I expect most Liverpool fans think that Jurgen Klopp has been an upgrade on Brenda (as I used to call him) Rodgers. Indeed, I thought Klopp was getting some momentum and that Liverpool might be building up to challenge again. But Liverpool had an awful January, apparently forgetting the Shanklyism that "we don't lose three in a row". They have lost 4 of their last 5 matches, none of them against big clubs: three at home (against Swansea, Southampton and Wolves) and the fourth away at Hull.
So how is Klopp doing compared with Rodgers?
The answer is that, after 54 games, they have identical records: won 26, drawn 16 and lost 12.
Some upgrade eh? I suppose that, before January, Klopp's record was significantly better than Rodgers'. So a blip? Found out tactically? Players fatigued by his high pressing game and no mid-season break, such as Klopp's previous teams would always have had? We'll see.
But quite probably neither is an upgrade on Rafa Benitez. Last weekend's paper had an interesting interview with Didier (Didi) Hamann. Unlike Gerrard Houllier, Benitez is not an arm round shoulder, people person, asking about the wife and kids. He would tell players not to come knocking on his door if they were out of the team to ask why: just knuckle down and work harder. "And do as you're told, or I'll bring someone else in". "What's wrong with that?" Hamann asks. Benitez was concerned that Stephen Gerrard's burgeoning reputation would be harmful to the team and was determined to show him no favours. To the extent of announcing the team using player's nicknames, with one exception: "...Sami, Carra, Didi, Xabi, Luis, Gerrard..."
It's hard to diasagree with Hamann that former players like him will find it almost impossible to get a job as Premier League manager, so he is punting at being a director of football (and training at Man Met's business school). If Giggs couldn't get the United gig, how is it going to happen? Yes, such a person might get a job with a smaller club but, after United's experiment with Moyes, that is very unlikely to provide a pathway.
I've got a lot of time for Benitez, now he isn't at Liverpool and I think they made a big mistake in sacking him. I agree with my younger son that, if the FA hadn't decided the England manager should be English, Benitez, with his extensive Premier League knowledge and ability to set a team up for a one off game (which all England matches are really), was the ideal candidate. Maybe next time.
While on matters Liverpool, according to Charles Sale, long serving Liverpool CEO's last Premier League meeting was not marked with any warmth from the other clubs despite Ayre attending such meetings for over a decade. The reason is Liverpool's stance that the £3.5 billion of TV money from overseas sales should be divided by performance and viewing figures rather than equally between the 20 clubs. Liverpool might have 4 or 5 supporters around the table with all the other clubs against. I must have gone blue in the face banging on about how the Premier League should take a leaf out of the NFL's book and share all league negotiated revenues equally, so I am firmly with this status quo. The attraction of the Premier League is that it is a league. A one off game between Liverpool and say Manchester United is an exhibition match and has little commercial value. So it is logical to share the cash equally but the NFL rules are more about ensuring there is competition and a handful of franchises don't dominate. Businessmen like Ayre will always try to reduce competition and it is incumbent on the FA to ensure that they don't succeed. This is much more important to the FA's competence as a governing body than its make up by gender or ethnicity.
Didi Hamann was interviewed by Jonathan Norcroft in the Sunday Times, 5 February.
Charles Sale's column is in the Daily Mail.
Saturday, 11 February 2017
Thursday, 9 February 2017
Political Football
The government has passed a symbolic motion of no confidence in the Football Association.
The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee chairman Damian Collins said: "No change is no option" and that "if they don't pick up fairly quickly, reform will be delivered to them."
The committee has published two reports since 2010 recommending greater representation at the FA for fans and the grassroots game, as well as more diversity in positions of authority. It also wants to dilute the perceived dominance of the Premier League. Collins has said the FA was given six months to meet the government guidance on best practice for sports governance but had failed to do so. That guidance called for things such as a move towards gender equality on boards, more independent oversight, more accountability and term limits for office bearers.
That would be a committee with 10 middle aged white men and one middle aged white woman, so "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. And, being deliberately politically incorrect here and risking being compared with a Sky anchorman making off air comments about a female assistant referee, why should there be gender equality on the FA board when many times more men play football than women? (I ask this as someone who would welcome the women's game flourishing and predicted many years ago that it would become a big participation game and potentially the largest spectator sport for women).
