Football 2014/15

[t8yman]

The question is do you feel strongly enough to not watch the games, avoid any product from a sponsor etc? I have to be honest (maybe it makes me a bad person) that I don't, but know there will be many in the same camp as me.

There may be others who will follow Englands lead in going after FIFA, but they don't have enough friends to make a difference and the time it will take to build those relationships is probably even longer than Blatters reign. England had their chance running FIFA and blew it, unfortunately they are now paying the price of their predecessors. As an African nation for example who will you throw your support behind, the nation who tried to keep you out of the world cup or the regime which offered your region opportunity. For all the faults in recent FIFA regimes you have to be balanced and also recognize the positives and opening up the world cup outside the traditional elite has definitely benefited the game in my view.

many already have stopped watching. Avoiding sponsor product isnt really a great indicator, because people who dont watch wont know who the sponsors are.

Apathy is not as powerful as active protest, but enough apathy will create events like the dreadful turnout at wembley last week more often. The national team are nowhere near the level of popularity that surrounded them during euro '96, and I realise I am making myself sound old here, but the buzz around the country during that tournament was like nothing I have ever seen.

I gave up on the national team years and years ago.

[mrtourette]

Just to confirm I am also one of those weak people who complains about FIFA but then still watches their product, however this year was the first time that I haven't done the Panini sticker book for the tournament so that'll teach them.

[pink_triangle]

There's being balanced and then there's excusing horrendous behaviour. Just because England made a hash of it doesn't mean that the current powers should be looked on lightly or that the English FA should wind their neck in and accept the current situation, and opening up the world to football (at great expense to some of those nations and of course at great profit to FIFA) is not an acceptable explanation of the actions of the organisation. The next two World Cups are going to nations with terrible human rights records and appalling attitudes towards women and homosexuals, but it's OK because they're opening up the footballing world to new places and ideas? Bullshit I'm afraid. The exposed corruption and attitudes displayed by Blatter and other executives mean that they can't be afforded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such situations. You're right that the general inclusion of more African and Asian nations at the top table of international football is a very good thing but it doesn't excuse other behaviour that Blatter and co must be held accountable for.

The English fa did accept it though, the likes of wils and Becks wined and dined fifa. The government was ready to change the tax laws. The anti fifa stance has mainly come from not winning the world cup rights, if they had won they would be silent. To other nations they look like they are throwing toys out of the pram.

What fifa do at times is inexcusable, however I personally worry more about our own political parties being influenced by money. To change fifa there needs to be an appreciation of what fifa offers the pro blater nations other than corruption. While England attack fifa, they aren't always clear what they arev offering other nations to come along with them. I can imagine that many smaller nations are worried what change will involve when its being championed by the home of the premiership.

[mrtourette]

All very true, but that doesn't negate the need to raise the issues. It may look like sour grapes and it may not be the right way to go about getting a future World Cup, but I'm glad that happens to be the case and there are national FAs and media out there pushing to expose what is going on (even if the reasons they are doing it are hypocritical). It doesn't bother me one jot that the only reason the corruption and lies are being exposed might be because the English FA and media are sore about not getting the World Cup. It might be convenient counter-argument for FIFA (and yourself) but there is truth in what is being said and reported no matter why it's being said and reported. What FIFA have achieved regarding smaller nations could have been done without the arrogance, entitlement and complete lack of humility, awareness or concern for the affects of their circus traveling to various nations. The way they have acted is not a necessary evil or a by-product of the good they have done, the two do not go hand in hand. The good they have done is not an acceptable excuse for the bad.

Edited September 9, 2014 by mrtourette

[pink_triangle]

It doesn't bother me one jot that the only reason the corruption and lies are being exposed might be because the English FA and media are sore about not getting the World Cup. It might be convenient counter-argument for FIFA (and yourself) but there is truth in what is being said and reported no matter why it's being said and reported. What FIFA have achieved regarding smaller nations could have been done without the arrogance, entitlement and complete lack of humility, awareness or concern for the affects of their circus traveling to various nations. The way they have acted is not a necessary evil or a by-product of the good they have done, the two do not go hand in hand. The good they have done is not an acceptable excuse for the bad.

