The Obscurer

Well, the sleep has been prised from my eyes, I can still taste the toothpaste, but I am off to watch a game of premiership football. Oh joy.
When I first read that the City-Everton game was an 11:15 Sunday kick-off I thought it was a mistake. A Sunday kick-off? Fine. I knew that Everton would be playing in the UEFA Cup on Thursday so was expecting the game to be moved, but surely they couldn’t mean 11:15? But when the City website, Yahoo!, Sky and the BBC all agreed on the kick-off time I had to accept it. I briefly wondered if they could all be quoting the same, inaccurate source for the information, or even that perhaps there was some computer cock-up involving the clocks going forward and that they really meant 12:15. But no.

So why the ungodly hour? Steve at Occupied Country thinks it is so they can screen it at a reasonable time in China, and he could be right; but seeing as there must be about fifty time zones in China I doubt there is one uniform time that could be considered “reasonable”, so I don’t see why a kick-off an hour or so later would make much of a difference. According to the club website, this change was made at the request of Sky; I think it is more likely that as the game was originally slated as being a PremPlus match at 12:30 on Saturday, when they came to move the match to the Sunday the only way they could avoid a clash with another live game was by shoving us on before noon. That is a crap reason but it is the best one I can think of; after all, ITV were happy to show two Champions League games simultaneously on Tuesday, and I can’t imagine many neutrals being tempted to pay £7 or whatever it is to watch City-Everton under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not there are other live games being shown on the regular Sky Sports channels at the same time (while I would have thought the number of City and Everton fans lost to the televised Arsenal-Birmingham match at 13:30 would be fairly negligible if the two games clashed). But when it comes to re-arranging these matches I suppose there will always be a pecking order of considerations, and usually if they think they can get away with it then the fan or paying customer will find themselves at the back of the queue.

I suppose it could have been worse. As we are playing Everton there may still be a few hardy souls plucky enough to brave the short trip along the M62 in order to sit in the away end at the City of Manchester Stadium, having gone to bed early, or not at all. Imagine if we had been playing a team whose fans would have to travel from the other end of the country (Portsmouth, Sunderland, United); would that have troubled the minds of the change-makers? I doubt it.

So, wish me luck (unless, for obvious reasons, you are looking for an away win from this fixture) I’m off. At least when I get back from the game I will have the lion’s share of Sunday left, free and untouched.

Update 14.45: City 2-0 Everton. A lacklustre first half but an improvement after the break particularly when Lee Croft came on (why doesn’t he get a start?). At his 150th attempt Danny Mills finally saw one of his long range wellys fly into the top corner (the people in the executive boxes were cowering in anticipation when he shaped up to shoot) and then Darius Vassell had no right to reach Joey Barton’s through ball but his pace gave him a great chance to push the ball past Nigel Martyn and he took it well. Can’t we play at this time every week?

In the other games that kicked off at the same time, The Gun Inn continued their fine run of form with a convincing 8-2 victory over Dynamo Denton. Meanwhile the bitter local derby between AFC Poynton and Pott Shrigley Amateurs had to be postponed when Tony couldn’t find the keys to his van.

I’m glad I’m not a betting man. One of my best mates is, and I am forever bemused by his enthusiasm for absurd spread bets. This summer, however, when he said he had backed the Aussies to win the Ashes I almost felt like joining in; despite the recent improvements in the England cricket team, and the shaky performance of the Australians during the one-day series’, I felt that come the five day game their undoubted superiority would tell and there could only be one winner. It seemed like easy money to me; but I didn’t succumb, and so had a lucky escape. My mate has lost a small fortune.

All the way through this test series I have thought that the Australians would eventually show their class and turn us over. Even going into the last day at The Oval I would have put my money on Warne spinning the English batsmen out, followed by the Aussie’s rattling together their rapid fire winning runs; and yet it never happened. I still find it hard to take in, but looking back objectively at the whole Ashes series (or as objectively as I can) I have to say that England have not just been the better side but have largely dominated this series and have been superior in all departments (with, I guess, the specific exceptions of spin bowling and wicket keeping). Gaining a first innings lead in four out of five tests, even making the Aussies follow-on at Trent Bridge, illustrates this well; that we have simply batted and bowled better than the opposition. But I still can’t quite believe it.

Where does cricket go from here, and can the recent popularity the sport has gained be built upon? Much has been made of live test matches now leaving terrestrial television and “disappearing to Sky”; but as Sky is present in over 30% of homes I doubt disappearing is the right word to use. That said, I do feel that part of the decline in the popularity of the sport in recent years has been down to the way the matches have been split between Channel 4 and Sky, making many games unavailable to the majority of the public. When the BBC had exclusive rights, and showed every test and one day international, as well as the NatWest cup games and some Sunday league matches, cricket seemed to be more a part of the fabric of national life. I was more than happy when cricket first moved to Channel 4 and their coverage has been excellent, a huge improvement on the BBC’s efforts, and with a few exceptions (Mark Nicholas’s occasional embarrassing hyperbolic commentary, sounding like Alan Partridge reading a Batman comic; those two buffoons who do the BetFair adverts at the breaks, better known to passive Cbeebies viewers at “the twats from Big Cook Little Cook“) I will miss the way they have covered the sport; but I do think the decision to put one day matches and some tests on satellite TV did overall lower the profile of the game. Similarly I feel that the Rugby Union missed a trick after the success of the England team in the World Cup in not trying to get a regular prime time Zurich premiership show on terrestrial television. There may have been all sorts of practical problems preventing them from doing so, but if they had then I think they could have capitalised on the publicity from the World Cup victory and increased the popularity of the game; instead interest seems to have waned back to pre- World Cup levels.

