Showing posts with label changes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label changes. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 November 2007

The Right Time to Change the FA

As expected Sepp Blatter got his proposal through to end the continental rotation policy for World Cup hosting. The FA and several bandwagon jumping politicians leapt to advocate the English candidacy for the 2018 tournament. Needless to say England were immediately installed as favourites by the bookies bolstered by the apparent support of such luminaries as Michel Platini and Franz Beckenbauer. Like most English supporters, of course, we are gagging to see a major football tournament on these shores again.

This morning's papers have given estimates as to the cost of a winning bid to be anything between £12-£15M which, if true, would seem to be good value given that the five votes the England 2006 bid secured, cost £10.75M. But, hang on, this is an estimate from English sporting administrators and a British government. The 2012 Olympics original total cost was estimated at £2.5bn and, despite a concerted PR offensive to obscure costs, is widely believed to be currently somewhere between £8bn and £12bn. So, a miscalculation of a factor of between three and five times. Based on that, we should expect that the real 2018 World Cup bid will cost in the order of £40M-£50M.

Frankly, RTG can't give a toss what it costs (within reason), so long as England wins it. However, RTG does not have a lot of confidence in the FA to deliver. Take the 2006 bid where the voting took place in 2000. By all accounts, England had agreed previously with Germany that they would do a quid pro quo deal whereby Germany's support for England's Euro 96 bid would be reciprocated by England's support for Germany's 2006 World Cup bid. Although, Bert Millichip, who was the England negotiator for this arrangement, apparently slept through this part of the meeting. Whatever happened, in hindsight, England were never going to win the 2006 bid as shown by their first round voting elimination after a paltry five votes (out of 24 cast). This despite several large financial inducements made to various national football associations in order to procure their votes.

The only conclusion RTG can find for this ludicrous decision to make the bid was for a load of suits at the FA to go on one big jolly around the globe at what is ultimately the supporters' expense. Indeed, if reports are to be believed, ex-players who fronted the bid were making more money than they ever did as full-time professionals (£400K split between Sirs Charlton and Hurst). Little wonder that there is already an orchestrated media campaign by certain parties to ensure their names are in the hat for the next round. Hic! Shhhorry.

Some people might say that the 2006 bid provided a good 'dry run' for future bids. In this case, this was clearly not so. The perception amongst voting associations was that England had 'done the dirty' on Germany and that their programme of financial incentives was underhand. This included funding Peter Withe as manager of the Thailand national team, a friendly against Saudi Arabia, Manchester United's participation in the farcical FIFA 'World Club Championship' amongst others. The bottom line is that, if anything, this actually damaged England's reputation in world football. Imagine the damage and embarasment that would have been caused by a half-finished Wembley Stadium!

Frankly, that £10.75M could have been spent a lot more wisely on the constructive development of English football. Why, for instance, with the total dearth of English management talent in the country, is there no official FA-backed management academy? We appear to be wedded in this country to the belief that only top level ex-players can successfully manage a team. One wonders what would have happened to an English Mourinho or Wenger. But that's the subject of yet another debate.

For several years, England has been the richest footballing nation in the world. We should be a superpower in football given the financial backing and a population of 50 million people. But as already stated in previous RTG posts, we have not come close to winning anything apart from 1990. It is clear the archaic FA is neither structured nor staffed to be able to take advantage of England football's financial muscle.

Surely this bid represents the ideal opportunity to restructure the whole game within England to, not only successfully win the bid, but also win the World Cup!

Reclaim the Game - The Week's Events

  • Various reserve teams slogged out the fourth round of the Carling Cup over the last two days. Unusually, the fifth round, ie the quarter finals, feature Premeirship only teams and, indeed, three of the big four. RTG leaves you to draw your own conclusions as to the significance of this because we're not really sure.
  • Congratulations go out to Petr Cech for winning his libel case against Kelvin MacKenzie and the Sun. Mr MacKenzie claimed in his Sun column that the Cech family dog had attacked his own dog whilst out on a walk. Once again it has been shown that the Sun and Mr MacKenzie write lies and manipulate the truth. The trouble is they have an enormous impact on football. It will be hard to get things changed for football in this country with the vested interests of News International and its sister company BSkyB. Especially grateful to Cech for being brave enough to take on the Sun and a fine gesture to donate his 'substantial' damages to charity.

Thursday, 27 September 2007

Carling Cup: Half Full or Half Empty?

What do you make of the Carling Cup? Sorry, League...no..Milk...no...Coca Cola...no Worthington...no...Littlewoods (Pools or Catalogue take your pick)...Rumbelows - apologies to those sponsors who have spent millions but we can't remember your name. Cup.


Time for reform! Make it what it actually is. The Football League Cup. That is, a competition for teams that play in The Football League. Let's leave the Premiership teams out of it and make it a very lucrative competition for the Football League teams that take part. What?


Let's look at the history of the Carling (League) Cup.


Started in 1960/61 season it was the brainchild of Alan Hardaker, the Secretary of a then far more powerful Football League, as a two-legged open competition to generate revenue for the 'lower league clubs'. Initially several of the top teams of the time did not take part. Indeed, enthusiasm and seriousness were lacking. Gates were poor and the teams that made it to the latter part of the competition would never enjoy such heights today. Great that Rochdale in 1962 became the only lowest division team ever to take part in a major final. Sadly an irrelevance now.


In the current era, in a move reminiscent of the early League Cup days, the 'Top' teams (well, those involved in Europe) are excused the first two rounds. For the romantics, most of the potential glamour, money-spinning ties have been lost, much in the same way as the FA Cup third round would lose its allure if the same elite were to get a bye now.


For most Premiership teams, the Carling Cup has become, at best, a proving ground for new players to establish themselves and get competitive experience, or run-outs for injured players. Even Championship sides with an eye on promotion choose to rest players. Somewhat disturbingly, the 'elite' (if they overcome the first few hurdles) start to bring in their more experienced and established players if they see the chance of a prize at the end. So where's the competitive element in that?


Why could Premiership teams do without the competition?


1) Aside from clubs that 'blackmail' their fans into going by tying in compulsory Carling Cup match purchases with season ticket renewal, gates are piss poor

2) There are already too many games played by these clubs

3) Supporter fatigue (costs, travel, over-exposure)


Why would it benefit League Teams to have a competition for just them?


1) Different winners. More opportunities for smaller clubs (Wembley semi-finals/final)

2) Better financials for those clubs


We thought for a while of giving an incentive like automatic promotion to the winners. So whichever league you were in you would get moved up one at the beginning of the next season. But we couldn't make it work no matter how hard we looked at it. So we came up with a worthwhile financial incentive. Say £5-10million for the winners. That buys one or two decent players these days. At least it would make the competiton competitive (if that isn't an oxymoron we don't know what is). But if teams thought they had a chance of winning it and gaining something at the end, not to mention a Wembley appearance or two, it would add a bit of spice that is currently lacking. Whereas now you have the big teams turning up at the park half-way through the game and ruining the fun, you'd have a prize worth making some effort for.


Shocks like Coventry's victory are all good for the game. Special praise should got to Sir Alex for his best look-upset-like-I'm-disappointed-for-the-fans face. But the truth is those shocks are increasingly few and far between and we're sure Coventry would swap it for the chance of a big final at Wembley. And, in truth, would most Premiership managers jump at the chance not to have to play in it? Surely they would. Seems like if somebody put some thought into this most could come out winners. Depends who you ask perhaps.