The Archive

Glen Wilson examines at a new online TV venture which looks set to maintain the general trend towards manufactured controversy

We have all received emails that though provoking initial interest, we know to be bad news. We are tuned in enough to realise he is not really a retired Nigerian general, that millions of single women are not actually waiting online specifically for us and that, ultimately, despite the “scientific proof”, it is unlikely to add two inches. In July I received such an email, this time from a “brand new TV sports channel”, and it proved another which promised a lot and delivered only disappointment.

The email came from Sports Tonight Live, an online TV channel set to launch at the start of the Premier League season. “We will broadcast from 7pm-11pm every night and will discuss, debate and deliberate over the big sporting stories of the day.” This sounded promising enough, but things went downhill rapidly. “We are aiming for an opinionated and entertaining discussion show, led by presenters which include Mike Parry.” And kept going. “The new channel is being backed by a group of city investors, including Kelvin Mackenzie.” Some sales pitch.

It landed in my inbox because Sports Tonight were in the process of recruiting fan representatives of each club to appear on the show. “We’re looking for someone who is eloquent, opinionated, informed – controversial but clean cut,” read the email though the appointment of Parry would suggest that two out of five would ultimately suffice.

“Ideally they would also need a bit of banter” – banter of course having become a quantifiable commodity since professional footballers began referring to people as “tweeps” and hanging out with James Corden – “and a thick skin as we aim to be controversial, with Parry at his outspoken best.”

It is often suggested there is too much football on television. Perhaps a better argument is that there is not enough actual football in relation to the coverage which surrounds it. This is an argument that Sports Tonight, having outlined three aims, to be controversial, opinionated and entertaining, only further enforces. Would it pain Sports Tonight that much to strive to be informed, or accurate instead, or perhaps seek a presenter who is lauded for being intelligent rather than outspoken?

But this is the direction in which much football reportage continues to stumble, with the game itself increasingly subsumed beneath opinion masquerading as fact. Coverage of the sport is becoming less about the game on the field and more about what is happening around it, all delivered in basic cliched rhetoric. “Football programming” of this level is akin to going to the local cinema only to find that instead of screening films they are just dishing out copies of Heat magazine. Here you go, flick through that. I know it is the artistry of cinematography you really enjoy, but have you seen George Clooney’s new beard?

Increasingly, and disappointingly, football comes down not to knowledge, but who can shout the loudest. Earlier in the year Sports Tonight recruited staff for its new venture with adverts featuring the line: “You will be ambitious and almost certainly yet to be discovered. Sport will be your drug and you have plenty to say but until now nobody was listening.” Would it not perhaps be wise to examine why no one was listening to these undiscovered twitching football dependents? I mean, there is a bloke who sits a few seats away from me at the Keepmoat Stadium who has plenty to say and nobody is listening, but I (and anyone within ten seats) would sooner see him sectioned than behind an exciting new television channel.

The email also featured a familiar line, one which I see regularly in correspondence I receive: “We will not be able to pay people for appearing on Sports Tonight Live, but… we’ll happily acknowledge and advertise your fanzine.” Football bloggers are being increasingly looked on by those at the top of the media tree as freelancers with an emphasis on the “free”. And yes it may be our hobby, but if Parry is being paid to trot out soundbites and be “at his controversial best” about clubs he knows little about, why should comparative experts be expected to give their time and insight for free?

Speaking to the Guardian in May, McKenzie described the venture as “Sky Sports News meets TalkSport”. I cannot think of anything the game needs less and so, as you have probably guessed, I declined my invitation to be involved with his “exciting new programme”. Besides, the exposure it would have brought my fanzine is nothing compared to the investment I have recently been promised in a much more encouraging email from an exiled Ugandan prince.