Im certainly not arguing in FIFAs favours, in fact I have suggested 2 term limits. My view is more that the England approach may make a lot of noise, but I dont think it will facilitate change in the organisation. To me the approach needs to be to acknowledge what FIFA has done right, while at the same time looking how it can be modernised without leaving these countries behind.

To go purely negative will only create an "us vs them mentality" and them are going to line up with the devil they know, instead of the devil they dont. There needs to be an acknowledgement that we have let these countries down in the past and explain how it wont happen again. Two of FIFA biggest critics are England (home of the most capitalist league in the world) and USA (a country well known for a capitalist outlook), as a smaller nation its understandable you may be cautious these nations could take the organsation down a road that favours the few and not the many.

[pink_triangle]

many already have stopped watching. Avoiding sponsor product isnt really a great indicator, because people who dont watch wont know who the sponsors are.

Apathy is not as powerful as active protest, but enough apathy will create events like the dreadful turnout at wembley last week more often. The national team are nowhere near the level of popularity that surrounded them during euro '96, and I realise I am making myself sound old here, but the buzz around the country during that tournament was like nothing I have ever seen.

I gave up on the national team years and years ago.

If people are passionate enough to boycott the game, it wont take much work to find out who the sponsors are. If football fans supported a widespread boycott of FIFA sponsored products, Blatter would be out of the door. The reality is there arent enough willing to make a stand. The buzz in euro 96 was paritally down to hosting, but also England having a realistic chance to win. I think it would return pretty quick if those factors were repliacated.

[mrtourette]

Im certainly not arguing in FIFAs favours, in fact I have suggested 2 term limits. My view is more that the England approach may make a lot of noise, but I dont think it will facilitate change in the organisation. To me the approach needs to be to acknowledge what FIFA has done right, while at the same time looking how it can be modernised without leaving these countries behind.

To go purely negative will only create an "us vs them mentality" and them are going to line up with the devil they know, instead of the devil they dont. There needs to be an acknowledgement that we have let these countries down in the past and explain how it wont happen again. Two of FIFA biggest critics are England (home of the most capitalist league in the world) and USA (a country well known for a capitalist outlook), as a smaller nation its understandable you may be cautious these nations could take the organsation down a road that favours the few and not the many.

In a normal organisation that may work, but the nicy-nicey approach wouldn't work in an organisation like FIFA that is rife with corruption and abuse that has appointments locked up so tight. The current organisation and Blatter need to be exposed for what is happening, making a fool out of them/revealing their true character in the eyes of the public and then having individual FAs raise that due to the pressure from their own members (as we have seen) needs to happen.

Your suggested method seems to imply that there will be a 'devil they don't', even though Blatter stood unopposed in 2007 and 2011 and will do so again in 2015. Will someone have the opportunity to announce that they will stand and then work with associations to convince them that they are the better option, or have Blatter and his cronies blocked the path to the top? You're right that the smaller nations may seem indebted to Blatter for bringing them into the international game more (and the heads of those associations grateful for Blatter allowing their palms to be greased over the years), but don't forget that the last person to stand against Blatter was from the CAF (and the last to challenge was from the AFC), not from Europe or South America.

A situation has been engineered where someone would be crazy to stand against the status quo, which is why discrediting Blatter to the point where not enough associations want to stand by him and he is persueded to jump rather than be pushed is the most productive way. Hell it's not as if it's a smear campain, it's all true. Yes the message is damaged by the fact that initially it was nations who had reason to be upset with Blatter that were leading this, but is helping sweep all this under the carpet and then starting an illicit campaign to sweet-talk the associations into an anti-Blatter stance the best way? There is an opportunity here to blow open the corruption within FIFA as well as getting rid of bloated, outdated, arrogant and elitist Blatter, I say take it rather than just becoming part of the same machine. I think you have too much faith in the possibility of a legimate contender rising up to challenge, the organisation has been run over the last several years to make that a near-impossibility.

A crack in the walls of FIFA has been exposed and over the last couple of years has been growing, I see no reason to help paper opver those cracks when fighting the system from within is not an option.

