Britain's best football supplement comes alive on Times Online
You can subscribe to a feed of posts at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame
In this week's debate, Martin Samuel argued in favour of a proposal to build a new national football museum at Wembley, replacing the current one in Preston. It provoked some heated discussion:
I was born on Tyneside and lived in Preston and district for ten years before moving south 22 years ago. I am not a natural supporter of centralising everything in London but a few years ago we hosted a young Japanese school student who was mad on football and here out of season so in desperation we took him to see the old Wembley, doing the rather apologetic little tour. He was ecstatic, this was the place he had seen on TV and now he was there, never mind Buckingham Palace and all those castles, this was something to tell his pals at home. Yes, old Wembley has gone but with the combination of a first rate museum and a good tour new Wembley will become a major tourist attraction, something that cannot happen at Deepdale, however much I would wish otherwise. CliveS.
MS: My point precisely, Clive. Nothing against Preston, the north or anywhere in provincial England but to pretend that visitors do not migrate towards the capital is delusional.
I'm no fan of Wembley but why don't we have two national football museums, in London and in Preston. There are Tate galleries in London, Liverpool and St Ives. They could exchange material over time and run exhibitions which the Tate successfully does. Tony Ramos.
MS: Not a bad idea, but one will attract considerably more visitors than the other, so it cannot be an equal partnership. The Tate in London is the daddy, if you get my drift, as anyone who has ever been there and then to the galleries in Liverpool and St. Ives will testify.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel replies: where do you think the National Football Museum should be?" »
Click here to read the rest of this week's Martin Samuel column in TheGame
Proud place, Preston. The next St Petersburg, according to Karl Marx, although he was hardly infallible when it came to predictions. Charles Dickens visited during the industrial revolution and his experiences are said to have inspired Coketown, the fictional backdrop for his novel, Hard Times.
Midway between London and Glasgow, many have passed through Preston over the centuries: the Romans, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the M6. And therein lies the problem. Most reach Preston and keep going: to the Lake District, to Blackpool, south to the capital. It is not the type of place that inspires a stay. The National Football Museum is there, too; though not that many know it.
The National Football Museum is another of those projects over which a committee presides in the pretence that London is not the hub of England. It is housed at Deepdale, home of Preston North End and the oldest operational football stadium in the world. Rich in significance and nostalgia, low on passing trade. There is no charge for entry, yet the most recent attendance figures state that in the year until June 2007 there were 106,000 visitors: to a free museum about a sport that is a global phenomenon, housing some truly exceptional exhibits.
There is now a move to build a national football museum at Wembley, supported by the FA and Football League. Mark Hendrick, MP for Preston, calls it obscene. "The Football League are turning their backs on a wonderful museum, situated in their home town at one of the League's founding clubs," he said, which sounds very grand and evocative, but utterly fails to take into account that the point of a museum is to get as many through the door as possible, and no way can that be achieved in Preston.
Sorry. That's the deal. The capital gets gridlock, unaffordable houses, overpopulation, pollution and a lousy standard of living, but, on the upside, if you want to stare at a Titian or the Rosetta Stone, it is the place to be. The National Football Museum, like all projects of historical worth, has to be based where it is accessible. That is why there is a Tate Modern; not a Tate, Preston.
Debate: Where do you think the National Football Museum should be: Preston or London - and why?
On Monday, our Chief Football Correspondent reignited the debate on who should be England's No 1 and asked why Robert Green, on form the best goalkeeper in the land has not made the step up to international stage.
Here he replies to your comments:
If Manuel Almunia of Arsenal were English born, do you not think he would be England's no.1? Sam.
MS: No.
Scott Carson of West Bromwich Albion is the worst goalkeeper in the Premier League. Dyl.
MS: Wrong.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel responds:Who should be the England goalkeeper?" »
To read Martin Samuel's column from TheGame in its entirety, click here
On form, the best goalkeeper in the country is Robert Green, of West Ham United. As Fabio Capello, the England manager, is no fool and works with two goalkeeping coaches, one must presume he knows this. Yet Green was missing from the last international squad, so remains sixth in line behind David James, Paul Robinson, Scott Carson, Joe Hart and Chris Kirkland.
The story goes that, under a previous England regime, Green was called up and performed so badly in training that he was discounted from selection almost instantly. He has played one half for England, under Sven-Göran Eriksson, on the same day that Zat Knight won a cap. Capello selected Green but dropped him just as quickly. Might Green’s nerves have got the better of him again? It seems the only explanation given his club performances.
The Debate: Who is your England No1?