The FA is a hard organisation to defend. And the government has a lever: the FA receives over £30 million of public funding each year. Eh? One wonders why the FA, even for community programmes, should qualify for any public money. That would seem a very easy budget cut to make and I wouldn't link it to reform, I'd just withdraw it.
But I am intrigued by what FIFA will make of this. FIFA is a truly awful, blatantly corrupt organisation. World football manages to continue to be highly successful despite rather than because of FIFA. But, whatever you think of FIFA, it has a clear rule prohibiting political interference. In the FIFA Statutes, Article 23 (c) requires its members "to be independent and avoid any form of political interference".
So, if the government does "deliver reform" to our FA, will FIFA take a dim view of it?
Lots of people got on high horses about the remembrance poppies affair last year after FIFA fined England following the World Cup qualifier against Scotland. But I thought FIFA got it right, in terms of poppies on the players' shirts. While we don't see the poppy as being a political symbol, we might easily see acts of remembrance for the fallen soldiers of other countries being just that - political. And, as Martin Samuel pointed out, you don't see other sports changing their kit around the time of Remembrance Day. Nor would you expect swimmers to wear poppies while competing. Or competitors in just about any other sport. Poppies on shirts is some weird football thing that has got out of hand.
So if FIFA were to impose sanctions on the FA because of political interference aimed at encouraging diversity and equality, stand by for more angst.
Though if England were banned from appearing in the next World Cup Finals that might be a blessing and a relief, reducing national angst significantly.
FA Reform: MPs pass 'no confidence' motion, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38920489
FIFA's Statutes are at: http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf
The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee chairman Damian Collins said: "No change is no option" and that "if they don't pick up fairly quickly, reform will be delivered to them."
The committee has published two reports since 2010 recommending greater representation at the FA for fans and the grassroots game, as well as more diversity in positions of authority. It also wants to dilute the perceived dominance of the Premier League. Collins has said the FA was given six months to meet the government guidance on best practice for sports governance but had failed to do so. That guidance called for things such as a move towards gender equality on boards, more independent oversight, more accountability and term limits for office bearers.
That would be a committee with 10 middle aged white men and one middle aged white woman, so "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. And, being deliberately politically incorrect here and risking being compared with a Sky anchorman making off air comments about a female assistant referee, why should there be gender equality on the FA board when many times more men play football than women? (I ask this as someone who would welcome the women's game flourishing and predicted many years ago that it would become a big participation game and potentially the largest spectator sport for women).
The FA is a hard organisation to defend. And the government has a lever: the FA receives over £30 million of public funding each year. Eh? One wonders why the FA, even for community programmes, should qualify for any public money. That would seem a very easy budget cut to make and I wouldn't link it to reform, I'd just withdraw it.
But I am intrigued by what FIFA will make of this. FIFA is a truly awful, blatantly corrupt organisation. World football manages to continue to be highly successful despite rather than because of FIFA. But, whatever you think of FIFA, it has a clear rule prohibiting political interference. In the FIFA Statutes, Article 23 (c) requires its members "to be independent and avoid any form of political interference".
So, if the government does "deliver reform" to our FA, will FIFA take a dim view of it?
Lots of people got on high horses about the remembrance poppies affair last year after FIFA fined England following the World Cup qualifier against Scotland. But I thought FIFA got it right, in terms of poppies on the players' shirts. While we don't see the poppy as being a political symbol, we might easily see acts of remembrance for the fallen soldiers of other countries being just that - political. And, as Martin Samuel pointed out, you don't see other sports changing their kit around the time of Remembrance Day. Nor would you expect swimmers to wear poppies while competing. Or competitors in just about any other sport. Poppies on shirts is some weird football thing that has got out of hand.
So if FIFA were to impose sanctions on the FA because of political interference aimed at encouraging diversity and equality, stand by for more angst.
Though if England were banned from appearing in the next World Cup Finals that might be a blessing and a relief, reducing national angst significantly.
FA Reform: MPs pass 'no confidence' motion, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38920489
FIFA's Statutes are at: http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf
Tuesday, 7 February 2017
Time for Pannick
The Bill to trigger Article 50, having passed it's second reading (I know, it felt like the first but that goes through without debate) has gone to its committee stage, when those who want to thwart the will of the people will try to get amendments tabled which would require, for example, the final deal with the EU to be put back to the House or to another referendum. As if a better deal could then be agreed. Of course, they know it can't, they just don't want it to happen and will try to put in trigger points to give themselves a second chance to thwart Brexit at a later date, even though the people voted for it in a referendum that was always stated to be a once off, final, no going back, no strings attached, done deal. We were asked to choose between in, not knowing for sure what that would mean going forward in terms of "more Europe", or out, very much not knowing what that meant.