Edited September 9, 2014 by mrtourette

[pink_triangle]

In a normal organisation that may work, but the nicy-nicey approach wouldn't work in an organisation like FIFA that is rife with corruption and abuse that has appointments locked up so tight. The current organisation and Blatter need to be exposed for what is happening, making a fool out of them/revealing their true character in the eyes of the public and then having individual FAs raise that due to the pressure from their own members (as we have seen) needs to happen.

Your suggested method seems to imply that there will be a 'devil they don't', even though Blatter stood unopposed in 2007 and 2011 and will do so again in 2015. Will someone have the opportunity to announce that they will stand and then work with associations to convince them that they are the better option, or have Blatter and his cronies blocked the path to the top? You're right that the smaller nations may seem indebted to Blatter for bringing them into the international game more (and the heads of those associations grateful for Blatter allowing their palms to be greased over the years), but don't forget that the last person to stand against Blatter was from the CAF (and the last to challenge was from the AFC), not from Europe or South America.

A situation has been engineered where someone would be crazy to stand against the status quo, which is why discrediting Blatter to the point where not enough associations want to stand by him and he is persueded to jump rather than be pushed is the most productive way. Hell it's not as if it's a smear campain, it's all true. Yes the message is damaged by the fact that initially it was nations who had reason to be upset with Blatter that were leading this, but is helping sweep all this under the carpet and then starting an illicit campaign to sweet-talk the associations into an anti-Blatter stance the best way? There is an opportunity here to blow open the corruption within FIFA as well as getting rid of bloated, outdated, arrogant and elitist Blatter, I say take it rather than just becoming part of the same machine. I think you have too much faith in the possibility of a legimate contender rising up to challenge, the organisation has been run over the last several years to make that a near-impossibility.

A crack in the walls of FIFA has been exposed and over the last couple of years has been growing, I see no reason to help paper opver those cracks when fighting the system from within is not an option.

The trouble is England only get one vote. There has been isolated nations who have tried to take them on, however in reality I believe the majoirty of countries couldnt care less about FIFA corruption and with corruption rife in their own countries have learned to toleatate it.

I think with Blatter the boat has sailed. Unless countries are willing to breakaway (which I dont see any evidence) then I feel the pragmatic solution is to look at his successor. England dont have the political powers to lead that process, but they can influence by networking.

While corruption should be exposed and relevant prosecutions should be made, England (and other critics of FIFA) need to offer more than campaigners against evil corrupt organisation. They are very able to discuss the problems with FIFA, but its time they started offering some solutions.

[LondonTom]

The English fa did accept it though, the likes of wils and Becks wined and dined fifa. The government was ready to change the tax laws. The anti fifa stance has mainly come from not winning the world cup rights, if they had won they would be silent. To other nations they look like they are throwing toys out of the pram.

Indeed my biggest problem with all the FIFA reports and attempts to reform, is the FA tried to play the game in the first place but didn't have the money go all the way. You either take the principled stand in the first place or not..

There needs to be an acknowledgement that we have let these countries down in the past and explain how it wont happen again. Two of FIFA biggest critics are England (home of the most capitalist league in the world) and USA (a country well known for a capitalist outlook), as a smaller nation its understandable you may be cautious these nations could take the organsation down a road that favours the few and not the many.

I reckon rather than a breakaway, if anything happens it will be the collapse of international football and BPL and some sort of spinoff from the champions league elite clubs will take control of the game. They have the money and audience at the end of the day and could easily organise something to rival the world cup with the players they have.

At least they would be honnest about what they do and its about making money

[mrtourette]

I had no idea that the FFP fines for Man City, PSG and Zenit were being re-distributed among the other Champions League teams. Nice touch.

[pink_triangle]

I had no idea that the FFP fines for Man City, PSG and Zenit were being re-distributed among the other Champions League teams. Nice touch.

It's a difficult one for me. I don't have a problem with it going to the smaller clubs, but it's also going to the juggernauts of bayern, real Madrid and Chelsea.