On Monday, our Chief Football Correspondent asked you if the Chelsea striker should remain at Stamford Bridge or be sent packing after a run of recent indiscretions on and off the pitch. Here he replies to your comments:
Chelsea should swap Didier Drogba for Adriano, who does not get on with Jose Mourinho at Inter Milan and should mature under the influence of Chelsea's Brazilian contingent. He'll give us strength to hold up the ball, an aerial threat and goals from outside the box when we cannot break down top opposition, as we have struggled to do this season. Scolari needs more time and better attackers. With Joe Cole injured, he needs more creative, tricky, fast players, unlike the wasteful Salomon Kalou and the disappointing Florent Malouda, who grins infuriatingly every time he loses possession. Tom.
MS: A bit of a contradiction here, Tom. You say you need forwards who are creative, tricky and fast, yet also wish for Adriano who, the last time I saw him, looked slow, clod-hopping and unfit. There will be a reason he has fallen out with Mourinho, maybe because he is not meeting the exacting standards of a top player anymore. Drogba’s problems are with his temperament; nobody has accused him of not wishing to do the hard work. Maybe you are correct and Adriano would respond to a Brazilian manager, but why take a chance when players exist with his ability who are also prepared to graft?
Continue reading "Martin Samuel responds: should Chelsea ditch Didier Drogba?" »
Martin Samuel
To read Martin Samuel's column in its entirety, click here
The dalliance with Inter Milan may bring events to the boil, but it is the coin-throwing incident involving Didier Drogba that encapsulates the worst facet of his character.
Consider his reaction in the context of Chelsea’s present circumstances. They need him now, as the early momentum behind Luiz Felipe Scolari’s methods falter. Nicolas Anelka cannot go it alone in every match, so Drogba is his mid-season cavalry, coming over the hill.
Yet, in that instant against Burnley, he disregarded his importance to the team and placed his feelings of anger ahead of all. He did the same in the Champions League final against Manchester United in May, sent off with a penalty shoot-out looming. The indiscreet meeting between his advisers and Inter, which disrupted Chelsea’s preparations in Bordeaux, is strike three.
Scolari expects his players to serve the team ethic and Drogba, for all his dedication to the cause when he plays, remains a solo turn in his head.
Debate - Should Chelsea ditch Didier Drogba?
To read this week's Martin Samuel TheGame column in its entirety, click here
The state supports clubs in France. This will be the elephant in the room when Bernard Laporte, the French Minister of Sport, arrives in England this week to browbeat Government ministers, in the hope they will be suckered into a Gallic plan to ruin English football. The French think that English debt is cheating, but see nothing wrong in local authorities supporting Ligue 1 clubs to the tune of 2 per cent of the total budget or paying for the transport infrastructure around the new stadium proposed by Lyons.
From London, this circus heads for Biarritz, where European sports ministers gather to receive a proposal from the presidency of the council of the European Union, under the control of France at present, which will attempt to introduce a Europe-wide equivalent of la Direction Nationale du Con-trôle de Gestion (DNCG).
The DNCG is a regulatory body made up mostly of lawyers and accountants that monitors football in France and, as such, is responsible for producing the dullest league in Europe, with the exception of Moldova. France has had the same champions for seven years, Moldova eight. No other country comes close to this repetition, the nearest being the Netherlands and Greece, whose reigning champions, PSV Eindhoven and Olympiacos respectively, have lasted four seasons.
Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, will also be speaking in Biarritz and because he is never one to let a bad idea pass by, will no doubt be espousing his well-worn argument that to be in debt is to cheat, citing the elite clubs of the Barclays Premier League. So how has French football stayed in the black for so long? Well, here is a clue. This is an excerpt from Philippe Auclair’s biography of Eric Cantona, detailing how Cantona and Stéphane Paille, another exceptional young player, came to be at Montpellier in the late Eighties.
“Cantona and Paille’s transfers were financed for the most part by the City Council of Montpellier, then under the control of local Socialist panjandrum Georges Frêche, who topped up the Fr10 million grant the club received each year with another Fr4 million of taxpayers’ money. The county council of the Hérault départe-ment chipped in with an extra Fr3 million in exchange for a renaming of the club, previously known as La Pail-lade-Montpellier, and Nicollin [Lau-rent Nicollin, the Montpellier president] himself plucked Fr4 million from his company’s bank account [a company that specialised in the collection and recycling of domestic and industrial waste in the region and, yes, derived much of its income from the patronage of various institutional bodies]. It was a political gamble as much as anything else, not that Eric and Stéphane were aware of it.”
Paille was France’s footballer of the year at the time. Not bad for nothing. And while such direct involvement in the transfer market is no longer permitted, this does not mean that the benefits from when it was have not accrued or that French football is not propped up by the taxpayer in other ways. For instance, the DNCG has no objection to a scheme in which professional clubs with state-approved training centres receive local authority grants and subsidies. It sees this as the state fulfilling educational duties, with the result that the majority of clubs receive financial support from city councils or municipalities. Paris passes on about €3.5 million (about £2.9 million) each year.
