At What Point Does Chanting Become Indecent?

When the name of John Terry echoed around Wembley Stadium before England’s friendly against Egypt, it was met with a mixed reaction. Some cheered him, holding the belief that as a footballer representing his country, Terry deserved support. Others booed, concluding that the Chelsea captain was indebted to the crowd and had a duty to reconcile the hostile fans present. Terry’s alleged affair with Wayne Bridge’s ex-girlfriend has been written about in abundance in recent weeks, and, although the majority respected Fabio Capello’s decision, the nation appeared to be split on whether the England manager was correct to relieve “JT” of his duties as England skipper. This division was reflected whenever he touched the ball last night: the boos early on were retorted with cheers by advocates of Terry as the match grew older. Terry put in an accomplished performance at the heart of a jittering defence: the derisory jeers did not affect him. Notwithstanding such analysis of a player’s performance, do fans have a duty to support all those who pull on the shirt that they too are donning in the stands?

In the case of John Terry, the decries were both inevitable and understandable. However, the same cannot be said of previous cases. The taunting of Owen Hargreaves prior to the 2006 World Cup was ridiculous and unjust – Hargreaves was considered to be far too cumbersome for the England side, an observation that was countermanded after an impressive tournament where, along with Joe Cole, he was England’s best player. Peter Crouch, Phil Neville and Frank Lampard have been victims of the boo-boys too, for similarly absurd logic. The clichéd defence from such fans states that the purchasing of a match ticket triggers the right to behave in any way that the consumer wishes. Although this is true to some extent, it does not justify the negativity. Furthermore, it is dangerous to condone this response. Working on the basis that spending money awards one a new set of rights, then surely those with extreme wealth are pretty much exempt from the law? Likewise, the suggestion that buying a ticket for any given game justifies the distribution of sickening chants is erroneous and obscene.

Last season saw a landmark legal case: eleven Tottenham Hotspur fans were charged after abusive chants were aimed at the then Portsmouth defender Sol Campbell. The disgusting refrain pokes fun at Campbell’s mental health issues, as well as containing homophobic references and revealing what Spurs’ fans reactions would be if the centre-back committed suicide. Campbell is not a mass murderer, he does not harm children, nor is he a serial rapist. His crime was simple: he chose to play football for another team. Tottenham fans are yet to forgive Campbell for moving to fierce rivals Arsenal in 2001 and there is no reason why they should. Campbell should accept the cries of Judas and the mass booing from the White Hart Lane faithful whenever he returns. However, this does not legitimize such revolting lyrics. Hitherto, despite the vulgar nature of many supporters’ songs, they have never interfered with the British legal system. The Sol Campbell example can clearly be defined as indecent (chanting of this nature can result in expulsion from all football stadia), as can chants that feature homophobic and racist remarks. The minority of Manchester United fans that mock the Hillsborough disaster are joined by the miniscule amount of Liverpool followers who sneer at the Munich air tragedy. The ease at which some people ridicule the loss of human life is disturbing and, although the key word in the above sentence is minority, this does not lessen the severity. It is far too often that issues are dismissed because of the relatively small number that take part: the fact that the majority of citizens do not kill others does not mean that we should ease our pursuit of a country with a minimal amount of murders.

Difficulty arises when a chant cannot be categorized as racist or homophobic. This does not mean that it is not offensive, it just makes it much harder to decide whether, like the anti-Campbell chorus, it is worthy of arrest. Michael Shields, a Liverpool fan, who was wrongfully imprisoned in Bulgaria on charges of attempted murder, has been a victim of vicious Manchester United jibes. Before his release in September 2009, United fans revealed their delight at his illegitimate detention, as well as calling for him to receive ten more years in prison and hinting at some of the activities he undertook while locked away. Although not racist or homophobic, the chant is definitely indecent. To scoff at the unrighteousness destruction of part a young man’s life just because he supports a different football team to you is vile and despicable, but should it be punishable with legal charges? Throughout life, people are likely to be upset by personal remarks others make: the police, however, should not be obliged to step in on every occasion.

The eradication of repulsive songs is an awkward job: how can a small number of stewards tackle a large crowd with the instruction that they are to dispose of anyone chanting obscenely? Self-policing has been cited as a potential solution; suggestions that other fans have a responsibility to report the perpetrators are supported by many. While such an arrangement may succeed when dealing with coin-throwers, it is unlikely to work for chanting as this involves a considered opinion. For the most part, people attend football matches to watch the game: they are not present to act as moral observers, nor interpreters or judges of what equates to indecent. When Arsene Wenger is called a paedophile or Emmanuel Adebayor’s parents are attacked, it is not the responsibility of Joe Bloggs to intervene.

