The captain of Chelsea Football Club and the English national side, John Terry, was found not guilty and cleared of racially abusing Queens Park Rangers footballer Anton Ferdinand at Westminster Magistrates Court on 31 July 2012.
Ferdinand alleged that Terry aimed abusive language at him, describing him as "black" and using extreme sexual swearwords. Terry has not denied using the word “black” or using extreme insulting language of a sexual nature. Rather, he defended himself in court by insisting that during the game between the two West London clubs on 23 October 2011 he was merely repeating a phrase he believed Ferdinand had accused him of using during an exchange of on-field expletive insults.
Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle, in his written judgment, said it was “highly unlikely” that during the match Ferdinand had accused Terry of racially abusing him but that it was possible that Terry believed that Ferdinand had made an accusation and that “it is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him”. Riddle went on to state that upon reviewing all the evidence before him, he could not find Terry guilty because there remained an element of doubt that Terry intended to racially insult the Queens Park Rangers player.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the court’s reasoning for delivering a not guilty verdict, the position is this: John Terry has been acquitted and cleared by the courts of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand. Why, therefore, is the Chelsea footballer still under investigation by the Football Association, the league’s governing body?
In much the same way as an employer is able to conduct its own internal investigation at the same time as a police investigation involving one of its employees is ongoing, the FA is free and able to conduct its own investigation regardless of whether or not the case has been through the English court system. The FA has its own set of rules and if, as a result of an investigation, the FA finds that John Terry has contravened one or more of their rules then he can be disciplined by the FA. In effect, the ruling by the courts was only ‘half-time’. Only once the FA investigation is concluded can the final whistle sound. An FA spokesman commented on the day of the court judgment; "the FA notes the decision in the John Terry case and will now seek to conclude its own enquiries”. Indeed, the FA has been reviewing the evidence and an FA commission, which will meet on Tuesday, will decide if Terry is guilty of racially insulting Ferdinand and in the process if he has failed to comply with FA rules. The Commission, chaired by an independent QC, will reach a verdict on the charge against Terry of using “abusive and/ or insulting words and/ or behaviour” towards Ferdinand including “a reference to ethnic origin and/ or race”. Terry denies the charge.
The FA Commission will operate with a lower burden of proof than the courts and is able to find Terry guilty of the alleged offence on the balance of probabilities. The court could only find Terry guilty if it judged that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he had used racially insulting language. Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said in his written judgment that “in [these] circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty." The FA commission does not have to be certain that Terry uttered the words in question as a racial insult.
The court’s ‘not guilty’ verdict will, however, still have a bearing on the outcome of the FA investigation. The Daily Mail revealed on 18 September that Terry’s legal team aim to have the FA investigation dismissed on the basis that FA Rule 6.8 which states that the results of relevant civil or criminal proceedings are 'presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true' by FA regulatory commissions.
The FA has already taken action in 2012 in relation to complaints made a Manchester United footballer earlier this year. Patrice Evra who plays for the Manchester club alleged that Luis Suarez, who plays for rivals Liverpool, racially abused him during a game between the sides last season. This case did not go through the courts, but an FA investigation concluded that Suarez was guilty and dismissed Suarez’s defence that cultural misunderstanding prompted his use of the word “negro”. Indeed the Commission ruled it didn’t need to prove Suarez intended his use of the word “negro” to be insulting; rather it had to decide whether the use of the word “negro” was insulting. The Commission ruled that Suarez was guilty and he was subsequently fined and banned for eight matches.
On this basis, if the Commission rules that Terry’s use of the word “black” and accompanying insults of a sexual nature is offensive then Terry’s defence that he was merely repeating the phrase he believed Ferdinand had accused him of using should, in all likelihood, fail.
