Thursday 18 April 2024

More unintended consequences - could the football regulator threaten English football?

Many things puzle me about the government's plan for a football regulator, the Independent Regulator for Football, known as IRef. (I'm not making that up). These include why the government thinks this is more important than making exisiting regulators for more fundamental services, e.g. water, actually work. And why it thinks this is more worthy of parliamentary time and ministerial attention than fixing the social care crisis that they said they'd fixed in 2021 (spoiler alert - they hadn't). Or why on earth they want to risk getting tangled up in points deductions that could threaten the viability of punished clubs, ostensibly in order to make them more sustainable.

However the biggest puzzle for me is how it is even possible, as FIFA's statutes prohibit political interference in football. Several national FA's have been suspended under these statutes, including Nigeria in 2014 and Kuwait in 2015.

The Premier League has had things to say about the proposed regulator but the F.A. seems to have been curiously quiet. Back in 2011 the F.A. had said that there was "no justification for government intervention in the governance of the game" and cautioned that FIFA sanctions could be imposed if politicians exceeded their authority in matters related to the sport. Why so quiet now?

The only thing that has changed is the threat of a European Super League. While not a new idea by any means it has become more real. The reaction of fans saw that off though Boris Johnson's threat to legislate against clubs joining the proposed league might have had some impact. FIFA didn't say very much about Johnson's threat at the time - they might perhaps have considered it helpful. 

FIFA has been criticised over the years for failing to react to government interference in the bidding for and hosting of tournaments. Government involvement in football and football clubs is now very real through sovereign wealth funds such as the Saudi Arabian PIF. 

One would think FIFA would respond to blatant direct government interference in football anywhere in the world. The UK government says it intends the regulator to concentrate on ensuring the financial viability of clubs. But how you can ensure that businesses operating in a competitive environment never go bust, when clubs have occasionally done so since the start of the game, is a puzzle. Sure you can vet business plans. You might be able to insist that clubs change those plans (won't that be popular with the fans!) It might be possible to judge that some plans are unrealistic while others are prudent. But I don't know how you decide that a club's business plan is sufficently rose tinted to require it to be changed. Will IRef decide that, if Manchester United's plan presumes routine Champions League qualification and the concomitant revenues, that is unrealistic? What will the fans in Manchester say if Manchester City is allowed to make such a presumption in its plans but Manchester United, based on recent track record, is not? How would it be fair to allow some clubs to assume European qualification and others not? Equally it would be daft to insist that they all plan on the same basis.

Why should one assume the regulator will have a perfect crystal ball on such matters? Who will take the blame when plans which have been approved by the regulator aren't fulfilled and it all goes wrong?

The regulator will presumably insist on a more prudent approach to plans than hitherto. Which will mean less money to spend and, potentially, a less attractive Premier League. The fans will love it. I can see protests against the regulator rather than the clubs' boards.

The regulator will have the last say over the budgets of not just the Premier League clubs but potentially also all Football League clubs. In deciding how much each club can spend it will be interfering directly in the ability of clubs to compete. Other than getting on the pitch and kicking the ball or intervening in team selection I don't know how much more directly the government could interfere in football than by appointing a separate non-independent* body with powers to intervene directly in what clubs can spend.

Football clubs are businesses and their boards should be allowed to decide how to run their business as they see fit and an on what basis to plan. Some will get it wrong. A small number may go bust. Very few have over many years of football and usually a phoenix club has arisen. 

I don't trust the government to get this right. There must be some risk that FIFA could impose sanctions on English football as a result. But when it comes to government intervention in English football, hasn't it already happened when the UK government did just that when it insisted that Chelsea be sold? 

In the meantime the evident truth that the Premier League's actions against Everton, Nottingham Forest and other clubs were intended to show that a government regulator is not required was plain to see when Richard Masters, the Premier League CEO, wrote a column in the Times the day after the second sanction against Everton was announced. Having said that I agreed with the main points in his article which included the oddity that the government, after all it has said about artificial intelligence, thinks imposing a football regulator is more urgent. Masters spoke of risk and unforeseen consequences.

However, Martin Samuel had great fun at Masters's expense, noting that the unforeseen consequence of the accelerated timetable for reviewing PSR breaches put in place this season. Now Everton has appealed their case will not be finally decided until a week after the end of the season. So several clubs may go into the last match of the season not knowing what result would keep them safe. Samuel ponders the reaction if, say, Luton go chasing a winning goal deep into stoppage time of their last match, in case they need to win it only to let in a goal and lose but find a week later that the draw would have kept them safe.

As Samuel said this unforeseen consequence could have been foreseen by anyone with a brain and  second's thought.

We have government ministers who make clear they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to football every time they open their mouths. And we have the Premier League CEO who makes clear by his actions that he hasn't got a clue either.

It's a wonder the Premier League is so good. But that doesn't mean it will always be so.

* of course the regulator won't be independent. How can it be? Who is going to appoint it's board members?

Yasin Patel discussed government intervention in football and the FIFA statutes in a Church Court Chambers news item, 2 April 2024: 

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/yasin-patel-discusses-government-intervention-in-football-in-law360/#:~:text=There%20are%20numerous%20cases%20in,and%20the%20KFA%20in%202015.

Richard Masters's column Premier League is the envy of the world - government must not put that at risk was in the Times on 9 April 2024

Saturday 13 April 2024

What's Going On?

What's going on?" sang 4 non Blondes in their hit song What's Up. It's got to the point where a lot of football fans are asking "what's going on?", if not WTF?

VAR was oversold as an answer to inconsistency in refereeing, But week after week we see examples of rulings which are controversial because - guess what? - they are a matter of judgement. The last seconds goal for Wolves disallowed for offside led to the Wolves manager saying no-one who knew anything about football would disallow it. Lineker and his two cohorts on MoTD agreed. I'd have disallowed it every day of the week when I was reffing boys' football and I listened with interest as two pundits on Radio 5Live said the same. That's the thing with judgement calls - they're judgement calls.

We're promised that semi-automatic VAR offside rulings, as they do in Europe, will improve things. Not looking at this example:


Ha - offside? When I was trained as a referee (and all the time I played) that's a classic example of "level". The law still says that a player is not offside if "level with the second last opponent". But it also now says the player is offside if "any part of of head, body or feet" is nearer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent". But the chap's foot above is very difficult to see in real time when standing on the line on a windy park pitch with a flag in your hand (a task I always thought much harder than actually refereeing). But you can see, even in the blur of action, that he's level. 