Then again, I don’t have Sky; if I did then perhaps I would still feel that Cricket and Rugby have a good presence on television. Perhaps the best way to build upon the surge of interest in cricket is to have a successful cricket team; after all, that is the reason more people are suddenly interested in the game again today, and perhaps Sky’s money is the best way of ensuring that this success is consolidated and built upon. By the same token perhaps the decline in interest in Rugby Union is more down to the decline in the success of the England rugby team than anything else. But if success of the national teams is a factor, how do you explain the continued popularity of football in England?

Update 14/9/05: The Daily Mail is hilarious (unintentionally, of course) on this matter today. There is their leader, “Hijacking the Ashes heroes” that complains about Labour leaping on board the cricket bandwagon; when in fact all the Mail are doing is hijacking the Ashes to bash the Labour party. While making a fair point about Duncan Fletcher having just been awarded British citizenship, stating that “New Labour hate everything cricket stands for” is plainly absurd, and complaining about “the disgraceful sale of school playing fields” is an incredibly hypocritical statement for a Tory paper to make. But hypocrisy is their stock in trade as their front page story “Labour’s great cricket sell-out” makes clear. Yes, it is all Labour’s fault, for conceding to the the ECB’s own request to remove test matches “listed status”, and for then failing to prevent the ECB from signing an entirely legal contract, approved by OFCOM, with Sky to televise cricket over the next four years. Don’t look surprised; this is classic Daily Mail in action; a fierce proponent of free markets and the scourge of the nanny state…until such a position provides a result they don’t like, or an alternative standpoint can be used to bash Labour, and then their fine principles are jettisonned in the blink of an eye.

I would call it a silly newspaper, if it weren’t so nasty; but I have just spent the past few minutes of my life criticising the Mail, and I feel cheapened as a consequence. I don’t want to be dragged down to their level, so I will shut up now.

Manchester United fans are continuing their protests against the Glazers taking over their club, and understandably; I would be pretty unhappy if a similar scheme to buy my club was being undertaken and I was forced to sell my shares in Manchester City.

But I don’t think that many United supporters in general, and the Shareholders United group in particular, are doing themselves any favours. Quite apart from the anti-Americanisms some fans are coming out with, in this report the Shareholders United vice-chairman Sean Bones calls the Glazers “the enemies of Manchester United”; he says they are “disgusting and repulsive” and “the Glazer brand is toxic and tarnished”. Bones actually makes me feel a bit of sympathy for Malcolm and his boys. Later on he says “in the long-term the Glazer brand will be suffocated. The previous Manchester United brand was peerless in terms of sporting brand names.”

Another report, from the Manchester Evening News, states that Shareholders United are demanding government action and are to submit papers to the Office of Fair Trading. The article cites a number of their concerns regarding the takeover of the club; here are few that caught my eye, along with my own knee jerk responses.

“Glazer’s purchase of the club weakens competition and harms the consumer…the initial £265m of debt saddled onto the club – which could more than double in the next five years – will weaken United’s ability to compete with the other top teams.”

Nice of the United fans to be so concerned about the effect on the competitiveness of the League. I don’t remember hearing many concerns when United won the Premiership for three years in succession during the Nineties. If competitiveness is an issue, where were Shareholders United and their ilk when the TV rights were carved up, when the Premier league was formed, and when the decision was taken for home clubs to keep 100% of their league gate receipts, which hugely benefits the larger clubs?

“The intention to hike prices by 52 per cent over the next five years, as revealed in a leaked Glazer business plan, is “an abuse of market power,” as United supporters are a captive audience.”

Mmm. On the one hand, (with my devil’s advocate hat on) there are other football teams to support (such as the newly formed FC United), but even if you cannot contemplate following another football team (and personally, I will be “City ‘til I die”) no-one is forcing you to buy tickets to see United. In business terms, following a football team could be seen as an extreme form of brand loyalty; is it the role of the OFT to defend your right to cheap Levi’s or Coca Cola?

“Revenue raised by increased prices will not go to improving the team but to servicing Glazer’s debt.”

But if Glazer owns the club, surely he can run it as he sees fit.

“Some of the individuals and bodies associated with the takeover are “not fit and proper persons” to be involved with an institution with United’s history and heritage.”

I am not fully acquainted with OFT procedures, but does “history and heritage” fall under their remit? And have United not compromised their “history and heritage” by stretching their “brand” across different products and continents, and by redesigning their logo club badge so the words “football club” are omitted?

