football booing

[ilkleyram]

I apologise for the length of this email.

 

Last Wednesday night Phil Brown was co commentating on the West Ham match and said he couldn't understand the booing from the WH fans; on 606 on Saturday, Robbie Savage asked why fans weren't happy with a mid table position in the PL (a Lesta fan then said that he would be very happy with a mid-table finish, next season in the PL).

 

I sent the following email to Mark Chapman and others on 606 as my views on why fans boo in the PL and why I think 5 Live and the BBC are a (maybe unwitting) part of a wider conspiracy to reinforce the view that everything in the PL garden is rosy.

 

I am, I admit, an old fart in the sense that I have watched the Rams for 50 or so years.  I enjoy watching Derby play and win and following the team home and away is and has always been one of the passions of my life.  But I do not buy the argument that everything is better now than it was 50 years ago, in the football world.  And in particular my argument would be that less competition is worse for the game in England.

 

Dear Mark Chapman, Robbie Savage, Phil Brown et al

This (long) email is not written in the expectation that you will mention it on the radio because not only will it be far too long for your limited attention spans but it is also far too critical of the BBC, Radio 5 live and its love of everything Premier League and in particular the status quo.  But, on the basis that someone, somewhere might read it, here goes.

By way of introduction I am not the supporter of a PL team.  My club has won the first division championship in the proper days when football was reasonably competitive and is doing pretty well nowadays in the second tier.  I have been watching them play for over 50 years, home and away, in each of the top three divisions in that time, mostly as a season ticket holder.

Despite my dislike of much of what Radio 5 Live has now become I still listen on a regular basis though not with the same level of pleasure that I got from the first few years of its being.  I did catch, however, Phil Brown’s comments about the booing at the Boleyn stadium last Wednesday night and Robbie Savage’s question on Saturday night about fans that might become bored with being in mid-table of the PL.  It is those comments that have prompted me to write.

If I were to ask any of you pre season which clubs were likely to be in the top 5 of the PL for 2014/15, I would hazard two guesses:  1) that you would all name the same or very similar 5 teams and 2) that you would be right.  Only the order of finish might be slightly different.

If I then asked you to name which clubs will be in the top 5 for 2016/17 and 2017/18 and onwards, you would be silly if you were to name any other than the same 5 clubs.  And, again you would probably be right.

The only possibility that you would be wrong is if someone, with well over £200m to burn comes along, buys a club like, say, Aston Villa, or Everton and then spends the lot on ‘their’ club.  And even then there is no guarantee of success - look at Spurs this year with one of the meanest Chairman around (and I don’t say that critically) and what has happened to his £100m.  And don’t forget that was £100m on top of tens of millions already spent getting to the starting point of some level of success.  

And how many people are there in the world (not the UK) with both the inclination and the money?  Very few, and not one of them people who the ‘ordinary’ fan would recognise as currently being a fan of their club.  Has Fawaz really supported Nottingham Forest all his life?

So, to break into that top 5 you need someone with more money than sense and someone who 99 times out of a 100 is going to be from overseas.

As that doesn’t happen very often to many clubs, then the real likelihood is that the current top 5 will remain the top 5 ad infinitum.  And indeed football generally and its rules and money, from the so called Champions League (it isn’t) upwards and downwards, is now deliberately constructed simply to continue to keep those same clubs at the ‘top’.

So, for the remaining clubs (and their fans), the best that they can do is 6th. The best players will continue to go to ever bigger squads in the top 5 clubs.

When I first started watching football in the 1960s no one ever talked about winning ‘their’ league within a division, or starting a season plotting how to get to 40 points for safety - both those comments are a recent phenomenon and they indicate the paucity of the competition.  If you enter a competition and stand no chance of winning the thing then, in the end, what is the point?

And that is what West Ham fans are booing, the overall lack of ambition and challenge. Because once the initial excitement of seeing the best players and teams has faded, once reality has set in and you know that the only exciting seasons, the only time when matches really mean anything are when you flirt with relegation, then what is the point?

And if you are David Gold (or even Sam Alladyce) you might think ’well you ungrateful lot.  I have kept you in this league so that you can see the best players; or ‘I have invested millions of my own money but I don’t have £100’s of millions to spend, so this is the best we can do.  Sorry and all that, but that’s the way it is’. 