VAR has in effect changed the law without it being changed. It was always a tenet of football that the laws could be applied at every level of the game - even where they can't afford goal nets, which are still optional (though not in the Premier League). But not when it comes to video technology. You'd be onside in most leagues in the world but not the elite game. 

Meanwhile, the Premier League deducted a further two points off Everton this week, which was in line my expectation (I predicted three or maybe two - see Justice, Natural Justice and Double Jeopardy 20 March 2024). Much of the media discussion since then has revealed an almost universal puzzlement on the part of football fans - not just Evertonians - about what the league is trying to achieve with its Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Nobody thinks Everton, Forest or Leicester are unsustainable - though they could be tilted into it by the punishments they are receiving. I listened to pundits chatting on TalkSport the day the sanction was announced. They were totally bemused that Everton may face a third charge associated with interest on loans which the club says is for the new stadium and so outside the PSR regime. One pundit said it made no sense and it was time for an amnesty.

I doubt fans of most Premier League clubs other than Manchester City and perhaps Chelsea would agree with an amnesty, especially if it let City off scot free. But what is clear is that the rules will almost certainly change fairly soon to a totally different basis.

Pul McInnes put it well when he said in the Guardian that the Premier League has created the impression of a rigged game. That, Paul, is because it's not an impression, it's a fact.

The new rules will probably be based on the top teams being capped to spending a multiple of the lowest ranked team's broadcast revenue. This feels like progress - there is some limit to what any club can spend. But when you remember that the whole PSR/UEFA financial fair play (FFP) regime was brought in to ensure Bayern, Real Madrid, Barca, Man United, Liverpool and Juve stayed at the top for ever (and, more to the point, Roman Abramovich's Chelsea was excluded - oops, too late, but maybe Manchester City can be kept out of the party...) then you twig that it's to spike Newcastle's financial firepower. 

But more than that it's to ensure that big clubs are profitable all the time. Now football clubs have never been profitable, bar the odd, exceptional season. But the American venture capital owners of Man U and Liverpool don't want profits someday, when they sell. They want dividends paid every year. The new financial rules being discussed by the Premier League will ensure that. But what will the fans think?

As Martin Samuel said in the Times

...profit is a dream in the boardroom, not on the terraces. Whoever huddled over a cup of half-time Bovril longing for the chairman to be paid a lovely dividend? Well before the advent of the Premier League, in a leafy corner of east London, a director of West Ham United used to hold court at the bar overlooking the putting green, having played his 18 holes. “Such a well-run club, West Ham,” he would tell his audience. “In 20 years I’ve never had to put my hand in my pocket.” 

In his other columns railing against PSR and FFP Samuel has said:

The Premier League isn't worried about competition. It doesn't care about promoted clubs taking on the best, challenging the established order, not just at the top but even in the middle and lower middle. It wants Crystal Palace heads just above water, or even Sheffield United, rock bottom but compliant*.

Had Forest sold Brennan Johnson for £17.5 million less earlier in the season and not bought players they could well be where Sheffield United are now. And that would be fine. Masters (Richard Masters, the Premier League CEO) has no problem with Sheffield United 0 Newcastle United 8. There are no rules outlawing circumstances that lead a club to concede 26 goals in six homes games, as Sheffield United did between December 26 and March 4. That's all lovely. That all adds up. It's trying to avoid this that is the crime. Playing catch-up. Refusing to accept a dismal fate."

Oh but won't it all be wonderful when there's a government backed regulator? Er, no, why would it be? We have the world's most succesful domestic football product. The man (or woman) appointed by Whitehall can only cock it up. 

Here are some straws in the wind. Take the owner's test. The government was always in favour of the Saudi take over of Newcastle. It was the Premier League that had a problem becauise of pirate broadcasts in the middle east. The West Bromwich Albion owner was sound for a while but took money out when his other businesses got into difficulty and did a flit. The Chinese owner of Reading failed the Premier League owner's test but passed the EFL's at a time the UK government was cosying up to China. Reading is now sinking in unpaid bills. 

Oh, you can doubt the ability of the Premier League and EFL to assess these things - who wouldn't? Maybe we should trust the big audit companies like Deloittes. So what about Dozy Mmobuosi? He's a Nigerian tycoon who didn't pass the Premier League and EFL tests when he tried to buy Sheffield United. But Deloitte and the US Nasdaq exchange thought he was sound. His Tingo Mobile (I'm not making this up) was supposedly worth $1bn but it eventually turned out that it actually had no meaningful customers or operations and had about $15 in it's bank account. These things aren't as easy as they seem. 

So I had hoped that the government would go cool on implementing a compulsory government backed football regulator. After all, why would they want the controversy of docking clubs points, or declining prospective owners with money to spend?  Maybe they think that, like the water industry, the preposterously named Ofwat (er, we want it on, not off, bozos) deflects the blame when the sewage is flowing in the rivers. Have they really not noticed that it doesn't?

Anyway our moribund government, incapable of implementing anything much that actually matters, has announced recently that it intends to press on with the football regulator, supported on the sidelines by Labour, who normally won't commit to any policy. It was summed up for me when Lucy Frazer, the Culture Secretary (culture - has she been to Goodison?) announced that "football has been at the heart of our nation for 200 years". D'oh, the first football club in the world (Sheffield FC since you ask) was formed in 1855. That's er....169 years ago Tracy. Not good at maths or sport, eh?

This all gives me further ammunition that politicians don't usually know what they are talking about, but especially when it comes to football. I seriously doubt that I can vote for a party that introduces or supports the ridiculous idea of a football regulator. Which could be awkward as that rules out Tories and Labour. I'm not sure about the LibDems (who is?) but some of their peers have been pressing for the return of free to air broadcasts for a selection of Premier League matches. This won't be particularly compatible with current broadcasting contracts but, more importantly, it would wouldn't be compatible with the Premier League retaining its international standing as the best domestic league in the world. Fans will just love it when we return to our leading clubs selling their best players to Italy, Spain and Germany as happened with Keegan, Rush, McManaman and Beckham. Or more likely, to Saudi Arabia.