23/09/2012
21/02/2012
Haye vs Chisora
On Saturday night the press conference which followed the heavyweight fight between world champion Vitali Klitschko, of the Ukraine, and the British challenger, Dereck Chisora of Peckham, was interrupted when David Haye, a former opponent of Vitali’s younger brother, Wladimir, appeared at the back of the room and launched a tirade of verbal abuse aimed at Klitschko and his manager. Haye believes he agreed a deal for a fight with Klitschko in December last year and seemed bemused when Klitschko’s manager intimated that his charge would overlook Haye and any other British fighter when choosing the opponent for his next title bout.
Chisora became rather miffed that Haye had taken centre stage at a press conference held to discuss and debate the twelve rounds he had completed just hours earlier. And, instead of ignoring Haye’s palpable presence, Chisora told Haye he was an “embarrassment”; that his brooding and theatrical performance in the aftermath of his points defeat to Wladimir Klitschko in which he blamed his defeat on a broken toe had “messed it up for young British fighters coming through”. Haye responded to Chisora’s rhetoric of “how’s your toe” by informing Chisora that he was a “loser”. Agitated, Chisora vacated his seat and marched towards Haye to confront him, removing his jacket on the way. Commence the fracas. Punches were thrown by both boxers and accusations have been made by the Chisora camp that David Haye used a bottle in an attempt to inflict injury on the Boxer from Peckham.
The actions of Haye and Chisora have landed both in trouble with the German police and the British Board of Boxing. German prosecutors have informed the media that both boxers could face jail terms for their violent behaviour. Journalists and prominent figures in British boxing have called for Chisora to face a lengthy ban and some have questioned whether he should be allowed to fight again.
Neither boxer has denied that he did nothing wrong in the melee that ensued. Both clearly regret the incident if not solely because it could put an end to their careers in boxing.
However, David Haye’s trainer and closest ally, Adam Booth, today argued that David Haye acted in self defence. Booth insists “"What David did was a defensive reflex. The man said he was going to slap him, walked 20 yards towards him, took his jacket off, went straight into a head butt and shoved his fist into David's chin. Everything was a defensive reflex from David”. And, he is not alone. In an interview with the BBC, the president of the Federation of German Professional Boxers, Dr Thomas Putz, said he "saw Chisora run directly to David Haye ... and attack him…David Haye only did the right thing to Chisora. He saved himself. It was self-defence”.
Was David Haye acting in self-defence? Or do his actions constitute an act of violence; of bodily harm.
The defence of self defence in English law arises from both Statute: the Criminal Law Act 1967 and from common law. Without using too much legal jargon, an individual is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself if he genuinely believes that he is in danger or is the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault.
The principle was established in the case of Beckford: “A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable”. What does ‘reasonable’ mean? Well, in a criminal case, that question can only be answered by a jury who judge the facts of the case, but in essence, the defendant, in this scenario David Haye, can be forgiven for making decisions that are not entirely rational and therefore, the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. An individual may even take a pre-emptive strike if he honestly believes the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if he believes that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
Applying the law to the Haye versus Chisora it is clear that it was Chisora who approached Haye having threatened to “slap” him and as he did so he removed his jacket and told a security guard not to intervene. He stood at Haye’s feet and leaned his head into Haye’s face. It was at this point that Haye used physical force against Chisora and hit him. Was this violent act by Haye one of self defence? Possibly so.
Haye could argue that he feared an imminent attack by Chisora; therefore that it was reasonable in the circumstances, fearing an assault by Chisora, to use an act of force against Chisora in order to protect himself. Arguing that the amount of force he used was reasonable and proportionate could prove more difficult for Haye, especially as he appears to have used a bottle when striking Chisora. But, Haye could argue that he was holding a bottle at the moment he feared an imminent assault by Chisora and therefore was not able to rid himself of the bottle when he acted in self defence. In any event, in order for a defence of self defence to be successful, were this to end in a criminal court, the jury would have to accept that it was reasonable for Haye to act in the way he did; that his actions were not excessive.
Haye is now in the United States on holiday. German police still want to speak to Haye and one must suspect his journey back to the UK will be via Germany.
