is aimed at developing coaches and referees not players. Why we need a multi-million pound centre just for this is beyond our current understanding. Just like EPPP this is yet another stand-alone initiative in a totally disjointed and mismanaged process with absolutely no intelligent planning involved.

If the culture in English football continues to mistrust education – to the point where if you read a broadsheet newspaper you are considered to be gay! – then, EPPP or no EPPP, folks get used to a disappointing summer in 2012…2014...2016…

So don't be a dummy! Sign up and Reclaim the Game

Racist or Not, Media Appoints the Captain

What a strange world that English football inhabits. On the one hand, almost uniquely amongst competitive footballing nations, the English elevate the position of captain to almost mystical levels – much to the bemusement of virtually every foreign manager who plies his trade in this country. On the other, we collectively proceed to ignore totally all the reasons we have for exalting that position to such high esteem in the first place.

Get caught racially abusing other players – more than once – no problem. Shag a team-mate’s girl – par for the course. Actually: you can also drunkenly abuse Americans the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; end up in court after a night club brawl where your only argument is “do you know how much money I make?”; defraud the taxman by conducting training ground tours for brown envelopes stuffed with cash; abuse the England captaincy perk of a Wembley hospitality box; publicly urinate in a night spot…RTG could go on...

No, this is not a moralising call for John Terry to be sacked for the above transgressions. As always, RTG will not make a call on something where we do not have all the information. We’ll leave you to decide whether his current performances warrant an England place and whether his captaincy has been a successful one. Interestingly, this aspect has not entered the media debate. We can only go on the information and experience that we have. Ever since the iconic images of Bobby Moore holding aloft the Jules Rimet trophy on his colleagues’ shoulders were published and documented the only good day England football has ever had, English supporters have been gagging for a similar paragon to emerge and wholly get behind. But let’s face it: most modern English footballers give the impression that they could easily figure in the criminal underworld, if they hadn’t been able to kick about a synthetic leather ball rather well. Either that or digging ditches.

The most disturbing aspect of the captaincy issue is that it highlights the hypocrisy endemic within the game, lead by the media. They plug away with their “me-too” views that promoted John Terry into a position in which he should never have been considered, let alone be - England captain - then twice sacked and re-instated him. The betting money now is that he’ll be removed yet again. A similar situation has surfaced with David Beckham’s attempts to get himself picked for the GB Olympic football team. And he’s getting plenty of support from the media and from those more interested in his wife’s shoes than football. None of which has anything to do with sport and being successful at it.

Take this quote from Terry’s statement: (I am proud to be captain of) …“ one of the most internationally diverse teams in the Premier League”. Note the use of the word ‘internationally’ and not ‘racially’ – which would have been more appropriate, but would have drawn attention to that terrible “R” word, from which he is so desperate to escape. This encapsulates it all. First, there is no way that Terry came up with those words. And second, it goes no way to explaining or apologising for his (on his own admission) disgusting words. There’s the rub. More money, more bullshit, more Public Relations offensives – and mark RTG’s words, that is all Terry and Beckham have in their locker.

Increasingly, the game is being run on the hot breath of highly paid PR people and has less and less to do with truth, actual talent and achievement. England (and GB) will win bugger all the longer this continues.

Reclaim the Game from the bullshit and money men!

Forget Liverpool. TV Deal Not Fair On Supporters

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are, it is a very small number."

Ian Ayre, Managing Director, Liverpool FC

In truth, Ian Ayre was not just making a case for Liverpool negotiating its own foreign broadcasting rights – although RTG admits that we are not clear as to what he is really saying. However, if you read between the lines of his statement he is saying that the entire system for sharing Premier League TV revenue is unfair be it in the UK or abroad. Yes, we understand that the deal for selling rights abroad, where all revenue is split equally, with 5% going to each club, is perhaps particularly weighted against clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United. Their following abroad is far greater than most. But if you’re against the collective approach in one arena then you are surely against it full stop. It is totally illogical to highlight it as a problem in one area and not the other.

Thankfully, for the moment, it seems that the rest of the Premier League clubs are not so keen, yet, on backing Liverpool in its stance. That may well change and become more urgent for those clubs who will fail UEFA’s new Financial Fair Play rules. For the Premier League to be viable as a viewing spectacle, and for clubs at lower levels to compete, there must be a degree of revenue sharing. In England last season, champions Manchester United picked up £60.4m in revenue as against £39.1m for lowest earners, relegated Blackpool – only around 50% more. Compare this situation to La Liga in Spain where Real Madrid and Barcelona negotiate their own TV deals. There, Madrid earned 19 times more TV revenue than teams finishing lower down the league. La Liga has reached the point where only two teams are ever likely to win the championship. The European Union has spent the best part of 50 years attempting to ensure fair and equitable trading conditions for all 27 member states, and yet, for football it totally ignores these inequities.