Who'd vote for that? Which may leave me few options to vote for. I wonder what Plaid Cymru's policy is on a football regulator? And would it even apply to Wales?

The world's not gone crazy. It's post crazy.

* Sheffield United's compliance as far as the Premier League is concerned won't stop them being docked points if and when the go back to the EFL for breaching that league's rules. 

The 4 Non Blondes song is just a 1990s pop song but I love it, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NXnxTNIWkc

Dozy Mmobuosi was in Martin Samuel's Times column on  24 March 2024
Premier League has created the impression of a rigged game with PSR. Paul McInnes, The Guardian 9 April 2024
Martin Samuel. Every owner gets to be the Glazers once anchoring takes hold. Times 19 March 2024
No room for football now Premier League plays out in law chambers Martin Samuel Times 18 March 2024 noted how we can't necessarily believe what we see on the pitch as things will be decided elsewhere. If Everton appeal their latest points deduction the vedict will come after the final matches of the season. There was a very odd atmosphere at Everton's last home game against Burnley, two days before the expected (justifiably it turned out) second points deduction.Partly, I think, because no-one understands what the  result is actually likely to mean.

If you don't believe me that goal nets are optional in the laws of the game check https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en. I found such snippets useful when playing and refereeing, being well aware that goal nets were optional but corner flags weren't.

And for level is onside see: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/#offside-position

Friday 29 March 2024

The data tell stories

This year marks 40 years since an English manager last won the European Cup/Champions League. In the previous eight years (1977-84) English managers won it seven times. 

I do like numbers and sometimes they tell you a lot. If Gareth Southgate steps down as England manager after this summer's Euros the F.A. may have quite a problem deciding on a successor. After Southgate's success (don't laugh, compared with his predecessors all the way back to Very Tenables he's been a spectacular success) the F.A. would surely prefer an Englishman, given the underwhelming results obtained by supposedly stellar foreign coaches Eriksson and Capello. But who? Eddie Howe would be obvious but, unless their Saudi owners are getting impatient with him, rather than with the Profit and Sustainability rules that are holding them back, I can't see him quitting a long term project with a chance of winning things.

After Eddie the cupboard is pretty bare. There are six British managers currently at premier League clubs. Of those Scot David Moyes is, yet again, currently highest up the league at 7th. Gary O'Neill has Wolves in 9th place and did well in his one season at Bournemouth before that. Eddie Howe's Newcastle are 10th, then we have Sean Dyche's Everton in 16th (14th but for points deductions which aren't his fault), Welshman Rob Edwards of Luton who would get the ladies' vote but who is in the relegation zone (and I trust says there) and Chris Wilder who is doing his best at bottom placed Sheffield United.

So Gary O'Neill then? Graham Potter is also currently available, but he may be so traumatised by his experience at Chelsea that he wouldn't pick up the phone. But why so few options?

The English coaching system doesn't offer any ready progression to coaching jobs. Not the top jobs, because Premier League owners have their pick of the world and understandably go for coaches with a proven track record. But not really for assistant coaches, either. We have a fascination with people who have "been there, done that". Ex-players like Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard. And yet the head of football coaching and education in Germany from 2000 to 2007, Erich Rutemoller, believes that what characterises top modern day coaches like Klopp and Tuchel (who Rutemoller taught for their UEFA Pro Licences) is their academic approach to the game. Klopp, Guardoila and Thomas Frank all have sports degrees, Tuchel has one in business.

Although Guardiola played at high level he wasn't one of the stars in the team. Klopp, Tuchel and Wenger all had plenty of playing experience but never played at the highest level.  It seems that a broader understanding of management and sports science than just having played the game is useful.

But it's also about numbers. I read recently that, as of 2017, there were 15,459 coaches in Spain who held UEFA's top two coaching qualifications. In England it was 2,083. Wow, that tells a story!

Applicants for the F.A.'s courses complain that it's hard to get on them, with few places available. The F.A. say they don't run the courses to make a profit but they charge £9,890 for the UEFA Pro Licence course, the highest coaching qualification. Not a problem for a retiring Premier League player, but younger coaches find it cheaper to go to Spain to study, where it costs about a thousand euros. Which is ok if you are fluent in Spanish.

In the meantime the F.A. must be hoping England do well in the Euros and Southgate decides to carry on. As he's only 53 there seems no reason other than his own desire why he shouldn't go on for a decade till the 2034 World Cup.

Also in last weekend's sports pages was an article on Ruben Selles, the Reading manager who was in charge of Southampton in the Premier League for 17 months. Selles is young (40) but has coached in Spain, Greece, Russia, Norway and Denmark. He started coaching youth teams aged 16, went to university in Valencia and coached the uni football team and took it from there. He was attracted to Reading because of its £50m training ground and flourishing academy and believed what he was told by the club's Chinese owner, Dai Yongge, about the budget he would have and about club's problems being in the past. These problems had led to points deductions and relegation last season. The next day the club was served with a winding up petition by HMRC. The next month the club was put under a transfer embargo and Selles began pre-season with only seven players.  Subsequently his no 2, head of player development, head of media and several key academy staff were made redundant. His team of free transfers and academy kids, average age 23, currently sit 6 points above the League One relegation zone. But for 6 points deducted they'd be in touching distance of the top half. Selles has had to contend with fan protests - throwing tennis balls onto the pitch seems to be their favourite method of expression - and the club's training ground has now been put up for sale.

Jonathan Northcroft of the Sunday Times says that, if the vote for English football's manager of the season was held now, he would vote for Selles.

Selles isn't English. But how do we develop English coaches like him so that there are more options for English England managers? A sensible start might be to subsidise that Pro Licence course for English coaches who haven't played at high level. It might also be good idea to evaluate players who don't make the grade from academies as possible future coaches and referees and offer them a pathway to stay in the game. The F.A. need to go and sharpen their pencils.