The line between acceptable and unacceptable appears to be unidentifiable, something that makes it no easier for the authorities to add to the eleven convictions. Short of a private committee analysing individual chants, it is impossible to draw a divide between what should be tolerated and what should not. Even if such a system was introduced to judge austerity, it could perhaps be damaging. Banter-fuelled chants must not be confused with the shameful variety. Another anti-Liverpool Manchester United chant suggests that Scousers can often be found eating rats in your council house, while the clubs from Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham are frequently labelled as sheep-shaggers. An attempt to ban such playful exchanges would ruin the fans’ recurrent enjoyment. Football terraces are home to clever, cunning and quick-witted songs and the retention of this is vital. Nonetheless, if, over the years, the number of fans charged for chanting indecently grew, it is inevitable that these principles would be challenged.

Clearly, it is all a matter of personal view. The schizophrenic Andy Goram was once subjected to chants of There’s only two Andy Gorams, a song that some saw as brilliant, others cruel. A small number of Stoke City fans shouted You’ve only got one leg to Aaron Ramsey last Sunday. Although most would agree that taunting a nineteen year old because of a shattered limb is unacceptable, not many would call for authoritative action. Videos of the aforementioned Shields and Campbell chants can be found on the internet, despite the prosecution of the fans involved in the latter. If chants of this nature continue, action from the police will undoubtedly increase, along with accountability for actions at a football match. The lawyers are twitching and, whilst friendly banter will never be outlawed, racial, homophobic and all other kinds of unacceptable chanting will be confronted more and more often. Having an involvement in football does not mean it is acceptable for you to be personally abused in any way, regardless of the cost of a match day ticket. Fans should be wary. Anything you do chant may be given in evidence.

Play-Off Not Necessary To Add Excitement to Fourth Place Chase

If you are first, you are first. If you are second, you are nothing. The current Liverpool regime may not quite share Bill Shankly’s belief as they reside in sixth place in the Barclays Premier League, desperately attempting to claw their way up to fourth. Rafa Benitez has guaranteed that the denouement of this drama will indeed see the Reds finish inside the top four, thus collecting the final lucrative Champions League spot. However, they face stiff competition. Tottenham Hotspur currently hold the greatly coveted position, with Manchester City level on points with the North Londoners in fifth. Aston Villa emphatically defeated their Claret and Blue brothers on Sunday when Burnley visited Villa Park, whilst Everton’s comfortable victory over Manchester United led to suggestions that they could sneak in and steal fourth. With three different teams (and, vitally, Liverpool were not among the trio) occupying the illustrious rank within the space of four and a half hours yesterday, when better to remark that the Premier League is too predictable and announce plans to introduce a play-off tournament to determine the recipient of the final Champions League place?

It would appear admirable if motives were disregarded. If the Premier League presented these plans to make an honest attempt to level the playing field and stop further monopolisation by Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United, it may be worth considering. Sadly, yet unsurprisingly, that is not the case. A series of play-off matches featuring the four teams finishing between fourth and seventh would entail five extra spectacles for Sky to hyperbolise, as well as allowing them to attach a brand name to the event, not dissimilar to their recent decision to ridiculously christen Wayne Rooney The Last of the Street Footballers. The Premier League, run by Richard Scudamore, is driven by money and, just like the ludicrous suggestion of a thirty-ninth game, their intentions are arguably far from the issues of morality that some naively believe.

It was cited as a reason for the possible addition of a play-off system, and the Premier League’s intense desire to remain ahead of their Spanish counterparts is extremely puzzling. As home to the European Champions and a host of big name players, La Liga could already be seen as superior, despite Sky’s constant smothering of viewers with the words Best League in the World to describe England’s top division. For excitement, the Bundesliga is hard to beat, and other European leagues are often ignorantly overlooked. Yet such comparisons are needless: all of these competitions are different. To translate into Scudamore’s language, La Liga is a supplementary good to the Premier League. The English game is quicker than what is seen in Spain and, contrary to the beliefs of some, this country’s football has retained a gritty British element to it, accompanied by the traditional never-say-die attitude. La Liga relies on its slight technical advantage and, although much slower, more goals are usually witnessed in Spain. Moreover, in the majority of cases, Spanish people will prefer Spanish football and English fans will have brand loyalty and stick to their own version of the game. The Premier League’s constant wish to stay one step ahead of their rivals is extraneous: English football will not become less popular just because Osasuna grabbed a Champions League place in Spain four seasons back. It is also worth noting that whenever an apparent improvement to our game is uncovered by the Premier League, it will not only have supporters but detractors who, although opposing the idea, find it necessary to provide alternatives. In this case, the most popular idea appears to involve the FA Cup winners being involved in the chase for Champions League football, despite the fact that the FA Cup winner usually qualifies for the competition anyway. Notwithstanding any credentials an individual notion may entertain, the need for change cannot be too pressing if other schemes are only concocted when a certain idea is dispensed – talk of a play-off featuring the FA Cup winner and the team who finishes fourth were scarcely heard before the Premier League’s latest proposal. A similar issue could occur if the play-off system was indeed integrated into Premier League statute: relegation-threatened clubs may, entirely reasonably, ask for the installation of a similar arrangement at the bottom.