The problem as I see it with Shareholders United complaints is that they are getting drawn into the whole matter of whether football clubs are simply businesses or are something more. By arguing about United’s peerless brand and their captive market they seem to be arguing the business case; but from a business viewpoint surely the Glazers’ actions make perfect sense? As businessmen, they have identified a great global brand, one that they feels they can make money from, and they have obtained it. On the subject of ticket prices; of course United fans don’t want them raised, but from a business point of view tickets for Old Trafford are ridiculously under priced. This is proven by the fact that OT is sold out for every Premiership match weeks in advance; in a perfect business model the last ticket would be sold at 3 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon (assuming United ever played at that time, of course) and so would eke out every available economic efficiency from the market.

By fighting on the battleground of business, Shareholders United seem to be falling into the assumption that in the market the customer (or fan) is king, but this is too simplistic. Have you ever heard anyone say something to the effect that “I am sick of just walking to the top of my road to go to the bank. No, I would much rather it was shut down, and I can ring up a central number, navigate ten recorded menus of information before finally being given the option to speak to an operator, then hanging on the line for a further twenty minutes before eventually speaking to a service adviser, in India”. Nobody says that, nobody wants that, but it still happens because it can be more profitable to piss off your customers a little in order to make savings elsewhere. The customer is not king, he or she is merely a consideration; in business it is profits that are sovereign.

Here is another, real life example from my wife’s work. Recently another company bought her firm; call them venture capitalists, asset strippers, whatever. The result has been that recently the customer service aspect of the firm has been relentlessly squeezed to concentrate on sales; customer service advisers are being forced into selling, regardless of aptitude, so they can wring every last penny out of their existing customers, mithering them with outbound sales calls at all hours resulting in my wife having to deal with numerous complaints from hassled customers. No doubt sales overall are improving as a consequence, but what about the people who haven’t been persuaded by the pestering, and whose good custom has been squandered? That doesn’t show up on the sales figures. Is this a good way to run a company in the long run, and a good way to treat staff and customers? Who cares; in around twelve months the intention is for my wife’s company to be sold on again, no doubt on the basis of a short-term increase in sales and per capita customer spend. If the chickens eventually come home to roost with cancelled and reduced subscriptions it doesn’t matter, because the current owners will have moved on by then. But this is the way business often works.

If Shareholders United really want government action, I think they will have to try a different tack. Perhaps they should argue that football clubs are more than just businesses, that they are historic entities, that they belong to their communities, and that as a result there should be specific regulations amounting to some sort preservation order that restrict what owners can do to their clubs. It may be too late for United, but this may be the only way forward. As it is, Shareholders United seem to be urging the government to step in because a businessmen has bought a business and intends to run it as a business; and I don’t really know what the government could, or should, do about that.

Liverpool have been given the opportunity to defend the European Cup they won in such a dramatic manner the other week. Time to celebrate? A rare and welcome victory for common sense? Well, you would think so wouldn’t you, but according to Les Lawson of the Liverpool International Supporters Club, Liverpool have been “treated with contempt” by UEFA for being asked to compete in the qualifying rounds of the tournament. In this article on the BBC website phrases such as “insult” are bandied about. I find this bizarre.

Remember that a couple of days ago Liverpool weren’t in the Champions league at all; whatever your opinion on the matter that was the situation, and within the rules of the competition at the time. In order for Liverpool to compete next season UEFA have had to change their rules mid-stream, and if I were a Liverpool fan I would be counting my blessings that they have done so. In any case, just a few weeks ago, when there was the suggestion that TNS could meet Liverpool in a play-off for their qualifying round spot, this was generally hailed as a great idea, a real fillip for the earlier rounds of the competition. Now that UEFA have effectively sanctioned such an event, some Liverpool fans are saying the club should tell “them to stick it”.

The simple fact is that according to the original rules, Liverpool should not be in next year’s competition. Do I think that rule was a sensible one? No. I think that the champions should always be allowed the chance to defend their trophy. That said, I don’t think that the team who finish fourth (or third, or even second) in the Premiership should compete in the Champions League in the first place, so there you go. Liverpool, I think, can count themselves very lucky.

Meanwhile, my team Man City look like they will be denied the chance to take Liverpool’s vacant spot in the UEFA cup. The Premier League say they are going to fight City’s corner, but they may as well not bother. While there has clearly been some sympathy for Liverpool’s plight at UEFA headquarters, I suspect no one down there gives a toss about City and so nothing will change. To be honest I don’t even know where this suggestion came from; it always seemed like a ludicrous non-starter from the off. I certainly never heard any UEFA official entertain the notion of City slipping into the tournament; perhaps it was dreamt up by some Manchester Evening News journo with an overactive imagination. No, if we wanted to qualify for Europe we could have done so by beating Middlesbrough in the last game of the season. We didn’t, and so we haven’t.

PostScript: If you haven’t already seen it, check out this site, purporting to be a blog from a new American fan of Manchester United; or the Manchester Buccaneers, as he prefers it. Very, very funny indeed; nearly as funny as the comments section, where a spectacularly large number of people demonstrate their lack of a sense of humour by blatantly not getting the joke.