Here are some other numbers in the sports news:

Preston North End received £15.6m from the Premier League between 2019 and 2022. Not bad considering they've never been in it.  PNE's chairman Peter Risdale (remember him, Leeds fans?) complains former Premier League teams in the championship are paying five times more in wages than they are because of parachute payments. But, as Martin Samuel points out, those teams have at least had a connection with the Premier League. A rather large one in the case of Leicester City. Five mill a year for nothing doesn't seem bad to me but still Rick Parry keeps  banging his drum that the EFL "deserves" a bigger handout from the Premier League. And, strangely, seems to get a hearing from a Tory government set on having a football regulator which issues threats to the Premier League to give more. The Premier League clubs have businesses to run but then this government long ago made clear it didn't understand business.

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 lower league and women's clubs have been supported by the Premier League Stadium Fund (PLSF) administered by the Football Foundation. It has awarded more than 5,500 grants worth £193.5m to improve facilities and sustain the game outside the Football League. A much better way to spend the money than giving it to the EFL in my view. 

Simona Halep's doping ban from tennis was reduced from 4 years to 9 months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She claimed that the roxadustat (sometimes called "oxygen in a pill") found in her collagen-based food supplement was contamination she didn't know was there. Her expert witness found contamination in the samples of the supplement. Two WADA labs couldn't find any. But here's the problem. Even if you take the highest level of contamination supposedly present and the lowest level of roxadustat found in her urine samples, she would have had to consume more than 50 times the recommened daily intake of 10g of the supplement. Half a kilo a day would literally be difficult to swallow. If you take the average values of supposed contamination in the supplement and Halep's average urine level it would be 5,000 times the normal daily aount. Does anyone seriously believe she was eating 50 kg a day of the supplement? I certainly can't swallow that.

Sometimes numbers just sing, don't they.

Oh, of ourse it was the CAS who turned Manchester City's ban from European competitions into a fine. Hmmm.

P.S. I decided after some reflection it should be the data tell, not the data tells, stories as strictly speaking the data are plural, data being the plural of the latin datum. Pedant, me?

The return of Halep gives me very little confidence in the fight against doping. David Walsh. Sunday Times 24 March 2024

Why is the Premier League missing title-winning English managers? Tom Allnutt, Sunday Times 24 March 2024

Impossible Job. Jonathan Northcroft, Sunday Times 24 March 2024. A fascinating interview with Reading manager Rueben Selles.

Risdale reality check was in Martin Samuel's Sunday Times column on 17 March 2024


Thursday 28 March 2024

Will the Tory implosion end in a black hole?

 Like many I bought Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. Like some I read it, or at least tried to. But I don't claim to be one of the few who understood more than the opening chapter. I do remember, however, that Hawking mused on the possibility that the expanding universe would one day contract, leading to the universe collapsing back into a giant black hole - an inverse of the big bang that he called the big crunch. 

Has the universe of the Tory party started an inexorable contraction towards its own big crunch? Danny Finkelstein noted that in only 14 years there have been five prime ministers without a change of  ruling party. Indeed, if you confine it to the period since 2015 when the Tories have governed alone there have been five in nine years.

To put this in perspective he noted that the last time we had five different PMs without a change of ruling party was between 1721 and 1762. That's over a period of more than 40 years and it was before the development of the modern British political system. And even then it only happended because Henry Pelham died in office.

Calling this destabilising and humiliating for British democracy, Finklestein noted that it has happened because the party has either put in office people who weren't suitable or it could not agree to support the people it installed. Sometimes both.

So what do some Conservatives propose to do about this lamentable position? It is, of course, to have another change of PM. He noted a degree of "pitch rolling" for various potential candidates, loud enough to form a background noise without it being obvious where it comes from, "like a group of schoolchildren humming to annoy the teacher".

There is a danger that this background hum could become much louder if (when!) the Tories do abysmally in the May elections.

Finkelstein feels that Sunak made an error in not defining himself as a contrast to the ethical and ideological errors of his predecessors. Rather he chose to manage his party, rather than the country, leading to "countless missteps" such as the appointment of Lee Anderson. Oddly, he says, this is what his critics most like about him. But they think he wasn't loyal enough to Johnson or supportive emough of Truss's disastrous platform. They blame him for failing to make memories of those fiascos disappear.

So they suggest changing the leader, again. Finkelstein says no Tories are suggesting drawing lines Sunak didn't draw. No putative leader proposes an approach the Tories haven't already tried. Nobody is presenting a team that Sunak has somehow ignored. Instead they hold a "vague...pointless hope" that the party should try rolling the dice again.

Which he says fails to acknowledge a public view that the Tories have had all their dice rolls and that it is no longer their turn.  One voter said "It's like we've got alcoholic parents. Everything's crazy and then the next morning it's suddenly 'sorry' and 'let's go and feed the ducks'. You can't help but love your alcoholic parents but you might want to go and live with your auntie for a bit."

When I'm considering how I might vote in the general election - some might say when "even I" - and am considering the attraction of a rather boring auntie with some fairly strange associates - this seems a fitting parable for the situation to me.

Finkelstein says responding to this with another Tory leadership election is bananas. Some say the Tory position can't get any worse. He thinks they're wrong, things can always get worse and an attempted coup would be one way of making it so. 

The problem for the Tories is the number of votes leaking to Reform which could leave both of them pitifully represented in the next parliament. I've felt for a long time that the political situation had similarities to the mid 90s when it seemed the electorate had decided long before the 1997 election that the Tories had to go. That was a huge defeat but the Tories could face a much bigger collapse. Maybe not quite on the lines of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada in 1993 who, after nine years in power, lost 167 seats and only retained two. But at the moment even a big crunch on that sort of scale wouldn't totally shock me.

The problem for me is the lack of a grown up alternative for non ideological, socially conservative, free marketeers who believe in sound money. Hmm, that almost sounds like the original SDP...

Hawking posited that the big crunch could be followed by another big bang, in a never ending cycle of creation and destruction. The Tories must be hoping that is what happens to them and there is an eventual rebirth after the cataclysm as it's becoming difficult to see that big crunch being avoided.

Of course some people think the universe won't collapse but will go on expanding for ever... I wonder if they're Tories?


Daniel Finklestein Can it get worse for the Tories? Oh yes it can. The Times 26 March 2024
Newman's cartoon was in the Sunday Times on 31 March 2024, the day the clocks went forward

Wednesday 20 March 2024

Justice, natural justice and double jeopardy


The picture here is meant to show Lady Justice and her scales with a football under one arm, though it looks more like a cannonball to me. Which is fairly appropriate really as the Premier League continue to pursue its blunderbuss Profit and Sustainability regulations, hitting walking wounded targets Everton and Nottingham Forest while leaving Manchester City and Chelsea as untouched as a stealth bomber targeted by a musket.