The current five-way tussle for fourth is the tightest we have seen in years. Usually the position is filled by the member of the elite who has failed the most in a particular season’s title race. However, this campaign is different. Many tipped the wealth of Manchester City to address the monotony, but Tottenham and Aston Villa are still in the hunt, while David Moyes’ Everton look capable of maintaining their current form. This exciting challenge signals a clear and fair battle – the play-offs do not need to be introduced to give others a chance of Champions League football. If the play-off system was in place now and Tottenham managed to inhabit fourth place right up until the final two games of the season, we may see damaging results. Harry Redknapp, safe in the knowledge that his side could not drop below seventh, may choose to rest key personnel to keep them fresh for the upcoming duels with fellow challengers. This, along with going against the very nature of football, would also influence proceedings elsewhere – Tottenham could essentially relegate another club by saving the legs of important players ahead of the mini-tournament.

Another key talking point recently has been Wayne Rooney’s form, a topic that is seldom discussed without at least a mention of the possibility that the forward could face burnout before the World Cup. Players like Rooney and Liverpool’s Steven Gerrard are too essential to their club sides to even warrant a thought about resting them, and it would not do England any good to have their star players involved in up to three additional high-tempo matches weeks before a major tournament kicks off. The horrific state of Portsmouth is something else in the news; the financial mismanagement on the South Coast is something that must never be repeated, but the temptation of Champions League football may persuade clubs like Fulham to live the dream. The implosion of another Premier League club is worrying and, in the way Leeds United overspent in an attempt to reach the Champions League, if seventh place ensured a chance of rubbing shoulders with Barcelona and AC Milan, it is something that we may see increasingly more of, despite Portsmouth’s example. On top of this, Michel Platini has recently reformed the format of the Champions League, with tougher opponents in qualifying matches being promised to fourth place finishers. Should a team such as Birmingham City take England’s final qualifying place, it is likely that they will face a stern test in a match against an accomplished European side who will probably have won their domestic league. The introduction of a play-off system, therefore, does not ensure a fresh Champions League group stage entrant.

It is plausible that Liverpool will miss out on the top four this season and, if they do, it will be extremely difficult for them to get back in. Manchester City’s bottomless finances means they will only improve, while Villa and Tottenham’s success shows the gap between the big boys and the rest is narrowing, not widening. Television contracts detail that new laws that alter the structure of the league cannot be implemented until the current deal expires in three years’ time. For the reasons stated above, coupled with Manchester United and Liverpool’s crippling debt and the inevitability of Sir Alex Ferguson’s imminent retirement, a different top four may be establishing themselves at this point, only for the new hierarchy to be demolished as the league is inexplicably shaken up. The Race for Fourth has been thrilling thus far, and looks set to continue in this way. However, do we really wish to be commenting on The Race for Seventh? Seventh place, after all, is just above mid-table and, although success can only be judged in terms of relativity, the fact that six teams have finished above you shows that you are still some way off league domination. This is to take nothing away from Fulham’s seventh place finish last year, but the fact that Roy Hodgson’s men finished nineteen points behind Arsenal in fourth illustrates the gulf in class. Plus, sport is all about aiming as high as possible – teams should be encouraged to follow Villa and Tottenham’s lead, and not just settle for seventh.

You cannot help but wonder what Shankly would have made of it all. After all, if his philosophy is to be observed and finishing second equates to nothing, scraping into the Champions League is nothing to be satisfied with. Rafa Benitez may take a different view.

Let’s Not Let Personality Get In The Way of Recognition

Such is the nature of the Premier League, fourteenth place would appear to be a relatively comfortable one. It is the position currently occupied by Hull City who, after collecting four points out of a possible six against Chelsea and Manchester City, hope to push on and move further up the table. If only it was that simple. Hull have three consecutive away games coming up and when they do return to the KC Stadium, Arsenal will be the visitors. Nevertheless, there is a sense of optimism: Hull may only be three points above the dreaded drop zone, but this is more than expected. Pundits far and wide tipped City for relegation this season, believing they would replicate the latter half of last season’s form.