We weren't asked to choose between hard, soft, stupid or any other form of Brexit, just as we weren't asked to choose between being in one type of Europe or another. Personally, I would have voted for being in a hugely reformed EU, but that wasn't and probably never could be an option, though ironically our exit might just make the eurocrats rethink the future. Indeed, there were some signs of it at the Malta summit, where there was talk of a "multi-speed union". This attractive kind of idea, with a core of very integrated countries and an outer ring of laggards was always pooh-poohed by EU leaders until our referendum*. But I wouldn't trust them and I'm not really interested in getting to the same end point of a fully integrated Europe at a slower speed.
Back in the Houses of Parliament, once the committee stage is complete, tomorrow will be the third reading, with voting over amendments. If approved by the Commons (which going by the second reading and tonight's vote you would expect) it goes to the Lords.
Then it will be time to Pannick, or at least follow Pannick. David Pannick QC is the eminent lawyer who took the case on whether the Commons needed to vote on Article 50 to court - all the way to the Supreme Court - and won. David Pannick knows more about stuff, especially the law, than the vast majority of people in the country. He is a member of the House of Lords. He voted Remain, albeit without enthusiasm, in the referendum. So how will he vote when the Article 50 bill comes to the Lords?
He will vote for triggering Article 50, even though he voted Remain. Why?
"I am an unenthusiastic supporter of the EU because I recognise there are large problems in terms of efficiency and of democratic deficit and problems of movement. I took the view that it was better to remain with some power to influence their decisions". (Not surprisingly, with that sharp legal mind he has nailed succinctly in two sentences much of the argument I groped for over several blogs).
But he will vote for Article 50 because, having cleared the legal issues, the people have spoken.
In an interesting interview** he was critical of the way the referendum was implemented. "Most ministers and MPs thought it was highly unlikely that people would vote to leave and therefore very little thought has been given as to what the consequences of leaving were, which is why the referendum bill was drafted in so limited a manner. It didn't address the consequences - constitutional and political. Since June we've been running to catch up with what it means".
I'd go further. Cameron and co deliberately made the choice as stark as possible and gave no credence to the credibility of leaving the EU because they thought it minimised the risk of an "out" vote. But of course, it didn't work. Actually, if you want the proponents of change to lose, the best way of doing it is to give a choice between several options and the status quo, thereby splitting the vote for change. (Don't laugh, I've seen this done in ballots). This, of course, is why Remainers want to put the negotiation to a vote, because they will split those who would take any Brexit from those who would prefer a pick and mix choice. And it's why the government is offering a much more restricted take it or leave it vote to the Commons after the negotiation.
This story has a way to go yet and it's already getting boring.
Incidentally, Pannick calls himself "Jew-ish", which I loved, because he feels part of Jewish culture while not being religious.
* EU back pedals on ever-closer union, Sunday Times, 5 Feb 2017
**He outgunned May in The Supreme Court but now he's backing Brexit, Sunday Times, 29 Jan 2017
We weren't asked to choose between hard, soft, stupid or any other form of Brexit, just as we weren't asked to choose between being in one type of Europe or another. Personally, I would have voted for being in a hugely reformed EU, but that wasn't and probably never could be an option, though ironically our exit might just make the eurocrats rethink the future. Indeed, there were some signs of it at the Malta summit, where there was talk of a "multi-speed union". This attractive kind of idea, with a core of very integrated countries and an outer ring of laggards was always pooh-poohed by EU leaders until our referendum*. But I wouldn't trust them and I'm not really interested in getting to the same end point of a fully integrated Europe at a slower speed.
Back in the Houses of Parliament, once the committee stage is complete, tomorrow will be the third reading, with voting over amendments. If approved by the Commons (which going by the second reading and tonight's vote you would expect) it goes to the Lords.