Nottingham Forest got docked four points by the Premier League for exceeding the Profit and Sustainability threshold (as it applied to them as a club promoted during the rolling three year period covered by the regulations) by £34.5m. Everton got docked six points, reduced from 10 on appeal, for being £19.5m over the limit. Forest were in breach by 57%, Everton by 19%. Go figure, as they say.

Forest had an apparently reasonable mitigation plea. They delayed the sale of Brennan Johnson until after the relevant end date having received an offer of £43m as they thought he was worth more. I agree it would hardly seem sustainable to sell players for less than their market value. However, he was only sold for £47.5m two months later. And they had continued to buy players in the previous January window: three permanently, two on loan and one on a pre-contract basis, having been on such a huge buying spree in the previous window that the rules on squad size meant they had to loan some players out in order to register all the new acquisitions. 

Even if they planned to sell Johnson they must have known that they wouldn't get top dollar in June. In contrast Everton pushed through a fire sale of Richarlison by 30 June 2022.

The Premier League noted Forest had a larger proportionate breach of the limit than Everton and sought an 8 point deduction but the commission decided both club's breaches were in the "significant" band so stuck with the same level as Everton - 6. But they then reduced it by a third for Forest's "early plea" and "co-operation".

Everton now faces a second charge, which it has already effectively admitted, this time as promptly as Forest did, though they will probably claim they were only in breach of the rules a second time because they were found to be in breach the previous time, so they had no opportunity to take action to avoid the second breach.

The points I've been pondering for some time (as Mrs H will attest) and on which the media has slowly caught up are how, when the target is on a rolling annual basis, can you be charged twice in one season? And what penalty would be appropriate when they have already been sentenced for two of the three seasons?

The reason Everton can be charged twice is that the timetable for clubs to submit their PSR calculations was brought forward from March to December to allow cases to be heard in the season a charge is brought, after a lot of whinging from a number of clubs (yes, I mean you Leeds and Leicester).So this is a once-off situation. It's crazy, because the accelerated progrtamme still does not ensure a final verdict before the last matches of the season are played. To accelerate the programme but not by enough seems incompetent to say the least.

But is it fair? Sean Dyche says Everton's second PSR charge in one season may be double jeopardy. The Athletic put Everton's arguments to sports lawyer, barrister Samuel Cuthbert.

He disagreed because the Premier League rules allow a second charge covering, in this case three of the four seasons for which the club has already been punished. However he does feel that it contravenes the concept of 'natural justice' since penalties for overlapping periods should be judged holistically to avoid disproportionate outcomes.

The barrister pointed out that, as Everton remained guilty after their appeal then they cannot say "we've done nothing wrong before", which could affect the further level of sanction given if found guilty again. But he went on to say that there is a nuance because the sanctions cover multiple seasons.

“There is a general principle in law that, if a party who is bringing a charge is aware of facts that should lead to another charge, then those charges should all be brought at the same time. That’s just natural justice because, otherwise, you can drip-feed charges and keep a club constantly in front of disciplinary commissions for years.

“Double jeopardy isn’t quite the right term because that’s a criminal allegation. It’s more just a question of natural justice; that if the Premier League had been aware of facts for some time — and they presumably have been — then all charges ought to be brought at the same time so that they can be considered holistically and appropriate sanctions given."

“You can’t hold back facts that you are reasonably aware of and then subject a party to multiple charges. You shouldn’t have to fight allegations which could and should have been brought all at the same time.

“I do wonder whether that’s a slightly theoretical argument because Everton have admitted a level of breach, so the issue is sanctions. They will say that sanctions should have been considered holistically."

I guess this means Everton could not have the chance to do the equivalent of asking for other offences to be "taken into consideration" in a criminal case. The barrister went on to say

“That then brings me back to my original point — that, as a matter of natural justice, they should have been heard at the same time.”

“Essentially, if you’re going to charge over a period, you need to bring everything that you want to charge in relation to it,” he says. “Otherwise you end up in a Kafka-esque situation where you are just constantly being pulled back in over the same period over matters that could and should have been brought at the same time."

The truly Kafka-esque situation would be where a fine levied for the first charge makes it certain that the club would be found guilty under the second charge. The EFL rules are different and prevent a given season being considered more than once. However, that did not stop Derby County being hit with a series of penalties which made their relegation from the championship inevitable and then continuing to hit them with a transfer ban the following season when many of their players had left, leaving them fielding a lot of academy players.

As I understand it on Everton's original interpretation of its accounts it was under the PSR limit but it accepted some of the Premier League's interpretation in the first hearing, putting it over the limit, which is why Everton could not be found not guilty on appeal. But if that change also tilts them over the line for the second charge then that would appear to me to go against natural justice, as put forward by barrister Cuthbert, as they had no opportunity to take action, such as selling players by 30 June 2023 given that their first hearing didn't even take place until November of that year.

However, I don't understand how the barrister can argue that the matters could have been brought at the same time as the subsequent season's accounts weren't available then. I think it's daft that the club can be effectively charged again for some of the seasons for which it has already been penalised and that, to me, would seem to go against natural justice. But the problem with that argument is that "rules are rules" and the clubs signed up to them a long time ago.

They are, of course, a bad set of rules put in place for bad reasons - to keep the richest clubs at the top for ever, which is why Manchester United and Liverpool are such big supporters of the concept.

Perhaps Everton's strongest argument will be that, if the second breach is found to be "significant", the six point penalty tariff proposed by Forest's Commission should be reduced by two-thirds (for the seasons already penalised) and then by a further third for an early plea and co-operating, like Forest. Which would make it a one point deduction.

If I were a betting man I'd say it will be a further three points for Everton (the minimum tariff for a breach as proposed by in the Forest commission's report) but maybe two points.

On the current table that would put Everton, Luton and Forest all within a one or two point range, scrapping it out for the third relegation place, assuming Burnley and Sheffield United are effectively gone. Brentford, currently in a tail spin with only one point from their last five games (Everton and Luton have two) could also get drawn in. 

