Different clubs, different approaches and different incompetences - Blackburn Rovers and Wolverhampton Wanderers are this season's case studies of how not to run a football club. Both have been deservedly relegated from the Premier League and hopefully will not return any time soon. Football - and more saliently - their own fans, deserve better.
Early results for Wolves were promising, and the club looked set for an unusually comfortable season, without the looking over their shoulders that a typical Wolves season usually entails. Unfortunately, that was August, and by September results had reverted to type, and Wolves slid down the table fast.
The response from the Wolves board was to sack the manager Mick McCarthy, partly as a result of fans' pressure. Despite acting on the disappointment of supporters, the decision to sack McCarthy is now widely regarded as a mistake. Who got the blame? The fans? The players? No, the board got the blame, but rightly so. Fans pay their money to watch football and vent their frustration. The job of a football club's board is to act rationally. The decision by the Wolves board was anything but rational. Wolves were always set for a struggle, but the decision to sack McCarthy was carried out without a sufficient shortlist of replacements in mind.
Following McCarthy's sacking, there followed an embarrassing rigmarole which saw managers lined up for the role, then discounted on a near-daily basis. Steve Bruce was understood to be lined up, but something went wrong and in an act of throwing in the towel, Wolves decided to hand the job to one of the coaches, Terry Connor. As we are constantly reminded, he is 'a nice bloke' and has a good relationship with the players. Wolves have not won since.
As for Blackburn, well where do we start? The club has been a circus ever since it was taken over by 'The Venkys', whoever they may be. The Indian chicken traders who bought the club are even more rarely spotted than actual chickens around Ewood Park these days, such is the poisonous atmosphere that has engulfed the ground.
One of their first acts was to sack the solid - if unspectacular - manager, Sam Allardyce. As was the case with Wolves, they decided to promote an inexperienced number two to the role of manager. Results have been appalling ever since, with the occasional exception which meant that the mutiny around Ewood Park only reached full volume on Monday (7th May) when relegation was finally confirmed.
If the incompetence of the Wolves board was a hasty sacking without considering a replacement, the Blackburn board upstaged it by keeping their manager in charge far longer than plausible. Back in December, the atmosphere at Ewood Park was at its lowest point until this week, as Blackburn lost to local rivals Bolton. I have no doubt that the timing of their otherwise virtuous protests cost Blackburn the three points that day. However, that was also the time for the Blackburn owners to pull the plug on Steve Kean.
Looking back, excellent results that followed, such as the victory against Manchester United at Old Trafford were more about the players declaring what they were capable of if given a fair chance, rather than tacit support for their manager. Although hostilities ceased for a while, when a normalisation of the results returned so did the anger.
The inaction of the Blackburn board is indicative of their seeming lack of actual physical interest in getting involved with the club. The most destructive rumour that circulates is the question of how much they knew about promotion and relegation, and if this means of meritocratic movement in English football was even known to the Venkys.
If they did not know about the existence of relegation, there is some consolation for them - all relegated clubs are awarded a series of 'parachute payments' to ease the crashing fall to status and the finances a relegation can take.
Wolves and Blackburn can be summarised as contrasting styles of how their staff were handled. One club hit the panic button and effectively destroyed its structure; the other fiddled while the structure burned. In Reading and Southampton they will be replaced with two clubs that have built solid foundations on-the-pitch in recent years. This is just as well, because the Premier League is an unforgiving place for clubs that are run ineffectively.
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Sunday, 6 May 2012
Vote 2012 review, complete with some risible myths
Almost 72 hours have passed since David Cameron's bleakest hour, which saw his party suffer heavy losses in the 2012 local elections. His Con-Dem partners, the Liberal Democrats, sustained a second round of heavy losses following a similar mauling twelve months ago. For the junior partners in the Con-Dem alliance, there was little in the way of comfort. The only comforting factor for Cameron seemed to be re-election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press
Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
Welcome to Roy Hodgson - Good choice for new England manager
The media's favourite for the England manager job, Harry Redknapp, has been overlooked for the role in favour of West Bromwich Albion boss, Roy Hodgson. As a consequence, quite a few toys have been pinging out of prams in some media institutions and in parts of Liverpool.
The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!
Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?
The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.
Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.
Good luck as England manager, Roy.
The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!
Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?
The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.
Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.
Good luck as England manager, Roy.
No pride in how we manage our water supply
Ever since the day it was announced that parts of Britain were facing a drought, it seems to have rained relentlessly. Now parts of Britain are facing flooding.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)