football fairness

I can’t understand why UEFA doesn’t act immediately.

If the goal keeper had a laser pen shone into his eyes then that should bring an immediate decision about the validity of the goal.

If there was a problem with other discipline issues, they should have stopped the game and thrown the people causing the problems out of the stadium, would have delayed the game but increased fairness. source: The Guardian

What is most important to the players and the people, is the fairness of the game. Like this the win is being belittled and made bad.

Photo by on

The world of football

I do have a talent in making myself a lot of enemies all at once but on this occasion I can’t resist remarking that when it comes to football even politicians seem to be living in a sphere all of their own. Perhaps that is so because politics if mostly run by men and football is traditionally a men’s sport.

But looking at it rationally I think the FIFA decision is a very good one and that giving Russia and Qatar important football events are excellent executive decisions in my view.  Qatar, looking at its geographical location, I think this will have an important effect on world peace.

I do not understand why the UK wants to have all those forthcoming football events when we already have problems financing the Olympics and Britain’s deficit is one of the worst in Europe.

I am a great fan of Boris but when he concludes that FIFA should be re-structured just because they gave the UK bid only 2 votes, then that worries me. Of course he mentions the freedom of the Press and because of personal reasons I do not wish to comment further on this one at the moment.

However I am saddened, especially for Prince William who is an excellent sports person and doubtlessly put a lot of energy into this bid that was bound to fail from the outset.

Up-date on 4 Nov 2010. The more this sorry saga develops the more pathetic the football crazy politicians appear. Across the board UK politicians behave like fools and I don’t think they deliver a good impression about the sanity of UK politics. On one hand they complain for years that our economy is getting worst, we have problems paying for the Olympics in 2012 and our economy is getting worst still and on the other hand accuse the FIFA committee of corruption because they awarded the FIFA world cup in 2008 and 2012 to countries that can afford easily to host them. The world can only shake their head at UK politicians and sports personalities.  Britain even compared itself to Greece at some point in the olympic development stage, Greece, do have been subjected to dire economic problems after they hosted the Olympics. We read it in the news how much each Greece citizen had to pay in contributions to the expensive sports event and that they could not afford to do so.

From that aspect it was a more than sensible decision to award the games to Qatar and Russia. Qatar is our main gas supplier and Russia our oil supplier, so both are very rich. I think that the UK politicians who accuse FIFA officials of corruption should be ashamed of themselves because they do not want to allow the officials to make up their minds freely.

We all promise something to somebody sometimes, as long as it is not an essential legal entitlement, just to change our minds later. The reaction of UK football fanatics is more than pathetic and they should all be ashamed of themselves. The sooner UK football fanatics realise that this country needs to work very hard to restore its former standing in the world the better.

In any case why would any smallish country, like the UK, that suffers an economic crises of gigantic proportion want to host 3 world sporting events?

The Sun in football flag controversy

On a lighter note, it is hilariously funny, that the Sun newspaper has supplied in today’s paper to all English reader an English flag to celebrate the football world cup, which we all appreciate. But and now you won’t be able to stop laughing, in Scotland they put in a Scottish flag.

As we all know Scotland doesn’t play in the World cup. I have heard from a very angry Sun reader in Scotland, that they have complained to the paper in the hope that the Sun will be sending them an English flag, so that English fans in Scotland can show that English flag. Dont’ know how popular they are gong to be though, lol.

Watch the footie?

Every mother, wife or daughter either looks forward or dreads the world cup time, even the ordinary weekend.

On one hand its good to get the blokes out of the house on the other, one might miss them, depends on the relationship really.

For many men football is the ultimate way to spend spare time, never mind spare time, taking sick leave to watch football, have all kinds of excuses to be able to see the ball being kicked around on a field between 22 men. (I know there is women’s football).

Even workers rather strike to get more money rather than spend less on the ticket. I wonder why men never picket outside of a football club and demand tickets get cheaper. Don’t those footballers earn enough money already? I suppose men would spend their last penny on the footie. I wonder why they never get jealous that their heroes earn considerably more than most of them, but I suppose they can transfer themselves onto the pitch and imagine they are the hero out there and when the ball gets into the goal all worries are forgotten. Bliss, when the team wins.

