You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Premiership' category.
Mark Hughes’ dismissal was the least surprising news of the weekend, the managerial mayhem of the Premier League almost guaranteeing it, the media confirming it before Manchester City’s encounter with Sunderland. Hughes may well be upset, believing that his team were on the verge of something big but a divergence of defining that between himself and the club is at the root of the matter.
According to Hughes, his target for this season was agreed as a top six finish and 70 or more points. For an investor, this is not a good return on £200m especially since the top six finish does not guarantee European football next season. For the owners of Manchester City to have agreed that, many would believe them to be the perfect shareholders.
It became apparent that the board of the club did not share this view and in light of the team’s performances this season, there is some merit in their argument that the signs of improvement were not tangible. Indeed, it would be true to say that City has been the definition of a ‘big game team‘, winning at home to Arsenal and Chelsea in the Premier League, drawing at Anfield and narrowly defeated in their local derby.
However, seven other drawn games suggests that either incompetence or indifference has taken hold at Eastlands. Failure to beat Burnley, Hull or Bolton is not the form of a team that is confident of challenging the existing top four. Even if they win their game in hand, City will still be sixth. The recent capitulation at White Hart Lane did not indicate that Hughes was capable of halting the rut into which the team had dropped.
The Welshman is understandably upset at the board for talking to Roberto Mancini yet to believe those negotiations had not commenced some time ago is equally naive. Steve Gibson of Middlesbrough is widely regarded as a tolerant chairman, repeatedly as an almost the perfect boss. Even he admitted at the weekend that he had contacted Gordon Strachan before relieving Gareth Southgate of his duties.
The League Managers Association has opposed such moves but it is standard business practice to have a successor for key personnel in position ready for their employment being terminated. Hughes can have little complaint; he has squandered a good position. The squad was his own and if his purchases do not perform, then the axe is inevitable
Optimism is a pre-requisite for football supporters. It takes different forms; winning a trophy for one club is the equivalent of avoiding relegation at another. The supporter, before and during a season, will invariably swing between belief and the less palatable outcome. As the Premier League avalanche sweeps all before it, the downward trajectory is being ignored. Until yesterday when the true extent of the Promised Land became evident for Liverpool supporters.
The optimism of Hicks and Gillett’s takeover was hardly unbridled but new owners wasted little time in raising the stakes, lifting the belief that they had new investment to build a new Anfield, give Rafa Benitez funds to spend on new players and deliver the Premier League title, the obsession for a club that became used to being champions of England but had not heard those words precede their club name for 20 years.
Having finished closer in 2008/09 to winning the title, the new season was approached with a guarded optimism. The plans for a new stadium had been put on the backburner as it was apparent that the American owners failed to borrow the money required, refusing or unable to invest their personal wealth into the club’s future. The length of commitment required for personal intervention was probably a driving force behind this. Neither makes any attempt to disguise their disdain for the other, quite probably regretting their dual involvement.
Their summer transfer dealings were disastrous. 2008 saw a distasteful public courtship of Gareth Barry, a signing which never materialised, and the attempted offloading of Xabi Alonso to Arsenal, reportedly falling through over £200k. Fast forward to 2009 and one of those transfers happened, Alonso returning to Spain. Barry upped sticks to Manchester City whilst Aquilani was brought in from Roma. The Italian though came with a proviso: he was injured, unavailable until autumn.
Having spent the majority of his funds on this transfer and Glen Johnson from Portsmouth, Benitez was unable to invest in forwards, a situation which haunted him as the Champions League was exited and the Premier League slipped from his grasp as Fernando Torres was sidelined. Europa League football is not much of a prospect to look forward to but this is the reality facing Liverpool for 2009/10 and quite possibly the following season as well.
Prior to the home fixture with Arsenal, Benitez gave a frank assessment of his situation. There was no money to spend nor would the coming seasons bring any immediate improvement. £60m of debt had to be repaid and with no-one willing to match the £100m sought by the owners for a mere 25% stake in the club, spending would be drastically reigned in. Media supposition that Gerrard and Torres may be sold to fund this was dismissed by the Spaniard yet the nagging doubt cannot be so easily shaken.