Taxation is different in France, too, with players in Ligue 1 able to put down a blanket 30 per cent of gross income as image rights, incurring tax on this of about 10 per cent. In Spain, the basic rate of tax for even the top foreign footballers is 23 per cent, something that may appeal to the odd target for Real Madrid based in Manchester and paying double that.
So when Platini talks of level playing fields he is being disingenuous. There can be no one-size-fits-all system for football in Europe, because every model is so different. English clubs build their own grounds and therefore incur debt. French clubs do not. The council picks up the tab for that, too. There have been no new grounds built in Ligue 1 in ten years. Grenoble Foot 38 opened a stadium last February and were promoted to the top division at the end of that season, but the Stade des Alpes has a capacity of only 20,000, so is hardly a bold statement of national vibrancy: Milton Keynes Dons’ new ground is bigger. Anyway, Grenoble are owned by a Japanese company, Index, so this is hardly the blueprint of Platini’s vision for football in Europe.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel's Debate: Do you want English football to be controlled from Europe?" »
On Monday, Martin Samuel asked if Liverpool and Everton should put aside their differences and share a ground, following the example of many of European football's greatest rivals.
You didn't hold back - and neither has he...
Of course, Liverpool and Everton should ground share. Somewhere equally convenient to both sets of fans – such as Southport. Peter Shelton.
MS: Don’t you mean equally inconvenient, Peter; or is this just some of that famous Scouse wit I’m always hearing so much about.
Just do the maths. Liverpool: massive season ticket waiting list + global support = need for 60,000 seat stadium. Everton: free ticket giveaways + empty seats = Woodison Park. How about sharing with Wigan Athletic, the place is already blue and white? Andrew Clarke.
How about this? Liverpool build themselves a shiny new ground in Stanley Park and Everton move back to their old home: Anfield. A lick of blue paint and the job's done. Oh, and keep the Shankly Gates, I'm told he died an Evertonian anyway. Nick.
MS: I am so staying clear of ones like this.
Everton and Liverpool are like two squabbling brothers. They have lived together for so long that through the course of forging their identity from essentially the same cultural and geographical environment, they have forgotten that essentially they are maternally bonded.
Forcing them to share a home would begin with tears and tantrums but they would eventually settle down and each would make a mark of their own in their new surroundings and their relationship would be better for it in the long run. Besides ‘The Council Ground’ has a certain ring to it. Adam.
MS: Doesn’t it just? A nice analogy, Adam. After all, it is not as if the two Milan clubs have lost identity.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel responds: Should Liverpool and Everton share a ground?" »
Read the rest of Martin Samuel's column here
On the Continent, there would be a very simple solution to the relocation issues affecting Liverpool and Everton. The local council would build a stadium for them, with public money, and they would share it.
This is what happened in Milan and Rome and even in one-club cities in Europe it is not uncommon for funds for stadium redevelopment to be provided in part by the local taxpayer. Football clubs are seen as standard-bearers for the area and are indulged accordingly.
This fact is overlooked when Michel Platini, the Uefa president, pontificates on debt. English clubs build, maintain and own their grounds, which costs hugely but gives them a land asset. To look at one aspect of the balance sheet without considering the other is obtuse. No doubt the supporters of Liverpool and Everton would rather throw in their lot with Tranmere Rovers than share turf, so groundsharing may be a non-starter.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel's Debate: Should Liverpool and Everton share — and who should pay?" »
When West Ham slumped to a 3-1 home defeat to Everton last weekend, it prompted Martin Samuel to ask if Gianfranco Zola's side are too good to get relegated from the Premier League. You weren't shy in offering your replies - now he responds ...
Why ask this question about West Ham United? Surely there are several clubs with equally good squads who are in peril of the drop: Blackburn Rovers, Middlesbrough, Fulham, even Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur and Everton are not guaranteed safety. Mark, Durham
MS: Blackburn, Middlesbrough and Fulham were widely expected to be in trouble, Newcastle United’s plight has been talked to death, while Tottenham and Everton are moving in the opposite direction. West Ham’s problems off the field have been flagged up, but the poor form since Gianfranco Zola took over, and his lack of experience if a fight against relegation awaits, are new and fertile territory for debate. We can pick over Newcastle’s carcass for the hundredth time, if you wish, or we can move on: there are clubs in a similar position to West Ham that are ripe for discussion, but not the ones you have mentioned. The next correspondent gets it.
I would be more worried if I was a Portsmouth fan. Their season is imploding and they bring in Tony Adams as a manager. MoeTheBarman
MS: I really want Tony to do well, but Harry Redknapp is a big presence at a club, and Portsmouth could struggle without him. Good result against Sunderland last week, though. Better than outplaying Everton at home, and still losing 3-1.
Continue reading "Martin Samuel responds: are West Ham too good to go down?" »
|