UK court shows more leniency than the ECHR

that is an interesting development that an English football fan who was extradited to Portugal by an English court over some football rioting there, lost his appeal against the extradition before the ECHR but now won an injunction in the High Court here in London giving the court 2 days time to consider the case.

Garry Mann was supposedly sentenced on the spot in Portugal after a riot took place in Albufeiru during Euro 2004. Apparently Mann was arrested and tried within 48 hours, as very speedy process for football fans at the time.

Generally international tolerance towards football violence is quite low at the moment and most countries do their best to stem it out but nevertheless, one can’t just arrest and sentence without the proper procedure, there is evidence, witnesses and a trial should take place. I am a little worried that the ECHR didn’t oppose the extradition on the grounds of not fair trial. But I do not know how the proceedings went and whether he had a lawyer there in Portugal at the time. Also wouldn’t it more practical all around to find a solution here in the UK so that the sentence can be spent?

Apparently Mann should have sat out his sentence here in the UK but was not put behind lock and key to do so, and now Portugal wants to do the jailing. Yet Mann said he only agreed to extradition in the understanding that the jail term would be waved. BBC source

Quantitative Finance

is another catch phrase, I became aware of tonight, and it is most likely used by professional financiers. I don’t know the phrase but can imagine it deals with finance calculations based on measure. I thought about taxation for the last couple of weeks now but my unconventional style of writing and use of words probably doesn’t strike a chord with those university trained academics who think in boxes and use certain phrases. However, many routes get us to Rome, as my mother used to say.

Lately the moaning about taxes has become one of “the” more used fashion items of what one can complain about these days. A favourite is the Europe tax and also other taxes that some feel is a waste of money.

What would we do with our weekly rubbish collections, our roads maintained and our European Court of Human Rights, that undoubtedly swallows up a lot of Europa cash.

I think it is not the taxes that people moan about it’s the way taxes are collected and administered by people they have no relationship with, people and administrations that often change and tax payers think they are running away with our money.

Maybe the old-fashioned style of taxation had its days. I begin to think about the origins of taxation. When it was the monarch or local ruler of sorts who collected taxes and this ruler was in office for prolonged numbers of years and was personally responsible for the spending of the taxes and the success of his community. We used to live in a “follow-the-leader” type of world and those that followed the leader most devoted, probably lived best.  Our taxes had a meaning in that they were collected by the same ruler for many years and we had a personal relationship to those using our money. We felt more personally involved.

Today governemnts change often and other civil administrative bodies that are no longer responsible than their term in office decide what is happening with the cash.

The main difference between old-fashioned monarchs and today’s democratically elected chancellors and presidents is the length of office. One administration puts in one rule, another takes it off again and whoever makes the rules, how the money is spend, disappears after about 5 years, having cashed in their wages and getting a lump sum payment on their retirement.

The outcome of their policies is no longer their responsibility and that is the main change that no one is any more responsible for the decisions. Whether it leads to banking crashes, wars, business failures, it is no ones fault. When we had monarchs they could not use that escape route, they could not hide behind this getting out clause and that is when taxation had a useful effect because monarchs would be more careful in how to spend those taxes. Today we have anonymous bodies and administrations that collect taxes, spend them and we are not asked to give to the debate, which  policies our taxes finance. We merely vote in a group of people to govern us but what that government then decides is often a matter of the runaway train decision-making.

Like today with our Labour government, we had them now for a very long time and our economy is in ruins. Do they care? Not a lot, they just think well that’s a fine mess we left the Conservatives in and as soon as they get us back to health we can take the government over again and ruin it all. That is called Democracy and equal opportunity?  The principle of quantitative decision-making however doesn’t stop with finance, it is also prevalent in health care. We do not give inoculations just to a few, more susceptible to infection, we give it to all, to cover those few that really need it. Especially in the production of goods, it’s the more measure the better, let the cash tills ring, also the mor the merrier.