From WSC 296 October 2011

Slavia Prague were brought to their knees by financial chaos and mysterious ownership. Sam Beckwith reports that the Czech club’s future could be just as murky

The 2007-08 season seemed like a new dawn for Slavia Prague. Having finally qualified for the Champions League’s group phase at the sixth attempt, the Czech Republic’s oldest club went on to win their first league title since 1996. The following season, the popular Prague side moved in to their newly reconstructed Eden stadium and won the title again. Talk of the Sesivani (literally “sewn-togethers”) replacing rivals Sparta as Czech football’s dominant force seemed justified. Then it all went wrong.

Read more…

Manchester United are about to be floated on Singapore’s stock exchange. Ashley Shaw explores the motives behind the move.

Having suffered jibes that they are the “Pride of Singapore” for several years now, the news that Manchester United are to be floated on that country’s stock exchange would seem to be entirely appropriate. Mystery surrounds the precise sums involved in the supposed IPO (initial public offering) and the move seems to have baffled the financial press. Some are asking whether having won four titles out of five and reached three Champion League finals in five years, the Glazers believe the club have reached a peak. There are also suggestions that they have been tipped the wink about Sir Alex Ferguson’s imminent departure. But it may simply be that they are once again looking to milk more from the United cash cow.

Of particular interest to supporters is the final destination of these funds. This summer Liverpool and Manchester City spent fortunes in the transfer market, with City in particular seemingly able to lure United’s transfer targets with huge salaries. So fans are entitled to wonder if some of this money will be used to strengthen a squad now containing young, promising but as yet unproven talent.

The initial answer would appear to be no and that the windfall could be used to pay down a portion of the £400 million debt that costs the club £45m a year to finance. Then there is the question of the £250m “acquired” from as yet unknown sources to pay off the high-interest PIK (payment in kind) notes last year and the ailing nature of the Floridians’ other businesses, which has led some to suggest that the funds may be earmarked for “personal profits”.

Optimists may point to this being the beginning of a long exit strategy for the owners and, of course, any flotation weakens the Glazers’ hold on to the club to a degree. Learning from the failures of United’s last period of public ownership, fan groups are already talking up the possibility of buying a stake, even if the £2 billion valuation of the club may make that prohibitive. At the very least, any flotation would also lead to higher standards of transparency and the prospect of holding some sharper Glazer practices to account.

It is clear, however, that supporters have had an impact on the way the Glazers run the club. There’s little doubt that the “green and gold” campaign affected their strategies – prior to the protests they seemed hell-bent on double-digit ticket-price rises and taking profits as and when they saw fit.

Ever since the furore surrounding the 
bond prospectus, the Glazers seem more interested in placating fans, whether by freezing prices or being seen to act in a more 
conciliatory fashion.And while they have steered clear of selling stadium-naming rights, they have sought to sell advertising and/or corporate space on just about every other asset the club owns. It remains to be seen whether this constitutes good business or financial desperation.

The restraints on the manager remain. The club have slashed the players’ salary bill by £10m. Research by Andersred (andersred.blogspot.com) claims that the departures of Wes Brown, John O’Shea, Gary Neville, Edwin van der Sar, Paul Scholes and Owen Hargreaves, and their replacement by Phil Jones, David de Gea and Ashley Young, means a net saving of £205,000 a week. In an era when Manchester City, in particular, are intent on buying success by offering eye-watering salaries, United’s stance should be lauded. But the fear remains that a lack of quality in the squad will tell over the course of the season.

Despite almost identical, emphatic starts to the season, the contrast between the local rivals could not be greater. City look like a club in a desperate hurry, with pressure beginning to be exerted from the top and UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules forgotten in the rush for trophies. United would normally sit this season out; they are team clearly in transition with a new goalkeeper, defence and midfield to accommodate, and it remains to be seen if their free-scoring start is illusory.

Nevertheless, the fact that the manager continues to deliver, regardless of the considerable financial obstacles put in his way, remains one of the more remarkable stories in recent football history.