Then it will be time to Pannick, or at least follow Pannick. David Pannick QC is the eminent lawyer who took the case on whether the Commons needed to vote on Article 50 to court - all the way to the Supreme Court - and won. David Pannick knows more about stuff, especially the law, than the vast majority of people in the country. He is a member of the House of Lords. He voted Remain, albeit without enthusiasm, in the referendum. So how will he vote when the Article 50 bill comes to the Lords?
He will vote for triggering Article 50, even though he voted Remain. Why?
"I am an unenthusiastic supporter of the EU because I recognise there are large problems in terms of efficiency and of democratic deficit and problems of movement. I took the view that it was better to remain with some power to influence their decisions". (Not surprisingly, with that sharp legal mind he has nailed succinctly in two sentences much of the argument I groped for over several blogs).
But he will vote for Article 50 because, having cleared the legal issues, the people have spoken.
In an interesting interview** he was critical of the way the referendum was implemented. "Most ministers and MPs thought it was highly unlikely that people would vote to leave and therefore very little thought has been given as to what the consequences of leaving were, which is why the referendum bill was drafted in so limited a manner. It didn't address the consequences - constitutional and political. Since June we've been running to catch up with what it means".
I'd go further. Cameron and co deliberately made the choice as stark as possible and gave no credence to the credibility of leaving the EU because they thought it minimised the risk of an "out" vote. But of course, it didn't work. Actually, if you want the proponents of change to lose, the best way of doing it is to give a choice between several options and the status quo, thereby splitting the vote for change. (Don't laugh, I've seen this done in ballots). This, of course, is why Remainers want to put the negotiation to a vote, because they will split those who would take any Brexit from those who would prefer a pick and mix choice. And it's why the government is offering a much more restricted take it or leave it vote to the Commons after the negotiation.
This story has a way to go yet and it's already getting boring.
Incidentally, Pannick calls himself "Jew-ish", which I loved, because he feels part of Jewish culture while not being religious.
* EU back pedals on ever-closer union, Sunday Times, 5 Feb 2017
**He outgunned May in The Supreme Court but now he's backing Brexit, Sunday Times, 29 Jan 2017
Sunday, 5 February 2017
Jamie Carragher says Leicester's title would be tainted
....if they got relegated.
In a passionate speech on Sky Sports, after Leicester had slumped to a 0-3 defeat against Manchester United, he said that, although they had won the league last year, "they're not that good" and this year's form was just like we had previously seen from this bunch of players. He went on to say that they needed to buck up, or else last year's amazing triumph, one of the most remarkable stories in sport ever, would be tainted because people would always say yes, but they got relegated straight after it.
It was an eloquent, commendable and heartfelt soliloquy which left the anchorman stumbling to say "yes, but about United's third goal..."
But the Evertonian in me can't help pointing out that it takes one to know one. Jamie Carragher, good lad though he is (albeit a turncoat - boyhood Everton fan) and good player though he was, never won the league at all, never mind once.
Sorry Jamie, couldn't resist.
In a passionate speech on Sky Sports, after Leicester had slumped to a 0-3 defeat against Manchester United, he said that, although they had won the league last year, "they're not that good" and this year's form was just like we had previously seen from this bunch of players. He went on to say that they needed to buck up, or else last year's amazing triumph, one of the most remarkable stories in sport ever, would be tainted because people would always say yes, but they got relegated straight after it.
It was an eloquent, commendable and heartfelt soliloquy which left the anchorman stumbling to say "yes, but about United's third goal..."
But the Evertonian in me can't help pointing out that it takes one to know one. Jamie Carragher, good lad though he is (albeit a turncoat - boyhood Everton fan) and good player though he was, never won the league at all, never mind once.
Sorry Jamie, couldn't resist.
Friday, 3 February 2017
A Brexit upside - but you won't like it!
Did you see the report that rich landowners are getting a Brexit windfall? £500m of extra farming subsidies are being paid out to some of Britain's richest landowners and farmers. The Queen's farms will get an extra £150k on top of last year's £965k. Others to benefit include James Dyson (£250k more) and Sheikh Mohammed, who will get nearly £100k more for his land at his racing and stud stables in Suffolk.
Why? Because the subsidies are calculated in euros, the payouts are 16% up in sterling.
It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
I thought that would brighten your day.....but assuming it hasn't, maybe we could all agree that leaving the EU will enable us to redraw the rules on farm subsidies so we don't pay any public money to the likes of the Emir of Dubai and his horses.