Just because the proposal has received such a negative response, doesn’t mean we can be complacent about it. As commercialism becomes increasingly more important than the sport of football itself, it is surely only a matter of time before the need to boost revenues in the short-term will outweigh the desire for a revenue-sharing collective that looks after the interests of the sport itself. In 2005, Chelsea first put the issue of self-negotiation of TV deals to the vote, presumably in a bid to meet Peter Kenyon’s 2010 break-even target. They were defeated 19 to one by the other clubs. It takes 14 Premier League clubs to vote in favour of any motion to change the way the Premier League operates. The greater number of rich, foreign owners we allow to take over clubs in a bid to compete financially, or even just to survive, the more the likelihood that commercial interests will eventually supersede any emotional ties that exist in preserving English football.

In RTG’s opinion, the whole issue of football on TV needs to be re-thought and given a total makeover in order to protect the interests of supporters and the game of football that we love, rather than a few wealthy owners, the Premier League and Sky TV. We don’t profess to have all the answers but we do know that our interests are not currently being looked after.

Take the present situation with Sky Sports. The current model is based on a previous time when we had precious little live football on TV. We pay a monthly fee to watch the games that Sky chooses for us to watch rather than the game we choose to watch. Those supporters who choose to attend live matches have to fit around the needs of TV scheduling – like it or lump it. We live in a time now where there is so much more live football on TV that this current model is outdated. Surely supporters should be given what they need – not what Sky wishes to push out. To add insult to injury, football supporters end up having to subsidise other minority sports such as Premier League darts, fishing and masturbation for the unemployed aka Aerobics Oz Style.

Consider this idea from RTG. At a fixed time over the weekend, every game in the Premier League is shown live and we pay to watch the game we want to watch. A recent report in the Guardian stated that there is a worldwide annual audience of 304 billion people for Premier League football. If only one pound was charged to watch these matches (ie £304,000,000,000!) this would totally dwarf the current £1.4 billion per annum deal that Richard Scudamore so proudly boasts about. The Premier League could commission its own broadcaster to show these matches on a pay per view or offer a variety of tailored packages, with occasional free to air matches, at different kick-off times to stimulate interest. The revenue would still be shared out among the clubs with home gates being a factor in how much goes to each club. Yes, it would favour clubs with bigger grounds and with more support but the onus would then be on clubs to improve their grounds, get more supporters through the turnstiles and improve the match day experience all round. With more money coming into the game rather than going into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, Sky and the Premier League executives, clubs could afford to lower prices in order to fill up and improve their grounds. The more supporters they get into the ground, the more money they get from the TV revenue. The end result of this would be:

1. Supporters would be able to watch the match of their choice;

2. Clubs would be encouraged to fill their grounds and would have the money to improve stadia comfort and access;

3. We would not be contributing to the coffers of Murdoch and Sky but our money would go back into the game;

4. Tickets for fans to go to games would be cheaper as well as the match day experience being a lot better.

At some point in the future, it is inevitable that all games will be shown live. We should anticipate and embrace this significant change and not wait for a handful of self interested owners and administrators to dictate its terms. Let us state again, we don’t have all the answers here and this model would have to be debated thoroughly. But it gives the game back to its customers – the supporters. If we carry on down the road we are currently going, the money will increasingly be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people to the detriment of supporters and football itself. Sign up and help us to Reclaim the Game.

Tevez Won’t Play – Then Don’t Pay!

We don’t know exactly the details surrounding Carlos Tevez’s refusal to come on as a substitute for Manchester City last night, nor can we predict what the fall out will be. The affair though seems to give Manchester City the opportunity to redress the iniquities that their untrammelled spending have heaped upon football. City could strike a meaningful and enduring blow against the player-club contract anarchy that has resulted from the Bosman ruling.

RTG has been among the strongest of critics of both Chelsea and Manchester City. This is not because of any inbuilt antipathy towards those clubs or their supporters. The criticism is based purely on the impact of the huge amounts of unearned income that have added unacceptable levels of inflation to both transfer fees and player wages – thus exacerbating the gulf between football’s haves and have-nots and which presents the greatest danger to fair competition in football.


“He (Tevez) is one bad apple.

He can undo all the good work that has been done (at City). He's a disgrace to football. He epitomises what most people think is wrong with modern football.

It is totally unacceptable. He's a football player and he is paid to play. He is refusing to help his team-mates. It's all about him, him, him.”