The progress has been steady. Only one win in seven at the beginning of the campaign indicated that perhaps the pundits would be right. A 4-0 home defeat to Everton, albeit in the Carling Cup, sparked persistent chants of ‘Browny sort it out’; this was the first time the fans began to turn. A 6-1 loss at Liverpool ensued, and newspaper reports suggested chairman Paul Duffen had awarded Brown six weeks to save his job. However, it was Duffen whose position ceased first as Adam Pearson returned to the club, intent, if the rumours are to be believed, on making a change in the managerial department. A desperately unlucky defeat to Burnley followed, and the pressure on Brown intensified. When Stoke City took a 1-0 lead at the KC Stadium, he looked doomed. However, Hull managed to turn the game around and record a 2-1 win, a result which was followed with a 3-3 draw with West Ham and a 3-2 victory over Everton. The calls for Brown’s head subsided and, despite it being their first win in twelve, the recent 2-1 defeat of Manchester City has provided hope that Hull City can again survive in the Premier League. The club, who were on the brink of non-league football in 1999, has risen so inexplicably and if either Duffen or Pearson had chosen to extirpate themselves of Brown’s services, they would be showing a deep lack of gratitude. It is vital for clubs to sustain a sense of perspective: without Phil Brown, Hull City would probably still be languishing in the lower reaches of the Championship.

You can only get so far when discussing Brown’s managerial ability before it is impossible to proceed without referring to that infamous half-time team talk in a game against Manchester City. What was unusual about the event was the fact that it took place on the playing surface. In a sport which is dominated by money and the media, the dressing room remains the only place yet to sell its soul to baiting television channels: with cameras positioned all over stadiums for live matches, this enclosure remains sacred ground. It is a place where Sir Alex Ferguson’s hairdryer is plugged in and turned up high, whilst stories of Roy Keane karate kicking a tactics table are unsurprising, especially considering the venue where the alleged event transpired. Thus, the dressing room is supposed to be the one place where the manager and his team can be alone – away from the opposition, away from predatory journalists and away from the supporters. By breaking this convention with a public admonishment, Phil Brown made a mistake. His players, despite being 4-0 down, had performed heroically in the majority of the opening eighteen games of the season and did not deserve to be undermined or belittled by their boss. Hitherto, Brown has stubbornly defended his actions, pointing to the fact that, with the game ending 5-1, his team had drawn the second half. Brown conveniently ignored the fact that Manchester City had started to relax, secure in the knowledge that it would take a massive effort from Hull to overturn their four goal lead. Critics blamed Brown’s half-time decision for his side’s subsequent collapse, when they only won one of their remaining nineteen matches and plummeted down the league. Notwithstanding the information above, no such facts will be recorded in the history books. In the 2008/09 Premier League season, Hull City finished in seventeenth place and avoided relegation. This is all that matters and the fact that it was in their debut Premier League season, ten seasons after propping up the Football League, makes it even more of a marvellous achievement.

A goal celebration, choreographed by the Hull players, was performed in November after Jimmy Bullard’s equalising goal at Eastlands. Bullard, assuming the role of Phil Brown, wagged his finger at the bewildered players circled around him, emulating Brown’s ‘spirit-destroying’ antics. If the players had indeed lost faith in their manager during those fifteen minutes, it would be preposterous for them to poke fun at the event less than a year after it took place. The fantastic display showed the unity between Brown and his playing staff, whilst it also dispelled the popular belief that Brown damaged the vital relationship between a manager and his players on that Boxing Day afternoon.

Had Hull’s season of two clear halves been reversed, Brown would be hailed as a genius. If the Tigers had picked up just eight points from their opening twenty matches, but had stayed up after accumulating twenty-seven points from their remaining games, there would be no talk of ‘six weeks to save his job’. Similarly, if Hull had managed to develop some level of consistency and generated their thirty-five points at a steady rate throughout, Brown and his side would have received far more plaudits than they did. Instead, Hull’s limp over the finish line overshadowed the magnificent early season form, which included brilliant away wins at Arsenal and Tottenham. Hull were considered to be fortunate – some went as far to say that they only survived because of Newcastle United’s incompetence. Surely, this ridiculous notion applies every season then? Perhaps the ‘great escapes’ from Fulham, Portsmouth and West Bromwich Albion were not so; instead of dispersing credit to these sides, it would be more accurate for us to define their survival by studying the mistakes made by Reading, Birmingham City and Norwich City. Hull City remained in the league because they collected more points than three other teams. For this, coupled with the fact that they were many bookmakers’ favourites for the drop, they deserve praise.