I have written in my paper “Slave to the Balance Sheet” about that and that is what we are we bow to financial calculations, quantitative numerical equations but cannot think of the personal need of people.

Quantitative calculations are the consequence of our animatistic need to reproduce and multiply, that is what we do with our money as well. We haven’t really overcome our breeding instincts and managed to contain the sheer accumulative reproduction. Wars are a mere result of over populating, it’s how we get rid of surplus people, if we would not have more children than we can comfortably accommodate we would never even dream of fighting. Indeed in some cultures having many sons that turn into soldiers, to send to war is the main reason to exist.

However honestly I think our western culture very much tries very hard to overcome this throw-away our surplus children way of life. In some countries, there are no birth certificates, some girls don’t even get names and dying is a normal expectation. We try very hard to add quality to each person but that type of equality brings different problems about how far to our resources stretch to reach all parts we try to reach. Each child now manifests itself with a bank account, they have something long-lasting for a life time, which means, once accepted in the financial world, one is wholly human and not just one of those half-humans, that cannot even get a bank account.

Yet the accumulative finance calculations banking is based on, are creating an enormous wealth gap, hence our interest rate stays at 1/2 percent, this does cut the wealth gap.  Another method to cut the wealth gap and stimulate the economy( independent of centrally collected monies), is pricing goods and services according to wealth. For someone with 10 million in the bank, paying 50 pence for a tin of beans, is easy peasy but for someone who has to cope with £20 a week for food, 50 pence is a lot of money. What we have though are farmers that need subsidies out of tax payers coffers to be able to plant and harvest those beans for us. We do everything through central systems and hence are no longer dependent on local economies, that’s why our economy is so bad at the moment. With this central system whole regions can die economically because the local culture has lost its ability to act on its own. We create pockets of consumers that rely on the products others make. Does that ring a bell?  Yet it is the question whether each geographical region should be in a place to act on the basis of their own products and labour to make sure the mental and physical health of the people there stays intact; but finance alone cannot cope with that task, yet finance regulates our daily lives and all other services are secondary to finance today.

I just watched a children’s program this morning and was shocked to see how a presenter took the Mickey out of Queen Victoria, that she was so overweight that she could only wear black sacks and that she didn’t get any exercise and always sat at her desk. I was very embarrassed that my child had to watch that, because in Queen Victoria’s times Britain had a well-functioning economy and was going up in the world, whilst today we have a Labour government and our economy is worst than ever. This just shows that today we do not cherish the lifelong  monarchs that made it a matter of personal pride to get Britain into governance, today we have elected Labour governments that run Britain into the ground. In the past Labour only ever got in for a term and could not do too much damage but this time, they have proved to us that they cannot do anything for the long term that is beneficial to us economically. We do miss this permanent long-lasting leadership that figurehead that we can look up to, a Royal family instead of an ever-changing body of ants in the House of Commons, ants that have lost the need to look after the Queen. Margaret Thatcher got that point very right when she remarked about being able to look up to someone who is there all the time and who knows more about the country than someone who just sits in a chair for 5 years and then counts their blessings. We need long-lasting responsible rulers instead of throw away governments that throw away our cash in useless investments and business decisions that throw away our autonomy along with it.

My remark of excess populations being used for wars of course clashes straightaway with anti-abortion campaigners who make big propaganda campaigns against restricting children. See this BBC article about a prominent US footballer.

I think it very much depends whether you are residing in a very large country with lots of space or an overcrowded inner-city with little space what your views about that are. I have seen such demos here in London though. I have also seen a lot of overcrowding. Of course the lady with the football star son has a very popular argument saying yes, but my child, that I was supposed to abort became a very talented super star. Even such arguments came up because a very popular composer, was it Bach or Beethoven, came for a poor large family and he brought lots of pleasure to the world over centuries.