But it wasn’t always like that.  There was a better time when clubs could get promoted from the second tier and win the first tier, or get close; could win cups, or get close; could get into Europe and even win European competitions because those competitions were structured in a way that allowed that to happen.  Could Nottingham Forest ever win the premier European competition again?  Could Leeds get to finals and win, ever again?

If any of you were to answer positively to either of those questions then you are deluding yourselves.

And once clubs, players, managers - so called football professionals - buy into the ‘the best we can do is mid-table’ routine then so starts, eventually, the fan reaction.  Because West Ham fans remember the days of Hurst, Peters and Moore; Forest fans remember European cups; Derby fans remember Mackay and McFarland and Todd (highest transfer fee in the UK in his time.  Could Derby ever do that again?); Everton fans remember Kendall. And so on and so forth. Unlike football professionals, fans buy into the history of their club, of winning things, of great players - we don’t want mid table mediocrity.  We don’t want ‘just’ to survive.  We want competition.  We want a chance - a proper chance - to win. And winning is NOT '10th is the best you can do, oh we might have one great season and come 8th, but realistically we were never in with a chance of winning.'  Mid table, year after year, is BORING, once the initial excitement has worn off.  Sam Alladyce may well be realistic but he's BORING! Fans don’t go to watch the ‘other side’; they go to watch ‘their’ team win and prosper. Just staying up is not success.

And so, why are 5 live culpable?

Well in my view 5live and the BBC generally (as well as the wider media) have bought completely into the status quo.  Where are the challenges to Scudamore and his mates? Where is the questioning of the FA? Of UEFA? Of football’s rules and regulations - the really important ones about money and competition and fairness, not whether the ball was over the line? Where are the investigations into foreign owners, the way in which Portsmouth, and Leeds and many others have been run? Why was Ferguson allowed to go for years without giving an interview to the BBC? Why are you not questioning the proposed changes by Platini in the lead up to Qatar that will fundamentally change the way in which football is played in this country? Why do you not challenge FIFA and their systems and processes? Why are fan-unfriendly kick off times, by inclusion, supported by the BBC (you don’t have to cover those matches)? Why do you continue to promulgate the ‘football history only started with the PL’ line - just look at the stats your teams spout in commentary every week? Why is Match of the Day, and Radio 5 live, so in thrall to the PL that other football - and other sports - are largely ignored, or covered when there is little else to cover? Why are the teams you cover almost always those in the top 5 v anyone else? Why are you not challenging the growing inequality of competition in the second tier, of the impact of the changes to academies, of the ever reducing English players in the top division and the impact on the England team or of semi-finals being played at Wembley? 

And so on.  And the answer?  To coin an old phrase, you’re frit the lot of you.  Frightened of rocking the PL boat, of upsetting Scudamore, of losing the contract to cover football in the top division, or the FA Cup, or World Cup, or European competition.  Of those organisations not spreading their largesse your way and of gaps in the Radio Times. Or, of course, because you have all bought into the line that it is best this way, that actually the PL is the best league in the world, with the best football.  Gentlemen, take it from me, there was a time when football was better, when competition was more even, when it wasn’t boring to finish 10th.

So there you go, if indeed any of you actually read this.  That’s why West Ham fans were booing; that’s why more fans boo at more matches than ever before. Football has changed and not for the better.

[Grimbeard]

Yup.

[Srg]

Yeah, got bored a few paragraphs down when you started to sound like my grandad used to.

[Grimbeard]

Yeah, got bored a few paragraphs down when you started to sound like my grandad used to.

Tch, no attention span nowadays. Young man, if you'd  listened to your grandad, then you'd know that new isn't synonymous with better, nor old ways with boring.

[eddie]

Yeah, got bored a few paragraphs down when you started to sound like my grandad used to.

 

But if books were 140 characters or less, you'd be there, right?

 

[Brammie Steve]

I read the whole of the first post and agree whole-heartedly.

Anyone who lived through Derby's glory years under Clough/Taylor and Mackay will know the incredible times we had. So did Forest with Lord Brian; Villa with the European Cup and Blackburn winning the league.