American lawyer and politician Frederick L. Collins one said: “There are two types of people. Those who come into a room and say ‘Well, here I am!’ And those who say ‘Ah, there you are‘”. There is no doubting that Phil Brown belongs to the former. Regardless, in an era where press conferences are often dull and soporific affairs, it is refreshing to watch Brown, a manager who does not solely use interviews to exhibit his assemblage of footballing clichés. His personality does irritate some: as one broadcaster remarked last term, the fifty year old does not need to be asked by the fans to ‘give us a wave’, as he tends to come out of the tunnel already waving. However, he proves that characters do still exist in the game. A lot of people are too quick to dismiss Brown as a foolish, media-savvy attention seeker, and people appear to enjoy ridiculing him much more than other managers, namely for his earpiece and the application of chemicals to produce a perma-tanned face. His hearty rendition of The Beach Boys’ Sloop John B after Hull’s survival was chastised by many onlookers and deemed to be embarrassing and pathetic. It is a sad situation when a manager is viewed in this way after celebrating success with his own fans; would we really rather have twenty mechanical robots as Premier League managers who, instead of rejoicing after such an accomplishment, merely walk down the tunnel and talk to Geoff Shreeves about the lads ‘working their socks off’? More importantly, such criticisms of Brown overshadow his ability to manage a football club – something hehas been very successful at doing at Hull. Leading the club to the Premiership was one thing, but keeping them there erodes the doubt. Phil Brown has done a terrific job.

These three upcoming matches against Blackburn Rovers, West Ham United and Everton are vitally important for the Tigers. If they can continue their reputable recent form, they may be able to further pull away from eighteenth place. Alternatively, the three games could prove disastrous and Hull could be in a far worse position than fourteenth. Their fans, who are now well used to topsy-turvy seasons, might even have mentally prepared themselves for disappointment. One thing’s for sure though. Even if Hull City find themselves trailing by a four goal deficit after forty-five minutes tonight, Phil Brown will conduct his team talk in the sanctuary of Ewood Park’s away dressing room. Harsh words may be distributed, foul language may be exchanged and tea cups may be thrown, but it will all take place inside those four walls. Who knows, they might even win the second half.

Bigger Issues than England’s Captaincy

You would be forgiven for missing it. Avram Grant’s frightening revelation that Portsmouth Football Club are ‘living hour to hour’ was somewhat thrust aside to create space for stories about John Terry scoring away from home. The tabloids continued to sink their righteous teeth into Terry on the front page, while the back detailed his winning goal at Turf Moor as Chelsea defeated Burnley to increase their lead at the top of the Premiership. Grant’s admission came at the end of a week in which Crystal Palace slumped into administration and Cardiff City fans besought chairman Peter Risdale to resign, as their £2.7 million tax bill shows no sign of abating.

It just goes to show exactly how warped our perception on football has become in this Premier League era. Admittedly, the Portsmouth soap opera has been ongoing for months and, because it is fresh, Terry’s story will afford more detail. This, however, does not detract from the miserable situation that Pompey find themselves in. The identity of their owner is not known, they are £60 million in debt, and they appear to be close to administration where they would incur the ten point penalty attached. The fact that relegation is the least of Portsmouth’s worries exhibits their horrendous plight. The temporary closure of their official website last week was shocking – small businesses are able to run sites with no such problems; for a Premier League football club’s to become unavailable after failing to pay the operator smacks of desperation. The future of the club largely depends on their legal battle with HM Revenue & Customs that will commence a week today.

Despite a fantastic 3-1 victory over Wolverhampton Wanderers gifting Crystal Palace a televised home tie against Aston Villa in the fifth round of the FA Cup, £1.5 million is still required to see the club through until the end of the season. Barring a run right through to the final, this money can only be raised from investment or new owners, something that the Eagles have been crying out for after Simon Jordan announced his intentions to sell the club nineteen months ago. Hitherto, interest has been low and although administration may hurry along potential buyers, there is no guarantee the Eagles will resolve their off-field problems any time soon. Their Championship rivals, Cardiff City, may be enjoying success on the pitch, but they have been forced to sell two parcels of land around its new stadium to generate capital to stave off the taxman.

Terry’s supposed cheating with Vanessa Perroncel is one thing, but when transfer rumours specifying Arsenal’s interest in Montenegrin teenagers takes priority over serious issues involving lower league clubs, you realise how valued football outside the Premier League really is. Sky TV’s ignorance towards pre-Premier League football is extremely frustrating and does little to refute claims that football is not what it once was. In an era where it is increasingly rare for youngsters to support their local team and the Premier League is given such nicknames as ‘the promised land’, Sky’s promotion of the division as the only one that matters (unless they hold the broadcasting rights to a Championship game, which Newcastle will undoubtedly be involved in) does little to promote awareness for smaller clubs. A brief chat about Bill Shankly on a December edition of the needlessly named Super Sunday was a rare recognition that the game did exist before 1992. The ‘Head to Head’ feature, which is shown prior to a game, only includes previous Premier League meetings between the two sides involved, an act which further adds to the irritation. Brian Clough’s statement that Sky’s money was attracting interest in the game from people ‘who wouldn’t know Stanley Matthews from Bernard Matthews’ may be exaggerated, but it is true that some of the game’s followers no longer have any knowledge or interest in football’s history.