Graeme Souness, speaking on Sky Sports, 27th September 2011

Most fair minded supporters would wholly endorse and agree with Souness’ comments yesterday evening. If City decide to get shot of Tevez in the next transfer window, then he gets exactly what he wants and City will undoubtedly lose many millions in his ‘fire sale’. They could also justifiably sack him for breach of his contract but, again, this would leave him a free agent and able to prostitute his wares to the highest bidder – and with no transfer fee or transfer window restrictions, he would would presumably benefit enormously in any negotiations. Who’s to say that he hasn’t manufactured this situation deliberately anyway given his many tiresome pronouncements on the subject?

City can easily sustain any losses that arise from either of these eventualities, but they also have it within their means to tackle the player ‘tail’ wagging the club ‘dog’ issue (and therefore one of football’s current major maladies). They should sue Tevez not only for breach of contract, but also for the costs associated with acquiring a replacement and/or losses resulting from his drop in value. This surely would have a longer lasting legacy for all of football and City possess the financial clout to see it through the inevitably long winded legal process.

So come on City, do the decent thing and put something back into football. Sue his ass!

Sign Up Here To Support Reclaim the Game

Audacity of Hope Dashed by Commercial Reality

The opening Saturday of the football season was once the most eagerly awaited day of any football supporter’s calendar. At three o’clock precisely on the given Saturday, at 46 different locations around the country, all 92 clubs embarked on their own history-making venture. The paucity of any football news during the summer months, with some broadsheets literally reporting no football news for weeks, only accentuated the drama of a new season. At many clubs, the first sight supporters had of a new summer signing was when he took to the field for the first match. Compare that buzz of anticipation with the modern game where 24 hour, 365 day football coverage has led to such over-exposure that we even know now what the club cat had for its dinner that morning. The mystery and suspense has all but disappeared. Staggered season starts for each league and first games spread over two to three days, to aid TV scheduling, has not lent itself well either to the crescendo of anticipation.

Back then, most home team match programmes would fuel the mindless optimism of both home and away fans. “Every team will be equal at least until 20 to five this afternoon”, they would intone. If the last season had been successful and a trophy (any trophy) had been won, you would bask in its reflected glory for a season or two as a ‘successful’ club. If last season had been woeful, then this one would surely be better, wouldn’t it? For nearly all supporters, there was hope that your team would challenge for honours or promotion, or, at the very least not to be embroiled in another relegation battle.

That was a time when the audacity of hope was reflected in the achievements, and failings, of individual clubs. In the 1960’s and 70’s, eleven different clubs won the English title, two of which were newly promoted, and only one club managed to defend successfully its title. This also included a run of seven different clubs winning the title in seven successive years in the early 1960’s. Contrast this to the four clubs who have won the past 19 top flight titles in England. Northampton Town took five years to gain promotion from the Football League basement to the top level, a similar feat performed, but executed with more success and longevity, by the Wimbledon team of the early 1980’s; culminating in Wimbledon becoming the only team to have won both FA Open and Amateur cup competitions. ‘Smaller clubs’, in particular, were able to foster these hopes, as Derby, Ipswich, QPR and Nottingham Forest’s, among others, proved beyond doubt. Supporters’ dreams therefore were more than just fashioned from pipes.

Nowadays, most supporters are forced to be more realistic about their expectations. After all, they’ve had their team’s prospects raked over and rated for virtually the entire summer by an armada of pundits and writers, not to mention the millions ranting and rambling on the internet (ourselves included). Supporters can see a couple of billionaires spend unlimited amounts of money in attempting to buy honours. A handful of other clubs attempt a futile effort at parity but all are having to deal with the trickle down inflationary effect of these billionaires. More and more clubs are getting into debt in an attempt to maintain their competitiveness. Since the inception of the Premier League, 53 Football League clubs have gone into receivership: 13 of them following relegation from the top level.

Apart from supporters of the two clubs who benefit from their owners’ largesse and maybe a handful of others (for now), most should be worrying about whether their club will still be in existence in a few years time. Gone are the days when supporters could experience that first day of hope beyond hope unless you’re one of those fans that relies on your club finding a billionaire benefactor. No true supporter could surely harbour that dream which is as much a form of cheating as any doped up athlete pounding around a track. The inequities of first the Premier League compared to the Football League, and second, the Champions League compared to the ‘others’ in the Premier League, have created financial chasms that not even the most optimistic of supporters can ever dream of crossing.