Chisora became rather miffed that Haye had taken centre stage at a press conference held to discuss and debate the twelve rounds he had completed just hours earlier. And, instead of ignoring Haye’s palpable presence, Chisora told Haye he was an “embarrassment”; that his brooding and theatrical performance in the aftermath of his points defeat to Wladimir Klitschko in which he blamed his defeat on a broken toe had “messed it up for young British fighters coming through”. Haye responded to Chisora’s rhetoric of “how’s your toe” by informing Chisora that he was a “loser”. Agitated, Chisora vacated his seat and marched towards Haye to confront him, removing his jacket on the way. Commence the fracas. Punches were thrown by both boxers and accusations have been made by the Chisora camp that David Haye used a bottle in an attempt to inflict injury on the Boxer from Peckham.
The actions of Haye and Chisora have landed both in trouble with the German police and the British Board of Boxing. German prosecutors have informed the media that both boxers could face jail terms for their violent behaviour. Journalists and prominent figures in British boxing have called for Chisora to face a lengthy ban and some have questioned whether he should be allowed to fight again.
Neither boxer has denied that he did nothing wrong in the melee that ensued. Both clearly regret the incident if not solely because it could put an end to their careers in boxing.
However, David Haye’s trainer and closest ally, Adam Booth, today argued that David Haye acted in self defence. Booth insists “"What David did was a defensive reflex. The man said he was going to slap him, walked 20 yards towards him, took his jacket off, went straight into a head butt and shoved his fist into David's chin. Everything was a defensive reflex from David”. And, he is not alone. In an interview with the BBC, the president of the Federation of German Professional Boxers, Dr Thomas Putz, said he "saw Chisora run directly to David Haye ... and attack him…David Haye only did the right thing to Chisora. He saved himself. It was self-defence”.
Was David Haye acting in self-defence? Or do his actions constitute an act of violence; of bodily harm.
The defence of self defence in English law arises from both Statute: the Criminal Law Act 1967 and from common law. Without using too much legal jargon, an individual is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself if he genuinely believes that he is in danger or is the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault.
The principle was established in the case of Beckford: “A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable”. What does ‘reasonable’ mean? Well, in a criminal case, that question can only be answered by a jury who judge the facts of the case, but in essence, the defendant, in this scenario David Haye, can be forgiven for making decisions that are not entirely rational and therefore, the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. An individual may even take a pre-emptive strike if he honestly believes the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if he believes that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
Applying the law to the Haye versus Chisora it is clear that it was Chisora who approached Haye having threatened to “slap” him and as he did so he removed his jacket and told a security guard not to intervene. He stood at Haye’s feet and leaned his head into Haye’s face. It was at this point that Haye used physical force against Chisora and hit him. Was this violent act by Haye one of self defence? Possibly so.
Haye could argue that he feared an imminent attack by Chisora; therefore that it was reasonable in the circumstances, fearing an assault by Chisora, to use an act of force against Chisora in order to protect himself. Arguing that the amount of force he used was reasonable and proportionate could prove more difficult for Haye, especially as he appears to have used a bottle when striking Chisora. But, Haye could argue that he was holding a bottle at the moment he feared an imminent assault by Chisora and therefore was not able to rid himself of the bottle when he acted in self defence. In any event, in order for a defence of self defence to be successful, were this to end in a criminal court, the jury would have to accept that it was reasonable for Haye to act in the way he did; that his actions were not excessive.
Haye is now in the United States on holiday. German police still want to speak to Haye and one must suspect his journey back to the UK will be via Germany.
09/04/2009
One More Dance
One more dance,
One more dance with you,
Follow your steps,
Learn from you,
yearn for you,
love you,
miss you,
you liked dancing,
you liked to lead,
I followed,
I need you,
I feel you,
I can’t feel you,
Lost you.
One more dance with you,
Follow your steps,
Learn from you,
yearn for you,
love you,
miss you,
you liked dancing,
you liked to lead,
I followed,
I need you,
I feel you,
I can’t feel you,
Lost you.
16/09/2008
Olympic Success?