We are also aware that the present system makes a repeat of such phenomena all but impossible.

The FA Cup is a possible dream but even here it no longer has its old magic. The final is given no more prominence on TV than a top horse race now. Gone are the days when coverage started with the teams at breskfast in their hotel!

Premiership football boringly predictable? Yes, and certain to remain so unless something changes radically.

This has been OUR most exciting season in years.

We could be booing in the Premship in 2014-15.

[ossieram]

Can't disagree with anything in that email.

The only time things will change for the better,Is when sky fook off and take their money with them.

[RamNut]

I think they were booing ugly defensive boring football a la sam allardyce.

West ham used to be known for attractive football.

[dabber]

I agree that a lot of the magic / romance has gone from the game, however what I find intriguing is that when us and Forest were the best teams in the land we were also the money bags, you said yourself the club and national record for Toddy, Forest bought the first million pound player didn't they? So if we are honest a little bit of the present reality must be that we are a little bit envious that we are no longer the team breaking the transfer record, because it is generally true that the big spenders finish on or very near the top...

[Bris Vegas]

´They should have put a wage cap or introduced drafting along time ago.

 

Obviously the money from sky/TV/Sponsors etc. is where the money has come from, and whoever was at the top of the tree at that point in time were always likely to benefit.

 

I've never known Arsenal to be a big club. I never hear about their illustrious history. If anything, they were the same size as the likes of Everton, Villa, WHU and Spurs. Established yes, but not big like Man Utd or Liverpool.

 

But in the early nineties they benefited from doing well on the pitch and under Wenger grew as a club when the money came in. It wasn't long until they were NIKE's pride and joy, they were funding their new stadiums and their support in London and worldwide just grew ridiculously.

 

What I can't understand is the fickle Arsenal fans who boo at their position.

[Animal is a Ram]

I hate to hear fans booing their own team. It's something I have never done and never will either..

[Grimbeard]

I agree that a lot of the magic / romance has gone from the game, however what I find intriguing is that when us and Forest were the best teams in the land we were also the money bags, you said yourself the club and national record for Toddy, Forest bought the first million pound player didn't they? So if we are honest a little bit of the present reality must be that we are a little bit envious that we are no longer the team breaking the transfer record, because it is generally true that the big spenders finish on or very near the top...

Not really the same. It's all a question of the huge wealth gaps that now exist and what realistic aspirations a club can have. When Derby bought Todd, yes it was a lot of money but not a stupidly large amount. Also a club didn't have to offer astronomical wages to attract top players. This meant that most established 1st division clubs could compete on a relatively level playing field or at least have the belief that they could be 'up there' one day.

In the days before football finances went mental, a local boy made good, Longson, Pickering et al, could buy into a club and compete. None of this is any longer possible and football is immeasurably poorer for it.

[TigerTedd]

Not really the same. It's all a question of the huge wealth gaps that now exist and what realistic aspirations a club can have. When Derby bought Todd, yes it was a lot of money but not a stupidly large amount. Also a club didn't have to offer astronomical wages to attract top players. This meant that most established 1st division clubs could compete on a relatively level playing field or at least have the belief that they could be 'up there' one day.

In the days before football finances went mental, a local boy made good, Longson, Pickering et al, could buy into a club and compete. None of this is any longer possible and football is immeasurably poorer for it.

 

So what would fix it, what is a realistic solution?

 

How about a wage cap with a twist: if x amount of players are allowed to be paid in the top tier, x amount in a middle tier and x amount in a lower tier?

 

And if squad's are then capped, and you can only bring a loan in when you have a confirmed injury, and that injured player has be declared as temporarily out of the squad. Maybe you're allowed to have a youth team squad, but if you do you have to source from that pot before you can go to loans. And loans can only be done from other people's youth teams, or free agents. And maybe there can be restrictions on the amount of local players in those youth teams.

 

Sky can then pay all the money they want, but that money can then go into reducing ticket prices (which is really what it should be for, Sky pay all that money to make the 'sit on your sofa experience' better and cheaper, people who pay for tickets shouldn't have to subsidise those that sit at home). Or it can be spent on better facilities or a community fund, because it simply can't be spent on players' wages.

 

This is all off the top of my head, by the way, I haven't got a clue if any of it would practically work.