And thus we have ended up with a competition where the inevitability of a Chelsea/Manchester City duopoly in the Premier League – not withstanding the sheer bloody mindedness of a certain knighted Scot – will prevail. Add in the possible levels of debt that newly promoted clubs must take on in any vague hope of competing and it’s easy to see why that opening day excitement has vanished, as success and glory have been replaced by more money requirements and more financial insecurities. One season you’re cheering on a cup win, the next you’re battling relegation with points deducted. One season you’re celebrating promotion, two seasons later you’ve had to sell half your team because you can’t afford the inflated wages on lower league revenues. Not much to dream about…..Help us to allow every supporter to dream again. Reclaim the Game.

It’s Official: Bryan Robson Agrees with Us!

“I disagree with people when they say football is a sport. Football lost its sporting thing when money started coming in and Sky TV and all that. Football’s a business”.

So said Bryan Robson as he was filmed secretly by Channel 4’s Dispatches program broadcast last month. But we don’t just need to take Robson’s word for it. This summer, without a major tournament for England to torture us supporters with, has provided further evidence of football’s interminable slide into commercialisation and, above all, the continuing shift of football’s focus from on field sporting prowess to off field business issues.

It’s been a summer that has seen legal challenges, a parliamentary investigation into football’s running, FIFA accusations and resignations, the initial phase of UEFA’s “fair play rules” implementation, and already its initial abuses, as well as further proof of the player tail wagging the club dog. Hardly surprising that you might have missed the fact that England put out teams for the European under-23 and World under-20 tournaments. Or, for that matter, that the two major tournaments for the Americas had taken place.

The season had not even ended when Swansea City were threatening a legal challenge to QPR’s promotion over their fielding of an ineligible player. The threat of action was only averted by Swansea bagging the Championship’s play-off promotion spot. Farcically, QPR’s fans were made to wait until just before kick off in their final match of the season to find out if their promotion was to go ahead. This is not the first time that legal actions between clubs have happened, as those who can recall Sheffield United’s successful compensation suit against West Ham over the Carlos Tevez affair, nor will it be the last – supporters had better get used to it as the financial stakes get higher.

Then, RTG’s favourite bête noire, FIFA, was mired in yet more corruption allegations. First Lord Triesman, giving evidence with legal immunity to a MP commons select committee, stated that England’s 2018 world cup bid was spoiled not only by desires from the usual FIFA suspects for cash bribes, but also by requests for knighthoods and UK state visits! Following that, in an astonishing mix of claims, denials and counter claims that brought to mind the phrase linking rats and sinking ships, Jack Warner resigned from FIFA, Mohammed Bin Hammam was forced to pull out of his presidential bid, Qatar’s 2022 world cup hosting was put in jeopardy and further FIFA Exco members were suspended. Out of the original 24 Exco members who were to vote on World cup bids, unbelievably, eight have now been suspended, resigned or been kicked out!

Sadly, Lord Triesman’s evidence appears to have come to nought and, worse, has illustrated the chasm that exists between the FA and the Premier League; the latter run by our other bête noire Richard Scudamore, who was quick to refuse to back up Triesman’s claims – despite being present when FIFA’s verbal “requests” were made. It also emerged that Scudamore effectively attempted to blackmail England’s World Cup bid in return for support for the Premier League’s infamous “39th game”. Proof, once more, that RTG’s assertion that the three separate governing bodies of football are all pulling in different directions. It is a subject that RTG will return to in the near future.

The reign of Blatter, therefore, continues without abatement and with the now customary smoke and mirrors of yet more lip service to “transparency”. Bizarrely, Placido Domingo, yes, that Placido Domingo, has been added as a resource to FIFA’s ethics committee, along with the octogenarian and eager recipient of FIFA freebies , Henry Kissinger. Yet again, it will be a subject to which RTG will return.

But don’t worry! UEFA’s initial phase of “football fair play rules” has kicked in this season. RTG has wholly endorsed the principles behind the rules – albeit with huge reservations given that it continues to allow highly leveraged club buy outs (à la Glazers at Manchester United) AND as RTG predicted, clubs would be bending the rules to fit.

I mean come on: Manchester City announce a $640 million, 10 year naming rights deal for the City of Manchester Stadium from City’s sister company Etihad, a ground not even owned by City. Compare that to the $300 million, 10 year deal announced at roughly the same time for the naming rights of one of the world’s most iconic venues, Madison Square Gardens. Clearly, this is a blatant case of, as Arsene Wenger put it, “financial doping”. Worryingly, the media, and Sky Sports in particular, seem to be ignoring the issue, apart from reporting the two objections raised by Arsenal and Liverpool. They’ve also ignored reports/rumours of Chelsea paying compensation to Porto over the “transfer” of Andre Boas Villas with funds drawn from outside Chelsea PLC – that is, it may not appear in Chelsea’s financial accounts. At the current moment, neither Chelsea nor Manchester City comes close to meeting the criteria for financial fair play. Yet, the majority of the media do not seem to feel this is an issue worth any significant comment. It will be interesting to see how UEFA responds to these issues.