It was heralded as the one of the greatest Olympic Games in history. Beijing 2008 began with a remarkable opening ceremony; its highlight the sight of thousands of men beating drums inside the gigantic newly built Olympic Stadium, romantically named the Bird's Nest owing to its thatched design.
But, was it worth it? Did the Olympics justify its billion-Dollar price tag? Should China have been the host nation in the first instance? Broken promises, infringement of human rights, and lack of freedom for its people (and the journalists covering the Games) are reasons that suggest not. And of course we all know about the tragic events that have taken place in Tibet. But what is even more depressing is the vast amount of money spent on the Olympic games that could have been spent on more worthwhile causes. Yes, to stage an event as magnificent as an Olympic games requires large sums of cash, but this games broke all spending records. People were thrown from their homes, which were demolished to make way for new huge and expensive sports arenas that now lie dormant and empty and new apartment buildings were constructed for tourists that came and went, and that ordinary Chinese cannot afford.
The Olympics is traditionally a competition that has encouraged all nations to compete and come together in a friendly atmosphere. Taking part came first, winning was only a bonus. Unfortunately, more markedly in Beijing than in previous competitions winning gold medals took precedent over the art of pure competion.
Historically China has been a bastion of equality under the communist banner. In 1978 however this all changed when Deng Shaio Ping originated the Open Door Policy to foster a commercial mentality, exclaiming that 'to get rich is to get glorious'. This mentality has seeped into all areas of Chinese life, and particularly into the sports arena. China invested millions of dollars in training schemes, sports centres and coaches not to cement a sporting legacy but simply win the most gold medals, and top the medals table in 2008. This mentality even extended itself in the gymnastics arena in the form of entering fourteen year old girls with fake passports into competitions to win Golds in front of audiences around the world. Sadly, Liu Xiang was scorned and berated when he was forced to pull out of the 110 meter hurdle competition with a foot injury. He had been the face of the games in China, and one of few medal prospects in the track and field. Such was the Chinese hunger for success that his withdrawal made him a public hate figure.
China is not the only guilty party either. Great Britain, in its dash for Olympic success invested millions in specifically chosen events in which the GB Olympic Board felt success could be guaranteed. By investing heavily in futuristic bicycle technology, expensive yachts and shiny rowing boats the majority of GB's gold medals were achieved in elitist sports with few serious competitors. What percentage of the countries competing in the Olympics can afford to compete in events like sailing? Indeed, what percentage of the British population can afford a racing bike, kayak or shiny topper (a small racing boat, yup)? The lack of countries from Africa competing in these events highlights the lack of equality at the Beijing games.
London 2012 can be hugely successful in comparison to Beijing. But the International Olympic Committee and the GB organisers need to get their acts together. Currently only members of the Rich Man's Club are able to compete in a number of high-profile events like sailing, rowing and cycling. The number of medals on offer in these elitist sports should be halved, and more emphasis placed on track and field where all countries can compete on an equal playing field.
The Olympics also needs to regain its party atmosphere, visibly missing in China under the paranoid watchful eye of the state government. It is a cause for celebration and an opportunity for people to enjoy themselves whether they are athletes, spectators or members of the local community. This should and will happen in London.
But what the Olympic Games needs to regain most is its raison d'etre. It is an event for all countries to come together in peace and to respect each other's values and principles. This is impossible if rich nations are effectively allowed to 'buy' medals. Perhaps one way of achieving this would be to scrap official medals tables altogether and simply enjoy the occasion.
But, was it worth it? Did the Olympics justify its billion-Dollar price tag? Should China have been the host nation in the first instance? Broken promises, infringement of human rights, and lack of freedom for its people (and the journalists covering the Games) are reasons that suggest not. And of course we all know about the tragic events that have taken place in Tibet. But what is even more depressing is the vast amount of money spent on the Olympic games that could have been spent on more worthwhile causes. Yes, to stage an event as magnificent as an Olympic games requires large sums of cash, but this games broke all spending records. People were thrown from their homes, which were demolished to make way for new huge and expensive sports arenas that now lie dormant and empty and new apartment buildings were constructed for tourists that came and went, and that ordinary Chinese cannot afford.