The club’s financial state is a warning for those clubs looking at foreign takeovers or already subjected to huge debt burdens on their parent company balance sheets. Unless you are delivering trophies – major ones at that – your business is unsustainable. Asset stripping is too strong a term but realisation of valuable assets is around the corner unless the American nightmare turns to a dream.
For many the Liverpool scenario is one that was destined to happen at Arsenal. Funding a new stadium restricted activity in the transfer market. Arsene Wenger and the board had thought ahead, bringing through young talent over a number of seasons, building an Academy and scouting system that created a sustained turnover of players. Liverpool is some way behind as the Carling Cup encounters over recent seasons have shown. It is a path that they are now treading, a path which will show how good a manager Benitez really is. If it comes to fruition, Hicks and Gillett may be consigned to the history books with not many good words accompanying them. If not, they may be remembered as the men who broke the bank of Anfield.
Len Shackleton included a chapter in his autobiography that was blank, save for the title “The Average Director’s Knowledge of Football“. Fifty-three years on from publication, this week has seen more evidence that little has changed.
During the summer months of 2009, Portsmouth Football Club was subjected to a protracted and comical takeover reminiscent of that which Spencer Trethewy inflicted upon Aldershot in 1990. The outcome has not yet been as devastating to the club but there were considerable fears reported in the media that the club would be unable to survive financially, evidenced by a failure to pay players wages recently.
Throughout the summer, Paul Hart sat and watched helplessly as the best players were sold for fees in excess of £35m without funds being made available for recruiting replacements. Sulaiman Al Fahim concluded his ill-fated purchase of the club late in August, photographed in his personalised replica away top, seemingly feted as a saviour for the club. The protracted nature of the negotiations, and the emergence of a rival consortia no doubt exacerbated the takeover, left Hart with little time to pull together a squad for the 2009-10 season.
The club’s start to the season was unsurprisingly poor given the circumstances. Seven straight defeats in the Premier League came to an abrupt and startling end with consecutive four goal victories. From seemingly being cut adrift at the bottom of the division, the gap to safety had been cut. That cut no ice with the owners of the club; Paul Hart was relieved of his managerial duties this week.
Having survived the crisis this summer, Portsmouth needed stability. If that had meant the club rebuilding with a season in The Championship, it should have been a price worth paying. Instead, an instant remedy is being sought although the club is rudderless in the interim between Hart’s departure and a new appointment. The players though remain the same; whether the January transfer window will be an effective saviour for the next manager remains to be seen.
Premier League survival is the only thing that matters when faced with relegation, particularly if players contracts take no account of any diminished status bestowed upon the club through failure. Yet would the club have been better served by retaining Hart, especially in light of improved form which even with recent defeats, was vastly better than the opening seven games.
That Portsmouth have reacted quickly may yet turn out to be a masterstroke if they pull clear of the relegation zone. Such is the closeness in points totals at this stage of the season that three wins can elevate their position one place in the table if everyone else continues to take points off each other. It appears that consecutive away defeats have brought about Hart’s dismissal. However, victories at Blackburn and Stoke seemed highly unlikely on paper, let alone on the pitch.
In such circumstances, new owners often seek to bring in a ‘name’ manager. Avram Grant may well be a likeable man but is he the man to save them? Perhaps and time will tell. Yet with the paucity of talent within the squad, January wheeling and dealing is going to be crucial to their season. The sacking leaves an uneasy taste in the mouth. Hart worked hard throughout the summer in circumstances that may have forced others to consider their options and leave the club. His loyalty was rewarded with unemployment.
Should sentiment have come into the equation? The business side of the game probably dictates that it should not. The ego of a new owner automatically means it will not. Yet this will be the same owner who at points in the future will berate want-away players for their lack of loyalty “to a club that has treated them well“. The days of owners wanting their cake and eating it have yet to change. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Sepp Blatter has given an interview in The Times regarding his pet subject of the moment, quotas. Despite meeting a brick wall in the face of the European Union, Blatter is ploughing ahead with the project. There is little doubt that he sees this as an ideal solution to protect the status of international football, an aspect of the game that is becoming marginalised by the continued commercial success of the UEFA Champions League and the wealth of the upper echelons of club football.