From WSC 296 October 2011

It hasn’t always been easy for Shamrock Robers but a famous European win has boosted the League of Ireland, writes Steve Bradley 

UEFA’s competitions are often derided as pandering to the needs of big clubs. While there is some truth in this, it ignores the fact that both the Champions League and Europa League group stages have featured entrants from most European nations. Those countries yet to feature are largely a roll-call of small islands, principalities and sparsely populated mini-states – with one notable exception. The Republic of Ireland has a population of 4.5 million people, a respectable international team and a history of talented players – yet it has made little impact on international club football to date.

Read more…

Steve Menary explores the growing number of transfer fees that remain undisclosed and the reasons behind it

Debate over the size of transfer fees is part of football, but an increasingly endangered part. Players now – certainly at lower levels – are increasingly sold for “undisclosed” amounts. Clubs, players and agents are within their rights to withhold the relevant figures but this trend is also short-changing fans.

AFC Bournemouth reputedly received £1 million from selling striker Danny Ings to Burnley recently, but the fee – like that of six other players sold over the past year – was undisclosed. Estimates suggest debt-free Bournemouth will eventually earn £3m but manager Lee Bradbury is bringing in free transfers and loans.

With club accounts repeatedly delayed, Cherries fans are split. Chairman Eddie Mitchell is either praised for righting a debt-laden ship or decried as an asset-stripper. The situation works in reverse too. Driven by an ambitious chairman, a club splashes out untold sums on players for undisclosed fees, then the chairman disappears as the club collapses. Those left picking up the pieces are often the fans, who – if transfer fees had been disclosed – could have queried their club’s spending much earlier.

Transfer fees are lodged with the FA and available in club accounts but the figures quoted are often an amalgamation, and few lower-league clubs voluntarily make any financial details available anyway. FIFA-licensed agent Faizal Khan explains: “To aid cash flow, it may be a transfer fee of £20m is paid in instalments over three years with a player in exchange and other benefits. The £20m deal may only be £7m in cash today and be made up of instalments, player bonuses, a high-profile pre-season friendly and lump sums after the player makes international caps to, in time, all add up to £20m.

“To not rock the boat, it is sometimes best not to disclose everything. If the selling club publishes that they sold a player for £20m yesterday and do not spend near £20m in that transfer window on replenishing the squad, some fans will go beserk.”

That creates pressure on managers and owners, but the most thick-skinned of the latter simply carry on regardless, particularly in the lower divisions where there is less focus. “Figures are reported in mainstream media and you get that figure from people close to the deal, like the buying or selling club or the agent,” says Nick Harris, chief sports news correspondent at the Mail on Sunday and editor of sportingintelligence.com. “Sometimes those figures are accurate, sometimes that are very wide of the mark. Premier League clubs will be scrutinised as more journalists are asking questions, but in the second or third division, if the local papers don’t have the will or the power and the owners don’t want people to know, there’s not a lot you can do.”

Since October 2010, clubs transferring players internationally must lodge details – including fees – with FIFA’s Transfer Matching System, which was used for 2,451 international transfers in the first transfer window of 2011. The combined transfer value of those deals was $320m (£197m) and FIFA estimate more than 4,000 clubs use a system that is bound by Swiss data protection laws and confidential.

With FIFA mired in allegations of corruption and the debacle of the failed England 2018 World Cup bid, there is an urgent need for more transparency in football. The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) recently launched a campaign to make the game subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This, however, would only apply to governing bodies rather than clubs. “We haven’t got a policy on disclosing transfer fees, but it’s something most fans would want to see,” says Michael Brunskill, FSF director of communication.

The FA and Football League do not have policies on disclosure of transfer fees, while Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson says: “It’s down to individual clubs and some feel it is commercially sensitive so choose not to. Also, it’s sometimes a case that what the buying and the selling club wish to present are slightly different variations – adding in or not taking account of various clauses such as appearance, international or success payment triggers in the contract.”

Even the most blinkered fan must appreciate that disclosing how much money has been paid out or received during a transfer window is not conducive to good business. If a player is attracting interest from a club flush with cash from a big sale of its own, a bigger fee will be demanded.

In the longer term, annual disclosure of money spent during a season would at least give fans greater clarity on what is happening to their club and some of their money.

From WSC 296 October 2011