The Olympics is traditionally a competition that has encouraged all nations to compete and come together in a friendly atmosphere. Taking part came first, winning was only a bonus. Unfortunately, more markedly in Beijing than in previous competitions winning gold medals took precedent over the art of pure competion.
Historically China has been a bastion of equality under the communist banner. In 1978 however this all changed when Deng Shaio Ping originated the Open Door Policy to foster a commercial mentality, exclaiming that 'to get rich is to get glorious'. This mentality has seeped into all areas of Chinese life, and particularly into the sports arena. China invested millions of dollars in training schemes, sports centres and coaches not to cement a sporting legacy but simply win the most gold medals, and top the medals table in 2008. This mentality even extended itself in the gymnastics arena in the form of entering fourteen year old girls with fake passports into competitions to win Golds in front of audiences around the world. Sadly, Liu Xiang was scorned and berated when he was forced to pull out of the 110 meter hurdle competition with a foot injury. He had been the face of the games in China, and one of few medal prospects in the track and field. Such was the Chinese hunger for success that his withdrawal made him a public hate figure.
China is not the only guilty party either. Great Britain, in its dash for Olympic success invested millions in specifically chosen events in which the GB Olympic Board felt success could be guaranteed. By investing heavily in futuristic bicycle technology, expensive yachts and shiny rowing boats the majority of GB's gold medals were achieved in elitist sports with few serious competitors. What percentage of the countries competing in the Olympics can afford to compete in events like sailing? Indeed, what percentage of the British population can afford a racing bike, kayak or shiny topper (a small racing boat, yup)? The lack of countries from Africa competing in these events highlights the lack of equality at the Beijing games.
London 2012 can be hugely successful in comparison to Beijing. But the International Olympic Committee and the GB organisers need to get their acts together. Currently only members of the Rich Man's Club are able to compete in a number of high-profile events like sailing, rowing and cycling. The number of medals on offer in these elitist sports should be halved, and more emphasis placed on track and field where all countries can compete on an equal playing field.
The Olympics also needs to regain its party atmosphere, visibly missing in China under the paranoid watchful eye of the state government. It is a cause for celebration and an opportunity for people to enjoy themselves whether they are athletes, spectators or members of the local community. This should and will happen in London.
But what the Olympic Games needs to regain most is its raison d'etre. It is an event for all countries to come together in peace and to respect each other's values and principles. This is impossible if rich nations are effectively allowed to 'buy' medals. Perhaps one way of achieving this would be to scrap official medals tables altogether and simply enjoy the occasion.
King Kev?
Gloomy times in Newcastle at the moment. The man who relinquished his post at Fulham, resigned from his job at Manchester City, and walked out on England has now resigned as manager of Newcastle. For the second time.
Yesterday, thousands of Newcastle fans decided to skip a day of work to stand outside St James' Park battling the torrential rain to protest Kevin Keegan's decision to leave Newcastle after citing that he was unable to work with club's owners. Keegan was effectively reduced the position of coach, and was not consulted when new faces were brought into the football club. Unsuprisingly, given his erratic history he walked out on the club.
Should Newcastle fans be dissapointed? Yes, they should be outraged by the fact that the club's owner, Mike Ashley is apparently deciding who comes and goes at St James' Park. This should be the task of the manager. But they should not be so disheartened by Keegan's exit. Is he really the Messiah Newcastle fans believe him to be? Is he even a good football manager? No he isn't. Newcastle fans should remember this is the same man who left Newcastle all those years ago, without any hint of explanation or apology. This is the man who who led Newcastle to victory in barely a third of games during his second spell at the club. Neither is Keegan a good tactician. He makes every decision with his heart. Yes he is endearing, one of the reasons Geordies warm to him so much, but he annot be relied upon to make good decisions. The fact that he protested at the board's willingless to get rid of Joey Barton emphasises this point. Barton should have gone - he can only add to Newcastle's woes. And Newcastle fans should remember that Keegan has never won a major trophy as a manager.