There's something a bit odd about a system that says the glazers adding debts to a debt free club is ok, yet the sheikh writing off huge sums at city is not. To then expect the latter to pay some money to the former doesn't sit well

[thetime]

It's a difficult one for me. I don't have a problem with it going to the smaller clubs, but it's also going to the juggernauts of bayern, real Madrid and Chelsea.

There's something a bit odd about a system that says the glazers adding debts to a debt free club is ok, yet the sheikh writing off huge sums at city is not. To then expect the latter to pay some money to the former doesn't sit well

Will be interesting what happens to city in the next 3-5 years with FFP. Pretty much all there big players are in the 27/28+ age range And they can't spend like they have done in the last 6/7 years because they don't have the revenue like a United/Liverpool to get round FFP.

I presume that's what Jose was on about the other days, when he was saying Chelsea's big spending days are pretty much over.

[pink_triangle]

Losing to Andorra

[LondonTom]

There's something a bit odd about a system that says the glazers adding debts to a debt free club is ok, yet the sheikh writing off huge sums at city is not. To then expect the latter to pay some money to the former doesn't sit well

Yep this! Even the football leagues ffp fines are going to charity (QPR) and I could have agreed with the fines there going to other clubs. Think it just proves further that FFP is about protecting the elite clubs.

[LondonTom]

There's something a bit odd about a system that says the glazers adding debts to a debt free club is ok, yet the sheikh writing off huge sums at city is not. To then expect the latter to pay some money to the former doesn't sit well

Yep this! Even the football leagues ffp fines are going to charity (QPR) and I could have agreed with the fines there going to other clubs. Think it just proves further that FFP is about protecting the elite clubs.

[pink_triangle]

Man utd are basing financial projections on finishing 3rd! I would like to have what they are smoking.

[TheGayTent]

So after attempting to get a free upper tier from the FA and the RFU it looks as though Pete Winkleman will get his money from Daniel Levy...

[eFestivals]

Not if Joe sells up as one of the papers today suggests.

[LondonTom]

So after attempting to get a free upper tier from the FA and the RFU it looks as though Pete Winkleman will get his money from Daniel Levy...

Or maybe Levy would rather buy some Claret and Blue seats?

Not if Joe sells up as one of the papers today suggests.

Apparently wants a £1Billion for them!!!

[eFestivals]

Apparently wants a £1Billion for them!!!

I think he perhaps has access to better hallucinogens than even the Glazers.

[TheGayTent]

Or maybe Levy would rather buy some Claret and Blue seats?

Already enquired and got told to go forth and multiply.

I reckon it'll be MK or Ipswich. They can't afford Wembley and they wouldn't dare do a deal at Arsenal even if Arsenal were receptive to the idea - which they won't surely.

[eFestivals]

but surely Wembley would pay off for them, because of the big capacity and the fact of being relatively local?

Plus, I'd have thought that Wembley would bend over backwards to get them. It needs all the revenue streams it can get.

Is Melvin Benn still the Wembley boss? Maybe I should email him and ask him what he'll do.

[hot_ice]

but surely Wembley would pay off for them, because of the big capacity and the fact of being relatively local?

Plus, I'd have thought that Wembley would bend over backwards to get them. It needs all the revenue streams it can get.

Is Melvin Benn still the Wembley boss? Maybe I should email him and ask him what he'll do.

although i think they do spurs do have a preference for Wembley, from what i read,

Wembley is only allowed to host so many events a year due to licencing restrictions (think it was 27),

although i wouldn't be surprised if a "Deal" was done to allow this to increase

[eFestivals]

Wembley is only allowed to host so many events a year due to licencing restrictions

Ahhh, of course.

although i wouldn't be surprised if a "Deal" was done to allow this to increase

I'm not sure that they'd go for a permanent increase (else they wouldn't have a limit in the first place), but a one-season change could be treated differently I guess.

Arsenal did it for a season at the old Wembley, didn't they (when they expanded Highbury, I think)? Did the old Wembley have similar licencing conditions, does anyone know?

[eFestivals]

Arsenal only did it for champions league games though. At most that-d be six per season.

ahh, I'd forgotten it was only that - that explains why I can also remember the missing Highbury stand with a painted crowd, which I guess was at the same time.