Why? Because the subsidies are calculated in euros, the payouts are 16% up in sterling.
It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
I thought that would brighten your day.....but assuming it hasn't, maybe we could all agree that leaving the EU will enable us to redraw the rules on farm subsidies so we don't pay any public money to the likes of the Emir of Dubai and his horses.
Thursday, 2 February 2017
What's in a slogan?
I saw this sign visiting a relative's care home recently:
It shows the 5 key questions posed by the Care Quality Commission, the regulator for health and social care in England. I entirely understand why the CQC think that these 5 factors are key to performance: Safe, Caring, Responsive, Effective, Well-Led. But, while the CQC is the responsible body, it clearly isn't a sensible body. Choosing the acronym SCREW? Really? I'll bet that went down a storm when they briefed the employees..... "We're going to SCREW our residents and other stakeholders...." Mind, given that care home fees aren't cheap..... Though to be fair, I don't know how they keep the prices down to what they are.
It reminded me of a story I was told about the launch of a quality assurance campaign in British Rail before privatisation. This would be in the early 1990s as British industry tried to catch up with Japanese levels of delivery in terms of quality, bringing with it, in classic British style, gold plating and lever arch files full of paper. BR adopted the slogan "Operating For Quality". But to make it catchier they abbreviated it. "O" for Operating, "4" for, well er for (wasn't that cutting edge?) and "Q" for Quality. Posters were displayed in offices and workshops around the whole organisation saying "O4Q". Really, O4Q? Yes. No-one in management saw that one, or was prepared to speak up and the posters duly became a laughing matter.
Mind, in one of its many re-organisations, British Nuclear Fuels called the people in charge of its newly designated "business units" Business Unit Managers. Yes BUMs.
You couldn't make it up.
And they pay these people with real money.....
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Do these people want the UK to fail?
I am bemused by the criticism of Teresa May and her government for criticising Donald Trump's travel ban from selected countries, a policy that his predecessor had also used. Yes, the way the travel ban was implemented created hard cases which were difficult to defend. Boris Johnson called the ban "divisive and wrong" and moved to ensure British citizens with dual nationality were not affected. But still the hand wringers wail and lament. What further action would these people, who really are behaving like students keen to join any demo, suggest was taken? Sever diplomatic relations with the US?
I believe there is no chance that a government including Labour or the LibDems would deliberately offend the United States by going further than May and colleagues have. Even one led by Corbyn. The realpolitik of the situation would make that an act of gross self harm. So the supposedly serious politicians who are winding themselves up into a childish hissy fit are pressing for something they wouldn't actually do themselves, which is totally unprincipled.
Either that or I am wrong and they would. Which would leave Britain essentially friendless in the world. Maybe this is what they actually want. They want Britain to fail, because the country is not developing as they would wish. They presumably don't want a trade deal with the US, because they want us to have to go back cap in hand to the EU and say we didn't really mean all this Brexit stuff. They don't care that would put us in a far worse situation than any cliff they think we are heading for.
When they couple this with calling Brexit an act of self harm then we know they either don't know what they are saying or - even worse - they do but they incapable of behaving like grown ups.
US immigration policy is for the US to decide. Britain is trying to get itself into the position where it can also decide its immigration policy. As for the people screaming themselves red in the face? What a totally unedifying spectacle.
I believe there is no chance that a government including Labour or the LibDems would deliberately offend the United States by going further than May and colleagues have. Even one led by Corbyn. The realpolitik of the situation would make that an act of gross self harm. So the supposedly serious politicians who are winding themselves up into a childish hissy fit are pressing for something they wouldn't actually do themselves, which is totally unprincipled.
Either that or I am wrong and they would. Which would leave Britain essentially friendless in the world. Maybe this is what they actually want. They want Britain to fail, because the country is not developing as they would wish. They presumably don't want a trade deal with the US, because they want us to have to go back cap in hand to the EU and say we didn't really mean all this Brexit stuff. They don't care that would put us in a far worse situation than any cliff they think we are heading for.
When they couple this with calling Brexit an act of self harm then we know they either don't know what they are saying or - even worse - they do but they incapable of behaving like grown ups.
US immigration policy is for the US to decide. Britain is trying to get itself into the position where it can also decide its immigration policy. As for the people screaming themselves red in the face? What a totally unedifying spectacle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)