The statements Keegan made on leaving were disrespectful to the new players who joined the club on transfer deadline day. Keegan mocked them as he plotted his exit - God knows how they feel at this moment. It is also worth noting that the players who were brought in have performed magnificently in the opening games of the Premiership. Gutierrez and Collocini in particular have looked like great signings.
It is time for the board at Newcastle to enforce stability and lead from the top. It is time for Mike Ashley to stop wearing his XXL Newcastle shirt during mtches whilst downing lager and mingling with the fans. He is the man who now has to set an example and instill leadership at a club that quite frankly is the worst run in the Premier League. Keegan should not have been appointed in the first instance. It was a very bad decision. It is now time for Newcastle to refocus, and rebuild solid foundations at a club that needs them, particuarly in these turbulent economic times.
Newcastle United needs stability. Keegan is not the man to provide it.
Yesterday, thousands of Newcastle fans decided to skip a day of work to stand outside St James' Park battling the torrential rain to protest Kevin Keegan's decision to leave Newcastle after citing that he was unable to work with club's owners. Keegan was effectively reduced the position of coach, and was not consulted when new faces were brought into the football club. Unsuprisingly, given his erratic history he walked out on the club.
Should Newcastle fans be dissapointed? Yes, they should be outraged by the fact that the club's owner, Mike Ashley is apparently deciding who comes and goes at St James' Park. This should be the task of the manager. But they should not be so disheartened by Keegan's exit. Is he really the Messiah Newcastle fans believe him to be? Is he even a good football manager? No he isn't. Newcastle fans should remember this is the same man who left Newcastle all those years ago, without any hint of explanation or apology. This is the man who who led Newcastle to victory in barely a third of games during his second spell at the club. Neither is Keegan a good tactician. He makes every decision with his heart. Yes he is endearing, one of the reasons Geordies warm to him so much, but he annot be relied upon to make good decisions. The fact that he protested at the board's willingless to get rid of Joey Barton emphasises this point. Barton should have gone - he can only add to Newcastle's woes. And Newcastle fans should remember that Keegan has never won a major trophy as a manager.
The statements Keegan made on leaving were disrespectful to the new players who joined the club on transfer deadline day. Keegan mocked them as he plotted his exit - God knows how they feel at this moment. It is also worth noting that the players who were brought in have performed magnificently in the opening games of the Premiership. Gutierrez and Collocini in particular have looked like great signings.
It is time for the board at Newcastle to enforce stability and lead from the top. It is time for Mike Ashley to stop wearing his XXL Newcastle shirt during mtches whilst downing lager and mingling with the fans. He is the man who now has to set an example and instill leadership at a club that quite frankly is the worst run in the Premier League. Keegan should not have been appointed in the first instance. It was a very bad decision. It is now time for Newcastle to refocus, and rebuild solid foundations at a club that needs them, particuarly in these turbulent economic times.
Newcastle United needs stability. Keegan is not the man to provide it.
Football To Die For
In an era when money rules, wealthy Arabs are turning up at football clubs on a more regular basis than the weekly delivery of cornish pasties and Russian oil barons are spending their pocket money on football trophies, it is a breath of fresh air that one Premiership club has maintained some tradition and kept the club in British hands. Arsenal Football club has fought off takeover attempts from Russian billionaires and American business tycoons in the last few months as it attempts to maintain some sanity, when all around everyone seems to be going potty. Last week Manchester City was snapped up by a Middle East company with a combined wealth that outweighs even that of Roman Abramovich. Although Manchester City fans are happy, with the promise of extra transfer funds, is this takeover good for football? And is it really good for Manchester City? These are the same fans who rejoiced at the start of last season when a former Prime Minister from Thaliand bought the club and made promises he couldn't keep.