There is no doubting that an affair between the England captain and a fellow team mate’s ex partner warrants considerable media coverage a day after it becomes public knowledge, but tedium develops as the story monotonously rumbles on day-to-day. More and more moral commentators are discovered to transfer their thoughts via the centre pages of The Sun: it is a story that even the least of football fans have an opinion on. Although an interest in sport is not required to know that Terry’s latest misdemeanour is appalling even by his lofty standards, calls for Fabio Capello to axe him as England captain are not quite formed of sufficient substance when those making them could not tell you the twenty-nine year old’s position on the football pitch. While Terry’s betrayal of former best friend Wayne Bridge may well cost him the captaincy, it is unlikely to cost him his place in the England team. The importance of the role of captain that this country strongly believes in is not mirrored by Capello’s native Italy, who, having won the World Cup four times, must be doing something right. If Terry is indeed stripped of the armband, his leadership qualities will still be emitted in South Africa – a piece of material allotted to Terry’s bicep does not alter his character. Thus, all the talk of captaincy is irrelevant: Brazil would still have won the 1970 World Cup if Carlos Alberto had handed the captaincy to any of his colleagues.

The greed that envelops John Terry has been showcased through a selection of offences. His decision to park his car in a space allocated for those with disabilities was, at the very least, foolish, while his advertisers’ attempt to squeeze money out of his position as leader of the national team did little to endear himself to England fans. After accepting £10,000 to show undercover reporters around Chelsea’s training ground, Terry’s excuse that the money was destined for charity was feeble. He could so easily have rejected the offer and made a donation to a worthy cause: £10,000 is not a figure that takes Terry a long time to accumulate. Also, the sum is just twenty times less than the £200,000 debt that bankrupted non-league King’s Lynn recently. It was the failure to pay a £77,000 tax bill that ended their existence, one hundred and thirty years after the formation of the Norfolk-based club. It takes Terry just three and a half days to earn that amount and, although it would be ludicrous to condemn him for not bailing them out, it reveals the obscene gulf that has developed in football – King’s Lynn’s demise has slipped under the radar as the Premiership gobbles up as many column inches as it can. Terry’s affair will continue to dominate in the coming days and weeks, regardless of the severity of issues at crumbling football institutions that have belonged to the game for over a hundred years, before even Terry’s grandparents were born.

Gallant and loyal supporters of Portsmouth will continue to meet and discuss solutions to their problems, Cardiff City fans will press on with their campaign to stave off a winding-up order and Crystal Palace followers will not allow administration to dampen their spirits. Stockport County have been in the hands of administrators since last April and even the mighty Manchester United have been troubled by debts in excess of £700 million. The future is looking bleak, with many experts believing it will not be long before a professional club ceases to exist. Fans’ greatest fear could be realised, and it is possible that a club in England’s top four divisions will be forced to resurrect at the bottom of the pile with ‘AFC’ at the start of their name. The fact that this could happen to a Premier League club who, as recently as 2008, won the FA Cup makes it all the more depressing. Portsmouth’s fate could be decided for them very soon. Don’t hold the back page.

Pulis Deserves Praise, Not Criticism

They say a week is a long time in football. The news to begin this one has been dominated by Arsenal, who exited the FA Cup at the hands of Stoke City on Sunday. Fewer than seven days previously we were revelling in the Gunners’ recent success as they comfortably dismantled Bolton Wanderers at the Reebok Stadium, before showing great spirit to overturn a two goal deficit to win 4-2 against the same opposition three days later. The aftermath of this fourth round tie has largely focused on Arsenal’s poor performance, Sol Campbell’s return and manager Arsene Wenger’s team selection. Stoke City have scarcely been mentioned. Virtually everywhere, the emphasis has been placed on Arsenal’s defeat rather than Stoke City’s victory.