Nevertheless it's going to be a funny end to the season if we don't know what each club needs to do to survive on the last day - and still don't know after the final whistles have gone what the final league table for the season will be.

That situation might be avoided if Everton's case is decided in April, the penalty is light and they choose not to appeal. Whether it's justice, natural or not, it's pathetic. The relegation scrap is one of the most riveting aspects of the season. But possibly not this year, which can only harm the Premier League's brand.

Everton and Nottingham Forest confirm Premier League PSR breaches https://www.premierleague.com/news/3858986

Nottingham Forest docked four points for Premier League financial rules breach. The Guardian 18 March 2024

The independent (sic) commission's report to the Premier League is downloadable from the Premier League website, see https://www.premierleague.com/news/3936397

Assessing Everton's PSR arguments: Is double jeopardy a valid defence? Patrick Boyland and Jacob Whitehead, The Athletic 17 January 2024. https://theathletic.com/5208105/2024/01/17/everton-ffp-psr-double-jeopardy-efl/

Monday 18 March 2024

Is there more to King Hal the Hoarse Whisperer or is he just another fat Frank?

The photoshopped version of Sean Dyche comes from the Brighton fan site wearebrighton.com, which said before the recent 1-1 draw - a game that Everton very nearly won with Brighton equalising in stoppage time - "we need a cure for their Sean Dyche kryptonite". The reason being Dyche's teams, Burnley and Everton, have not lost at Brighton in 11 years, since August 2013 (so I guess that's now 12). A lot of those games were draws but it's a remarkable record, including last season's 5-1 win for the Blues. 

I found the stat surprising but not a shock. On a good day Everton can be difficult to break down. They aren't too bothered about having little of the ball against teams like Brighton, or other teams who like to pass the opposition into boredom but aren't as good as Manchester City. While Dyche has made Everton more resilient, the better Everton teams of the last 15 years have been able to soak up pressure.  It was Roberto Mancini who once bemoaned "there is no answer to the problem of Everton". The problem Everton have is the other way around - taking on teams at Goodison who sit deep.

I quite like Dyche as King Hal but Mrs H's moniker for him, the hoarse whisperer has stuck in our house. He seems a straight forward sort of bloke but there is more to him than meets the eye. He describes himself as a "6 foot 1inch skinhead" who "gets put in a box quickly", though it doesn't bother him ("let them decide"). He has clearly studied management quite a lot. When he first joined Everton my brother pointed me to the High Performance series of podcasts which feature interviews with elite performers in business, the arts and sport. Dyche has been interviewed three times for that series, the first while Burnley manager and the third, in January 2023, soon after his appointment by Everton. A lot of the chitchat was about management techniques and approaches to achieving high performance in general, rather than specifically football. 

Dyche was also interviewed recently Mike France, the CEO of Christopher Ward, the online luxury watch maker, as part of Everton's own media PR propaganda. What was clear from all these interviews was that Dyche understands a lot about how to manage a complex enterprise and has studied how people lead businesses, mentioning what  he's learned from CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (these are the largest companies in the world). In that case it was not to get too close to company activities and to maintain the ability to step back. In his case that means watching a lot of football matches but not all of them when he's got others who do that.

Before you guffaw "it's football!" Dyche notes that a lot of business folk are "blown away" by the complexity of running a football club. (I would add with a limited senior management. The clubs have at least ten times more staff than in the 1980s but many of them are specialists - in nutrition, data analysis etc, etc).

Listening to Dyche talk about alignment across the club (it was lacking when he arrived), getting buy in to change a business plan, fans pushing back against the club when he started at Everton, dealing with the "media view" and the fact that, especially with the financial difficulties, you "can't just click a switch to change all that" it's clear that Dyche has digested a lot of what's put in front of folk on business studies courses, about managing stakeholders for example. But, unlike many people I worked with who did MBAs and similar, he doesn't spout it in an apparent attempt to bamboozle everyone, in ways that make you wonder whether the speaker knows what on earth they are actually on about. What he says he tries to do is get his message across in an authentic way, keeping it simple and instilling his values, which he describes as "not old, or new, just good". He believes in working hard, with pride and honesty, as his parents brought him up to do.

The next bit is an extract from another interview - for someone who doesn't do social media and keeps his family life private he does a lot of interviews!

“I remember going over to France with Nottingham Forest when I was 16,” Dyche says. “I was a youth player and it was at the time my O-level results came out. I was quite bright but — like a lot of talented players back then — obsessed with football and didn’t put the hours in at school. So, frankly, I didn’t do that well in my exams. You can picture the scene. I am in an old-fashioned phone box in France, whacking coins into the slot, feeling very sorry for myself. I am blaming the teachers, the coaches, you name it. I am probably shedding a few tears, too. And Dad says, ‘Son, stop making excuses. Work harder. Don’t blame it on anyone else.’ That may sound hard but you know what? It was the truth. I didn’t feel a lack of love; quite the opposite. I thought, ‘It’s a fair point, Dad,’ even if I didn’t want to admit it. 

“And I think love is shown by telling the truth. The whole truth. Sometimes, the brutal truth. Sure, you need to say it respectfully. Sometimes, you need to say it gently. But unless you are prepared to say it how it is, you are misleading someone. Maybe even lying to them. But this is the problem in the world today: people prefer perception over reality. 

It's not possible for all young footballers to make the grade. And yet, Dyche says, if you tell a player that they haven’t got a contract, instead of parents accepting your judgment, they say you are harming their kids. So you have to tell a weird version of the truth; you have got to sugarcoat it — ‘Yeah, you are good enough but we didn’t have quite enough room.’ It is madness.”

This extract came from an interview in the Times with Matthew Syed, one of my favourite journalists.  Syed asked Dyche "what does it mean to care, to show compassion, to reveal empathy?" and the above was what spilled out.