Specifically in the interview, Blatter focuses on English football which is hardly surprising given the newspaper involved. He says,
Club football at the beginning had a local identity, later a regional and now some of the leagues – I am speaking here about the big clubs of the Premier League – there is no more national identity
It seems to be the contradiction that FIFA has not come to terms with fully. The governing body of football globally is does not grasp the international appeal of the Premier League. Blatter is right to a degree though. The international flavour of the players on show each week ensures that the broadcasting rights dwarf revenues that FIFA can generate from its quadrennial World Cup tournament. The fear that the clubs are taking over the game is not misplaced yet FIFA has enabled this through transfer regulations that make purchasing players from different continents only subject to national and pan-continental laws.
Blatter’s desire to see strong international football co-existing with its club partner is a laudable one yet the two have been on a collision course for decades. Satellite broadcasters transmitting matches around the world learned their trade at successive World Cups. The nature of that tournament is its strength; a tournament every four years gives it a prestige that it deserves. The more junior continental competitions are slowly catching up but will never have the global appeal of the elder sibling.
However, the timescales have meant that international friendlies take place with more frequency and are irrelevant to the modern game. Permitting African, Asian and American countries to play matches in Europe ensures that the clubs hold the whip hand. FIFA has to accept some of the blame for pandering to the clubs needs to have their best players available the weekend after a designated international fixture. Players return injured or later in the season become tired due to the number of fixtures in which they participate.
Blatter wants to limit the number of games players are involved in yet shows no inclination to reduce the international calendar. His demands are incompatible with FIFA’s aims. The principle of the quotas, that half of a team must be eligible for the national team of the country in which their club is based is theoretically sound for improving the standard of those countries. Yet it is also fundamentally flawed. The talent in each country is there already but so his theory goes, it is suppressed by foreign players taking their places.
Blatter claimed in the interview,
If you go to the Premier League – which is a wonderful competition – something is wrong if only four or five teams are fighting for the title and all the others are happy not to be relegated because something is wrong in the essence of football
The ‘six plus five’ rule is designed to make domestic football more competitive. The reality is that it will emphasise the gap between the top four and the rest. Consider the scenario that Blatter alludes to. If the top four have to ensure that they have six native players, their squads are likely to include double that number. This means that they will require forty-eight players between them who are eligible for England. The international squad requires twenty-four players, meaning the likely outcome is that the entire squad will come from four clubs because they have the financial muscle to buy the best English players either at a young age or from other clubs.
Even allowing for the odd one or two who may play for Spurs or Aston Villa or their ilk, Blatter’s aims will be diluted. Add into the scenario that the top four will continue to purchase the cream of the international crop, the situation becomes more polarised and the top four more impregnable.
The only way that the naturalisation rule can achieve the outcome of a more competitive league is if football becomes more altruistic, more communist in its wealth distribution. The clubs who compete in the Champions League would have to share their revenues amongst the rest of the game to facilitate more competition. Private ownership of clubs dictates that this will never happen, killing off investment in one fell swoop were it ever to do so. Failing that, the implementation of a draft system akin to that operated by the NFL would have to take place. The weak get the strongest choices upon which to build a base. Except that the smaller clubs would opt out of this to a certain extent by choosing to transfer their draft choices to the highest bigger in order to survive financially.
The more that Blatter tries to regulate football, the more danger he poses to FIFA’s authority. Even in the egalitarian example above, there are further challenges to overcome such as the Bosman ruling or Article 17. Whichever way FIFA’s President turns, he is hamstrung by the law. Yet ever the optimist or blinkered autocrat depending on your view, Blatter believes the legal challenges are there to be negotiated away,
The law is one thing but it can be adapted, amended, if there is general consensus
Problematically for Blatter, general consensus between the clubs and national associations has been in short supply over the last decade. Despite the subsuming of the G14 into UEFA, consensus on this issue is far away and likely to cost FIFA dear.