 

Is there anything we can steal from the American football drafting system. That at least seems like a system with a modicum of parity built into it, like someone actually thought about it.

[TigerTedd]

Football sometimes reminds me of darts. Someone must have invented darts with the aim of the game to aim at the bulls eye. That makes for a far more interesting game as, if you miss the bulls eye, you could end up anywhere, scoring any amount of points. Then someone tinkered with it and included doubles and trebles, and suddenly the bulls eye wasn't the highest scoring space on the board.

 

Now everyone's aiming for triple twenty, and if they miss, they get a 20, a 5 or a 1. It's the same shot, over and over again, it's boring. There are spaces on the rest of the board that never get touched. It bemuses me how darts has such a following, it seems to me like such a badly designed game.

 

Football got tinkered with, (not the game itself, but everything else) and no one really thought about the implications, and how it might fundamentally effect how the game is played. They just saw £s in their eyes.

 

The first tinkering would have been transfers at all. Similar to international football, the national game should be about the locality that team represents. So only English (or vaguely English) players can play for England. I find it very sad when a team can only field one or two (if any) hometown heroes. And sadder still when the first team consists completely of foreign talent.

 

A teams' success should be based on it's ability to scout in the local leagues and schools, it's ability to train and nurture talent. And on the size of it's fan base (I believe that's probably what separated the men from the boys in the olden days, when revenue was based almost totally on ticket sales), which it could grow not only with success on the pitch, but with it's connection and engagement with the local community. With TV money, there's actually massive potential to put a ton of money back into the local community, not simply into the pockets of already stupidly rich sportsmen and board members. Therefore making football a force for goodness and positivity in the local community and in the world in general.

 

Oh I can rant with the best of them. And I'm not even that old. If only we ruled the world, eh?

[SSD]

Fantastic email sir, well done! 

 

I believe the West Ham fans did boo the negative football more than anything. Manager's like Allardyce are the reason why English players can't play football to the level of other countries in the footballing world. That's one thing I agree with Jose Mourinho, it's football from the dark ages. I can't stand it. 

 

The sooner the hoofball managers like Sam Allardyce, Tony Pulis, Phil Brown, Aidy Boothroyd, Neil Warnock, Alex McCleish etc stop coaching negative football the better.

[cannable]

Fantastic email sir, well done!

I believe the West Ham fans did boo the negative football more than anything. Manager's like Allardyce are the reason why English players can't play football to the level of other countries in the footballing world. That's one thing I agree with Jose Mourinho, it's football from the dark ages. I can't stand it.

The sooner the hoofball managers like Sam Allardyce, Tony Pulis, Phil Brown, Aidy Boothroyd, Neil Warnock, Alex McCleish etc stop coaching negative football the better.

It would have been easier to list the British managers who try to play attractive football! McClaren, Hoddle, Rodgers, Kieth Hill, O'Driscoll and in half-season spells Clough! Houghton (from what I've seen) and Redknapp play bearable football but other than that the football played by the rest of the managers in the country is beyond dire!

[Pearl Ram]

Good email ilkley and I can't disagree with anything in it. 

 

I would have mentioned the price fans are charged compared to back in the day, I understand the cost of living etc has gone up but once upon a time a parent could take his kid/s to a match without it costing getting on for a oner  or the equivalent (talking about Arsenal/Spurs which are the teams the kids all want to go and see dahn 'ere)

[petersimple]

In terms of spending Derby were the Man City of the early 70s. I think we broke the spending record a few times. So it could be said that we bought success like top clubs do today. We weren't really interesting in developing players. I can only think of Steve Powell coming through the ranks if you can call it that because I don't think he had many games in the reserves.

 

But the games were far more even and more exciting then. Teams like QPR and Ipswich were quite capable of winning the League. On the other hand, you never saw the great goals every week that you do now. I can't think of any exceptional Derby goals in the 60s or 70s.  Apart from a goal scored by someone from Wrexham, or maybe it was Chester, around 1979 I can't think of any great goals at the Baseball Ground hit from far out.

[Pearl Ram]

"http://www.hazelnet.org/icon/emote/yikes" alt="yikes">

[Cisse]

Booooooooooo !