While this may seem grossly unfair, Tony Pulis, the Potters’ manager, will be used to it. Rarely do his side get the credit they deserve and any recognition of their marvellous achievements is often hampered with derogatory comments about their style of play. Arsene Wenger has cast aspersions on them in the past, accusing their players of cowardice after a 2-1 defeat  last season, but this is an easy way out. Other managers of the Big Four™ often voice their disapproval when supposedly inferior teams ‘park the bus’ and show no attacking intent in games against them, but this is one thing Stoke cannot be accused of. The two draws against Liverpool must not be overlooked as a huge factor in Rafa Benitez’s side’s failure to win the title last season, and Stoke were the better team in their recent defeat of Arsenal, as well as in the win against the North Londoners last term. Modest, recently-promoted teams do not have infinite finance, which makes it increasingly challenging to compete with the better sides in the division. Wenger should see it as a compliment: no team in the division can better his side’s panache, so they are forced to employ other tactics in order to try and win the game. Stoke’s refusal to roll over in such games is commendable and, despite being thumped last season 5-0 and 4-1 by Manchester United and Arsenal respectively, their effort cannot be questioned.

As fans of Bolton Wanderers and Blackburn Rovers will know, once you are stuck with a certain tag, it is difficult to shake it off. Accusations of dirtiness aimed at Stoke are announced only after a team is the recipient of a defeat against them; like Sir Alex Ferguson’s infamous attack on Alan Wiley, this is a means in which a manager can deflect attention away from his side’s performance. Pulis’ outfit finished twelfth last season which, considering it was their first ever appearance in the Premier League, is a tremendous accomplishment. Perhaps the scale of their success can be measured by the dismissal of the possibility of relegation this year: at the start of the season, the vast majority expected Stoke to survive with ease despite second season collapses from Reading, West Bromwich Albion and Wigan Athletic (although they were not relegated, they failed to emulate the top half finish they enjoyed in their debut Premiership appearance) in the past.

The facts cannot be ignored. Stoke City finished the 2008/09 Premier League season at the top of the disciplinary table, accumulating seventy-four yellow cards and five reds throughout the campaign. This, however, is by no means a shocking amount. Middlesbrough and Blackburn both received more points in the previous season, whilst the 100 point barrier (points are awarded for each yellow and red card) has previously been broken – Stoke’s total of 89 is not an aberrational figure. Rory Delap’s throw-in is an undeniably important weapon, so much so that Pulis himself cited an injury to the midfielder as key to his side’s defeat against Chelsea in September 2008. Regardless, to say that Stoke’s only source of goals is from Delap’s astonishing ability to throw a football such a distance and at such a pace is ignorant. Delap’s throw assisted City goals in only seven of their thirty-eight games last season. Whilst this figure is comparatively large, it is ridiculous to say that without Delap, Stoke are incapable of scoring goals.

‘It’s just like watching Brazil’ is a chant that could not be sung by Stoke fans unless it was supplemented with a huge dose of irony. Although dirtiness is a strong accusation, there is no doubting that Pulis’ style of football is not for the purist: Stoke’s primary tactic in their promotion winning season involved hoofing the ball up to Mamady Sidibe. The additions of Matthew Etherington and Sanli Tuncay have strengthened the argument that Stoke City’s long ball label is misleading, but they are still some way off qualifying as ‘art’, as Wenger himself likes to visualise the game. However, this is more than tolerable considering Stoke’s recent rise; the suggestion of the club holding their own in the Premier League would have been met with ridicule in the days of Chris Kamara, Brian Little and Icelandic consortiums. Unlike their Spanish counterparts, English fans do not go to football matches to be entertained – they go to feed their addiction. Stephen Foster’s excellent And She Laughed No More does not merely detail Stoke’s Premiership campaign, it pinpoints the key behind supporters’ feelings. If you are successful at football, your fans do not care how you play it. Notice how criticisms of Arsenal’s beautiful football have emerged in these five years without a trophy – style is, ultimately, irrelevant.

In his first spell at the club, Pulis was begrudgingly considered a success after steering Stoke away from relegation to League One, saving them with a 1-0 victory over Reading on the final day of the season. On the back of a mid-table finish in the 2004-05 season, the Welshman’s disagreement with the club’s owners led to his sacking. Johan Boskamp replaced him, bringing with him flair, pretty football and a bubbly personality. Despite no progress being made, Pulis was not missed as fans decided they favoured being a mid-table team that was worth watching. Nonetheless, Pulis was reappointed when Peter Coates bought the club in June 2006, a decision which was met with frustration and despondency from the Stoke faithful. In his book, Foster admits his transformation from rejection of Pulis to acceptance. His views have clearly disseminated around the Britannia as Pulis’ name is now sung by the fans with real gusto. How times change. If a week is a long time in football, four years must seem like a millennium.

Moses Must Be Wary About Throwing It All Away

It was hopeful more than anything. Lee Hills lofted the ball from the halfway line towards the general direction of the box; seconds later it was nestling in the Plymouth Argyle goal. Victor Moses, having impeccably chested the ball down, turned his marker and fired a shot past the Argyle goalkeeper, Romain Larrieu.