Yes, they have signed Robinho. But, did he really see himself playing for Manchester City, even an hour before he signed for the Eastands club? No. He didn't. He wanted to play for Chelsea. But then Dr Sulaiman of Abu-Dhabi United group gave him lots and lots, and a bit more money and passed him a contract and a gold pen and told him there would be more if he signed. Remember this is the player who went on strike at Santos until he forced a move to Real Madrid. Then whilst playing fot the Spanish Champions told his employers that he didn't want to play anymore, and that he was off to Chelsea. He didn't even have time to remove his dummy from his mouth before his agent told him Manchester City would pay him more than the Blues, and that is where he was going.
On the same day Manchester United spent over thirty million pounds on Dimitar Berbatov. A great footballer, but another spoilt player who decided to refuse requests from his manager to play for Tottenham and instead moaned and groaned his way out of White Hart Lane to Old Trafford.
These are sad times for English football. Money rules. Every club has adopted a 'keep up with the Jones' attitude. Even Sunderland have spent over 30 million pounds on football players in the last eight months. That is just plain ridiculous. If they are relegated, the club is effectively ruined.
Where my admiration for Arsenal grows is that its manager, Arsene Wenger refuses to be pulled in by the madness occuring around him, especially down the road at Tottenham Hotspur, a club that has spent more than treble on transfers than their nearest rivals Arsenal, but haven't come close to matching their success. Wenger has said repeatedly that he is not impressed by big names. Instead he looks for players who can adapt to the Arsenal style of play. And if they have a high price tag, they probably won't be able to. Players at the club are brought in at a young age, without egos, and are determined to learn to play with the quick deciveness and techinical ability that all Arsenal players possess. Arsenal made a profit during the transfer window last season of almost £18 million. This summer they spent what they recouped on player sales. Not bad when you consider that every other club in the premiership spent more than they recouped.
If the performance against Newcastle last weekend is replicated on a regular basis over the course of the season Arsenal will be successful despite not adding to their squad on transfer deadline day. They may not win the league, but they will certainly win over more fans playing the beautiful game the way it deserves to be played. Wenger will live or die by playing the beautiful game. But he won't spend what the club can' afford. He won't kill the club.
Yes, they have signed Robinho. But, did he really see himself playing for Manchester City, even an hour before he signed for the Eastands club? No. He didn't. He wanted to play for Chelsea. But then Dr Sulaiman of Abu-Dhabi United group gave him lots and lots, and a bit more money and passed him a contract and a gold pen and told him there would be more if he signed. Remember this is the player who went on strike at Santos until he forced a move to Real Madrid. Then whilst playing fot the Spanish Champions told his employers that he didn't want to play anymore, and that he was off to Chelsea. He didn't even have time to remove his dummy from his mouth before his agent told him Manchester City would pay him more than the Blues, and that is where he was going.
On the same day Manchester United spent over thirty million pounds on Dimitar Berbatov. A great footballer, but another spoilt player who decided to refuse requests from his manager to play for Tottenham and instead moaned and groaned his way out of White Hart Lane to Old Trafford.
These are sad times for English football. Money rules. Every club has adopted a 'keep up with the Jones' attitude. Even Sunderland have spent over 30 million pounds on football players in the last eight months. That is just plain ridiculous. If they are relegated, the club is effectively ruined.
Where my admiration for Arsenal grows is that its manager, Arsene Wenger refuses to be pulled in by the madness occuring around him, especially down the road at Tottenham Hotspur, a club that has spent more than treble on transfers than their nearest rivals Arsenal, but haven't come close to matching their success. Wenger has said repeatedly that he is not impressed by big names. Instead he looks for players who can adapt to the Arsenal style of play. And if they have a high price tag, they probably won't be able to. Players at the club are brought in at a young age, without egos, and are determined to learn to play with the quick deciveness and techinical ability that all Arsenal players possess. Arsenal made a profit during the transfer window last season of almost £18 million. This summer they spent what they recouped on player sales. Not bad when you consider that every other club in the premiership spent more than they recouped.