To say Syed was impressed by Dyche would be an understatement:

"I’ve met quite a few politicians down the years but I think I can say — truthfully and without condescension — that nobody has more eloquently articulated the malaise in modern society than Sean Dyche. Across a flowing interview, we range across VAR, sin-bins (Dyche thinks its impractical to have a player sitting down getting cold for 10 minutes and then go straight back onto the pitch because of the risk of injury. "And where would they sit? Are you going to give them headphones to drown out the torrent of abuse from the stands and an exercise bike to keep warm? Only someone who doesn't understand the game would come up with this")  points deductions, head protocols, diving (he tolerates professional fouls but hates no contact diving), 4-4-2, music, beer and the relative merits of Inspector Morse and The Sopranos."  

Syed said he was "transfixed by Dyche's words" and summarised him as "one of those rare people who combines fierce intelligence and a prodigious work rate with that sense of fun you so often see in the best leaders. Life’s an adventure and you have to approach it in the right spirit,” he says. It isn’t a bad summary of the philosophy of one of football’s most singular and impressive characters." 

Remarkable. I'm not always convinced by Dyche's logic but some of it is, I'm sure, a front, to portray himself as a straight forward, simple, man. As an example, a few weeks ago he was asked a question at a press conference about the prospect of Everton having two cases PSR/financial fair play cases dealt with before Manchester City's is heard. He said "Just like everyone else we are all wondering what makes one rule for one and one rule for the other... I don't know the ins and outs but I think we are all asking that".

He went on to say "I don't know what the exact number is but they reference over a hundred charges....I don't know the detail of them (sic) charges....I'm not questioning Man City or whatever they've done stuff or not done stuff... That story has been going round for while now... if you're going to do it with them (i.e. fast track Everton and Nottingham Forest) then you have to start doing it with everyone and you're going to have to fast track everything because it's relevant now".

I'm sure Dyche is well aware that the Manchester City charges are very different and very much harder to assess. But in terms of putting pressure on the Premier League his comments were to the point and clever.

As I say, there's more to him than meets the eye.

However, there is a big but. His team is currently on a very bad run indeed. Excluding cup ties (one win and two losses, one on penalties) they've not got a win in eleven Premier League matches. Before that they'd gone on a run of four consecutive league wins, scoring 8 and conceding none. They've only scored 7 goals in those 11 games with five draws and six defeats. To be fair, of those eleven matches only four have been at home. They have included two against Manchester City, two against Spurs, away games at Man United, Brighton, Fulham, Wolves and Palace and home games against Villa and West Ham. 

I went to the West Ham match and, not surprisingly, the team were nervous and tentative. After all, it was seen as a winnable game even though the Hammers, having been on a poor run, had just recorded a couple of wins. Yet again Everton made the better chances and could easily have won the match. But they didn't.

Some folk say the club has had a hard run of matches and there are easier ones to follow. Having had a derby match against Liverpool postponed, next up is away at Bournemouth. The Cherries have been on a poor run at home but had a morale boosting win against Luton, winning from 3 goals down. Then it's Newcastle away for Everton, followed by Burnley at home and Chelsea away. There is then what should be an appetising run of games against Forest and Brentford at home, Luton away and Sheffield United at home before they go to Arsenal for their final match. 

The problem for Dyche is that games against the likes of Sheffield United and Luton are exactly the kind of games Everton have performed poorly in over recent years. And they'll all effectively be six pointers. Even if Everton have recorded a couple of wins before they get to the end of that run, no-one knows what will happen in their second PSR hearing and then the inevitable appeal so every match could matter even if the table at the time says otherwise. That will be a challenge for Dyche and his motivational skills.  

I do have specfic concerns about Dyche, however. Once Dyche got players fit earlier in the season he adopted a formation and style of play that worked well with the squad he has available: a back 4, two holding midfielders, two wingers who work hard and stay compact in defence and Doucoure breaking forward from midfield to support a traditional centre forward. 

It has certainly worked defensively: only four clubs (the two Manchester teams, Liverpool and Arsenal) have conceded fewer in the league this season. And it should be working in attack: Everton has the 9th best "xG", the expected goals stat that says what a team would have been expected to have scored from the chances they have made, in Everton's case 43.7 goals. The problem is they've actually only scored 29, the next worst tally in the league.

Which leaves me with two concerns. The first is his flexibility. Not physically, but in terms of how he sets his team up and approaches games. There's no variation. Frank Lampard was the same: once he got Idrissa Gana Gueye back at the club and had the personnel to play 4-3-3 that's what he always did. For a few weeks it worked and then it didn't any more. You didn't need to pay a video analyst to predict how Everton would set up. And you don't now, unless key players are unavailable. The play is predictable. That's ok if you're Manchester City but otherwise it's asking for trouble.

The second is what on earth is Dyche doing to coach his team in attacking play? This is a question Mrs H will confirm I've been asking for several months but there was a crescendo of it online after the defeat at Manchester United, where they had 23 shots to United's 15 but still lost 2-0. Everton have 13 coaching staff inlcuding Dyche* and it's not clear to me if any of them work specifically on attack. Not just scoring, but what to do in transitions when the team wins the ball, what runs do players make etc. But yes, shooting as well!

Sitting watching a number of Everton games over the last year or so under Dyche it has been painfully obvious at times that other teams know how to pick them off. Why can't we do the same the other way round?  On several occasions against West Ham there seemed to be no understanding between players when Everton broke. It's as if they've been told "when you get the ball, just do whatever seems best". Which is ok if you have talented attacking players rather than a workmanlike team. The organisation that is so apparent in defence seems utterly lacking in attack.

It was much the same under Frank Lampard. He got found out and, maybe, so has Dyche. 

Can he respond?  We'll find out. After all if Everton don't start scoring they'll go down whatever happens off the pitch in the kangaroo court of supposed financial fair play.  

It will be a serious test of Dyche's managerial ability to get performances out of his squad under the pressure they will face. He more than convinced Matthew Syed that he knows what he's talking about. But there's a very unforgiving practical exam about to start in earnest.

P.S. It's odd how Arsenal away has been the club's final fixture several times in recent years. Not a game they will fancy if they need a result, especially if Arsenal need a win to potentially clinch the title...