The Crystal Palace forward has been labelled as a teenage sensation from many quarters recently (why is sensation the only noun used to describe a promising footballer? It is almost as overused as the term ‘wily Scot’ to describe excelling managers from north of the border), and he has lived up to the hype in recent weeks. Six goals in his previous eight games has exhibited his talent to the watching world, Real Madrid scouts and all. Neil Warnock has predicated that Moses’ vastly improved form of late is down to his development of ‘the ugly aspects of the game’. Critics of Warnock would suggest that ‘ugly’ is indeed the word most synonymous with Warnock’s general footballing philosophy, but no-one can argue with the terrific job the Yorkshire man is doing at Palace: they are just one point off the play-offs despite being crippled by financial difficulties and possessing a tiny and depleted squad.

Warnock and chairman Simon Jordan are both resigned to losing Moses and, unless the club is bought, his departure this month is imperative. Warnock’s constant insistence that Moses will depart soon is possibly the most telling sign that the Eagles’ finances are in peril. Jordan has been looking to sell the club for well over a year now, his decision coming after Palace received only £700,000 from a tribunal after youngster John Bostock joined Tottenham Hotspur at the age of sixteen. Jordan has fought ferociously to keep hold of his top assets in the past and there is no way he would allow Warnock to blatantly promote the club’s biggest talent if the need to sell him was not exigent.

Moses’ decision making is just one of the many elements of his game that has improved this season. The Nigerian born forward, like lots of young players, often made the wrong decision when faced with more than one option, but improvement in this area is noticeable. At such a young age, this progress is impressive, but it is now off the field where his decision making will be tested. With four clubs who have won the European Cup (Liverpool, Barcelona, Nottingham Forest and the previously mentioned Madrid) among those vying for his signature, Moses should be advised to take great care when selecting his next club. Bostock has since admitted he regrets leaving Palace for Spurs, and fellow academy products Tom Soares and Ben Watson are both back in the Championship after failing to benefit from moves to Premier League clubs. Wayne Routledge is another example. On the back of an admittedly successful season in the Premiership, Routledge showed total disregard for the club that had nurtured and developed his talent by jumping ship to Tottenham at the first opportunity. Short of joining fierce rivals Brighton & Hove Albion, Moses will not be the recipient of the abhorrent abuse that Routledge regularly endures when returning to SE25, but care must be taken nonetheless.

Routledge’s career has been extremely disappointing since making the move across London. Five appearances for Spurs led to a transfer to Aston Villa, where he played just twice. Sandwiched between these two were comparatively successful loan spells at Portsmouth and Fulham, but there remains a huge sense of loss lingering over the winger, a feeling that could so easily have been avoided had he stayed, like Andrew Johnson, just another season at Palace before seeking pastures new.

Despite all the talent and promise shown thus far, Moses is undeniably inferior to Routledge in one way. He has yet to play in the Premier League. Only the most ardent of Palace fans would reject claims that Routledge performed well in that 2004/05 season – perhaps the animosity displayed towards him stems from disappointment at his decision to leave the Eagles in what, retrospectively speaking, was a counterproductive move. It would be ridiculous to hold this lack of Premier League experience against Moses: it is not his fault that he has broken through at a time where his team mates are, in the main, not as talented as the ones Routledge once shared the Selhurst Park pitch with. Furthermore, despite his excellent performances recently, Moses was inconsistent last season and was at times kept out of the side by the more industrious Sean Scannell. Although it can be accepted that he is far from the finished article, Moses must not lose focus whilst doing all he can to avoid his promising career fizzling out before it has begun.

Ideally, Moses would go to an established Premiership team where he would play regular football while continuing to develop under the guidance of an experienced manager and a talented coaching staff. Fulham is a club that has been mentioned by many Palace fans as a plausible transfer, not only for the reasons stated above, but also for the fact that he would remain in the capital. Moses’ parents were tragically murdered when he was just eleven, and, upon moving to England, it is reported that he was so traumatised he did not speak for two years. Stability is vital for the youngster, and a move to Spain or even the north of England may jeopardise his performances on the pitch. Regardless of brilliant displays lately, Crystal Palace is a world apart from Barcelona and Moses is not yet of sufficient quality to merit a move to the Catalan giants. Clubs may be persuaded by his potential, but the England under-19 international is a long way from challenging Lionel Messi for a place in Barcelona’s starting line up. Moses must also be cautious about being swayed by financial offers: his choice should primarily be football-related. Somewhat unfairly, the decision the nineteen year old makes now may just shape the rest of his career. It must be more than hopeful.