If the performance against Newcastle last weekend is replicated on a regular basis over the course of the season Arsenal will be successful despite not adding to their squad on transfer deadline day. They may not win the league, but they will certainly win over more fans playing the beautiful game the way it deserves to be played. Wenger will live or die by playing the beautiful game. But he won't spend what the club can' afford. He won't kill the club.
13/08/2008
Arsenal win in Holland
It will take a miracle for FC Twente to progress into the group stages of the Champions League. The Dutch side, managed by former England manager Steve McClaren suffered a home defeat at the hands of Arsenal. Only a total collapse at the Emirates Stadium in two weeks time will prevent Arsenal progressing. A young Arsenal side hampered by injuries to nine key players struggled to create chances on the night, and were lucky not to concede as Twente made their debut in the Champions League.
Mid-way through the first half FC Twente striker Arnautovic failed to control a perfectly weighted pass from the energetic Dutch midfielder Denneboom, and his weak shot was easily parried by Almunia. Denneboom had already tested Almunia with a long-range effort that seemed to swerve in mid-air and the Spanish goalkeeper was forced into making a good save. The Arsenal defence, weakened by the absence of injured Kolo Toure looked fragile, and Almunia was far the busier of the two keepers in the opening forty-five minutes.
Arsenal could have gone ahead before half time. Bacary Sagna fired wide after the Twente keeper failed to hold onto a long-range effort from Arsenal full back Gael Clichy. The ball rebounded to Sagna but his left-footed effort was a yard wide.
Arsenal showed more urgency after the break as they stepped up their efforts to grab an away goal. It came in the sixty-third minute when Gallas latched onto a Robin Van Persie free kick and managed to knock the ball past Twente keeper Boschker with his knee.
The Arsenal midfield duo of Denilson and Aaron Ramsey, making his full debut, used the ball more efficiently in the second half. However Arnautovic was presented with another opportunity to score towards the end of the match and should have equalised. With only Almunia to beat the sluggish Dutch striker hit the side netting with a poor effort.
Arsenal's superiority in the final third eventually told with ten minutes to go. A long ball from Denilson found Theo Walcott who used his electric pace to beat the Twente full back before squaring his pass to Adebayor who kept his shot low and found the back of the net.
Arsenal managed to achieve a positive result. But with the transfer deadline approaching Arsene Wenger will need to strengthen his squad if his team are win the competition proper.
Mid-way through the first half FC Twente striker Arnautovic failed to control a perfectly weighted pass from the energetic Dutch midfielder Denneboom, and his weak shot was easily parried by Almunia. Denneboom had already tested Almunia with a long-range effort that seemed to swerve in mid-air and the Spanish goalkeeper was forced into making a good save. The Arsenal defence, weakened by the absence of injured Kolo Toure looked fragile, and Almunia was far the busier of the two keepers in the opening forty-five minutes.
Arsenal could have gone ahead before half time. Bacary Sagna fired wide after the Twente keeper failed to hold onto a long-range effort from Arsenal full back Gael Clichy. The ball rebounded to Sagna but his left-footed effort was a yard wide.
Arsenal showed more urgency after the break as they stepped up their efforts to grab an away goal. It came in the sixty-third minute when Gallas latched onto a Robin Van Persie free kick and managed to knock the ball past Twente keeper Boschker with his knee.
The Arsenal midfield duo of Denilson and Aaron Ramsey, making his full debut, used the ball more efficiently in the second half. However Arnautovic was presented with another opportunity to score towards the end of the match and should have equalised. With only Almunia to beat the sluggish Dutch striker hit the side netting with a poor effort.
Arsenal's superiority in the final third eventually told with ten minutes to go. A long ball from Denilson found Theo Walcott who used his electric pace to beat the Twente full back before squaring his pass to Adebayor who kept his shot low and found the back of the net.
Arsenal managed to achieve a positive result. But with the transfer deadline approaching Arsene Wenger will need to strengthen his squad if his team are win the competition proper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