*The 13 Everton coaching staff are Dyche, assistant managers Ian Woan and Steve Stone, two goalkeeping coaches, two fitness coaches, a chief analyst, two video analysts and a match analyst, a head of academy coaching and a trainee coach. See  https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-everton/mitarbeiter/verein/29

The Brighton fan article is at https://www.wearebrighton.com/matchday/brighton-need-a-cure-for-their-sean-dyche-kryptonite/

High Performance podcast, Jake Humphries and Damien Hughes, available of youtube. Episode 175 Sean Dyche - why I'm ready to manage again, January 2023  https://www.thehighperformancepodcast.com/podcast/e175/seandyche

Sean Dyche - what makes him tick? Youtube interview with Christopher Ward (12mins approx) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7LJmgiZbM.  This is a corny title as Christopher Ward make watches and are an Everton Women's team sponsor as well as Everton's "first official global timing partner" - ? They are making a limited edition Dixie Dean chronometer - 60 off, of course, price not quoted but I'm sure not cheap.

Matthew Syed's article Sean Dyche: Love is shown by telling the whole brutal truth was in the Times on 17 February

"One rule for one and one rule for the other" - Sean Dyche on Everton, Manchester City and Financial Fair Play. Liverpool Echo, 9 Feb 2024  https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-man-city-ffp-dyche-28597334


Thursday 15 February 2024

Free Linzi!

Our society has taken a sinster turn. It has become more authoritarian, less tolerant and more draconian. 

Organisations which should be providing a service to their customers get drawn into pseudo-political posturing and turn into Kafka-esque wielders of absurd and incomprehensible powers, producing helpless victims in their wake. One example (possibly not the best) was Nigel Farage being debanked by Coutts, owned by Natwest, still part owned by you and me through the government's 40% share. Since when is it a bank's role to decide what political views are acceptable?

The example I give to you today (though there are many others of much greater significance, I accept) is Linzi Smith, a Newcastle United football fan.

Smith is a lifelong Toon fan and has spent thousands of pounds on match tickets and merchandise. She also happens to be a lesbian who has concerns about the implications of gender self identification and its implications for women's rights. These are legitimate views which she has tweeted about, in ways which some might find radical, or even offensive.

Smith was dobbed by some faceless snitch to her football club, claiming that her presence at a match might make someone feel "unsafe". (Eh? In a 55,000 crowd?) The logic for that is elusive but one can suppose that the complainant wanted to disrupt the life of someone they happened to disagree with. And golly, they succeeded.

Despite never having expressed her legally held views at or in any way connected with her football club, or given any reason when at the ground that her conduct could be problematic, her club took the matter seriously and referred it to the Premier League. The 'corrupt as feck Premier League'* kicked its investigation unit, originally intended to root out racists, into action and it over-reacted like a footballer rolling over and over pretending they have been fouled. 

It produced an "Online investigation and target profile", identifying where Smith lives and works and even where she walks her dog, along with something called personal "vulnerabilities". I have no idea what the last of these points means but it sounds more than sinister.

Once they received the Premier League's report Newcastle United banned Smith from matches, telling her that her tweets constituted harassment and were contrary to the club's diversity and inclusion policy. They passed the dossier to the Northumberland Police for investigation as a possible hate crime offence. Officers came to her home, said they had grounds to arrest her and interviewed her under caution - before concluding there were no grounds for action. 

Smith is now taking the club to court to assert her right to hold and express her opinions.


Mark Wallace, writing in the digital news distributor Pressreader, noted that he had been a fool to worry that Newcastle United or the Premier League might be tempted to abandon historic values like freedom of expression and respect for privacy in return for Saudi money. "It turns out they were absolutely gagging to go the full Stasi off their own bat, no Saudi money required" he said. 

The views of the barcodes' owners on the issue haven't been promulgated but one might assume they would be inclined to agree with prejudice against people who choose a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth. Perhaps the journalists should inquire what the views of Yassir Al-Rumayyan, the club's chairman, are on the club's reaction. Or, indeed, its policy on access to the women's toilets in the ground.

Wallace also noted just how sinister it is for someone to seek to uproot someone's private life as a punishment for their temerity to hold a personal belief. I would add at no risk to the anonymous complainant, who Wallace described as "mailicious".

It's not clear to me how we got into this mess, but what matters more is how we get out of it. Newcastle United could start by ensuring its diversity and inclusion policy doesn't prohibit the holding and expressing of views that are entirely legal. More significantly the government has work to do to bring rationality back into these matters. I'd have thought this couldn't happen in the USA: its less than perfect legal system at least writes some valuable protections into its constitution. We shall see whether our ad hoc system can deliver the protection of the First Amendment.

The oldest report I could see on this story was from 2 Feb in the Daily Telegraph. It was then covered by many other outlets regarded as somewhat of the right (The Daily Mail, GB News, The Spectator). The Times got round to it on 10 Feb in Rod Liddle's column. The report and comment in the Pressreader reference below has perhaps the best commentary.

Why am I not surprised that the Guardian doesn't appear to have covered the story at all?  Maybe because they don't believe their newspaper should cover news about views contrary to their own editorial line. Presumably they think this is a non-story and see no problem with Newcastle's actions, or even support them. Now isn't that even more chilling?

PS The Linzi Smith story had eluded me but it was referred to in passing in Martin Samuel's Sunday Times column in which he noted that most things that matter in the Premier League are heading to be resolved in courts or off the pitch hearings of one kind or another. He instanced Manchester City's potential legal challenge to the League's new rules on associated party transactions. Samuel concluded that chief executive Richard Masters has "pretty much handed the competition over to the legal department". The league also succeeded in making this January's transfer window one of the most boring ever, as all the clubs seem to have got completely spooked by the charges against Everton and Nottingham Forest. The money spent was the least (barring the 2021 covid affected window) since 2012, when the domestic TV revenue was not much more than a quarter of what it is now. Everton broke the profit/loss limit by less than £20M over 4 years, not exactly big potatoes in the context of football club finance. It's as if the Premier League have decided that the threat of it being eclipsed by the Saudi Arabian league is an inevitability that can't be resisted. Shame on them.

*sorry for the vernacular but as an Everton fan these five words automatically link together for me at the moment by word association

Fan's treatment shames Newcastle and Premier League. Mark Wallace, Pressreader 6 Feb 2024 https://www.pressreader.com/uk/inews/20240206/282059101897168

Spied on and banned. Are any fans safe from football's political VAR? Rod Liddle. The Times 10 Feb 2024

Lawyers now the game's headline act. Martin Samuel, Sunday Times 11 February 2024