Excuse us then, for not jumping for joy at the prospect of Sky’s claims that we are embarking (yet again!) on the most “exciting Premier League season ever” as the so-called sporting contest settles ever further into the grasping arms of financiers, lawyers and the world of cash stuffed envelopes being pocketed by fat cat administrators. It is after all your cash that is paying for all of this.

Show your support by signing up to “Reclaim the Game”.

FSF Parliament – Small Steps or Large Leap Required?

RTG has always been wary of the different fan groups who campaign on various noble, but hardly radical, issues affecting modern day football. It was, therefore, with some trepidation that RTG entered Imperial College London for the Football Supporters’ Federation Parliament on 9th July. Thanks go to the FSF for good organisation of the event and for their continuing efforts on behalf of football supporters. To our surprise, there were important debates about the ownership and governance of football in addition to the long-standing pet projects such as the ‘safe standing’ campaign.

Our hopes for the day, and what might realistically be achieved from such a gathering, were dampened somewhat as we climbed the steps up into the building and overheard one of the delegates say to her colleague, ”I suppose many of this lot are all part of the prawn sandwich brigade”. RTG has always maintained that the important factor is your love of football. It doesn’t matter who you support, how often you go to games or where you come from. If you appreciate the values of sport and fair competition that the game should represent, then you should have a voice in the debate over the soul of football.

It was pleasure to hear key note speaker Andrew Jennings open the event with his talk on the history of FIFA since the 1970s. Andrew gave us a fascinating, yet disturbing, overview of how an organisation that was conceived to work for the good of, and to govern, world football, was deliberately infiltrated and manipulated by corporate interests and a few disreputable people who turned it into their own secret world of dodgy dealings, backhanders and malpractice. The sheer horror of what some of these people have done to football over the years, and what they continue to get away with, illustrates the size of the task that supporters are facing to get back control of our sport. Millions of dollars of our money are being systematically robbed from the game and portioned off to the fat cats to top up their own personal fortunes.

As stated at the beginning of this piece, RTG has been critical from our early days of the well-meaning but committee-driven organisations which tend to focus on their own pet issues without seeming to achieve much in the way of change. It was encouraging to see Andrew Jennings given a platform to spread what is an important word as well as seeing a number of other key issues raised and debated for inclusion in next years campaign. It was worrying, though, that in the session on club ownership, there were 11 points of action that were carried over from last year to be revised and amended, the majority of which had seen virtually zero positive progress in the last 12 months.

RTG has no desire to criticise the FSF - far from it. They are trying to improve the game for supporters and that should be applauded. However, the power of football supporters to change the way the game is run relies on a unified approach rather than small groups trying to fight on a number of issues that reflect purely their own agenda. There may well be a groundswell of support for safe standing but, when you consider the magnitude of the problems Andrew Jennings highlighted about FIFA, there are clearly more major issues facing the game today. When a QPR supporter raised the issue of ticket pricing, the FSF agreed to fight for a cap of £20 maximum, an issue few supporters would disagree with in principle, but that is realistically not possible. After all, who wouldn’t be for a maximum price of £1 per pint?

At one point, a frustrated Liverpool fan called Steve stood up and said the time had come for more direct action because nobody is listening to us. RTG echoes this view. Football supporters have to appreciate the power that could be wielded should we choose to use it by working together. Imagine the loss of revenue if, for one weekend, we were to boycott TV, club shops, drinks and food in the ground or even the matches themselves.

We need a simple headline issue to which we can rally supporters across the board, and even internationally, to fight for the soul of football. The FSF is doing its best to campaign on many fronts while playing within some very laudable rules but unfortunately, at the current rate of progress, your club might well be playing home games in China by the time you’re allowed to stand safely on terraces again.

While we continue to allow the TV tail to wag the football dog; accept an England team that gets further from winning any major honours; turn a blind eye to archaic officials enriching themselves at our expense; adulate overpaid, disloyal players; incentivise agents to encourage that disloyalty; sanction owners who buy our clubs with debt, while still taking money out for themselves; and tolerate incompetent governing bodies who have not updated their organisations since Victorian times; and we take no action, then we will lose the soul of football. Every day we put this off, makes it that much harder to stop.

RTG has always said we don’t have all the answers but we can join together and start the fightback. Sign up here today.