I am not sure that such talent would only sprout in the circumstance of a poor large family or whether such talent would not have arisen in someone else. How individual is an individual and how much does talent depend on particular circumstance. Is the natural selection flexible or dependent on only one person and if that one person doesn’t get born, would the same talent appear in someone else. I suppose we can never find out this one? That is another reason to believe in God because science cannot answer all the questions.


Football players

Football players

Ever since the football associations lost control over the players, e.g. final say of who could play for whom and for how much, the players got the status of employee or self-employed and fell under the free market regulations that they were seen as workers and had the right to play for whom they liked and/or the highest bidder.

The recent loss of Manchester United reiterates the fact that Ronaldo, normally plays for Man U, played for the opposition Barcelona on that occasion and Barcelona won.

For the matter of emotional support it can be a bit difficult for local fans to manage the fact of players changing allegiance.

To compare that with party politics, a lot of people would not tolerate chopping and changing, e.g. see Dave Osler’s and John Gray’s reaction to me leaving the Labour Party, calling me all kinds of things, but when it comes to football, players can change sides as frequently as their underwear, whichever is the most frequent, I don’t know.

Is there a certain ideology in Football? There sure is, a football team traditionally was bound to the geographical location it is based in. E.g. Manchester United is exactly the football club of that town, together with Manchester City.

In the case of political representation we get elected “players” like MPs and Councillors and that used to be similar with footballers in a sense they were elected by the Football Association to play for a certain club and the amount of transfer fees was also determined by the football association. Whereas politicians could not transfer for a fee but change political parties without a contractual payment.

Magna Carta the original contract giving powers to elected parliamentary repreesntatives of the people

In the case of MPs who do work for a wage, they cannot change allegiance as per the locality they represent but they can change allegiance as to the party they work for whilst they are in office; though some constituents have already asked can we sack an MP if they don’t act up to scratch. In the case of footballers that localised connection has long been broken

Court rulings important in that respect are Simuldenkov and I have to look up the case whereby one footballer went to court to challenge the situation that he could not determine himself where he could play and for what price. He won and since then footballers are treated like workers who can negotiate their own contracts, rather than depend on decisions of the football association.

That is the main difference, that the local affiliation, the basic principle of personal conviction for a cause, does not exist any longer in football but that it has become a profession.

The only other profession we see acting according to a personal conviction are political activists, local MPs who are elected according to the post code they stand for.

With the recent situation of MPs having to resign over irregularities we might see a change coming in, to do with the legal status of Members of Parliament.  Parliamentarians representing the local people who are bound to that local land, have to reside in the constitutions but as we’ve seen in the case of Galloway can travel to a constitution and represent the locals there, if they are voted in.

In Football, the club used to be bound to the locality too, and the players were representatives according to their local affiliations.

This bound to the land connection seems to be driven further and further into the background, also comparing this with the House of Lords, that traditionally was a House of long-standing peers, bound to certain geographical areas of Great Britain. In line with the internationalisation of all our affairs, the hereditary peer is in danger of extinction too.

Lets imagine MPscan now start to choose to make their own contracts, they are voted into office in one locality but then can be sacked for miss-conduct, that theoretically makes the contract of being elected invalid, as the electorate does not vote in an MP specifically on the conditions that they always stick to the rules and are not allowed any indiscretion, that is a matter of expectation. Because if voters can claim expectation damage and their elected MP has to stand down because they broke that expectation and some locals depended on that particular representation, then we are having big problems. One can also apply that to football clubs and footballers that play for them.

I think the matter of contract and any type of local representation, whether in sport or politics lacks direction.  People’s convictions and personal beliefs do not count any longer as soon as an elected representative can be disposed of without seeking the agreement of the electorate.

In the recent scandals involving MP expenses, properly elected parliamentarians have been put on public trial without any proper investigations and the matter of their ‘guilt’ established. All sorts of accusations flew through the media and MPs forced into resignation before the matter was even properly investigated.

I think that is intolerable and can lead to a political swing into the wrong direction if it happens to enough MPs.

In that respect I actually want to come to the defence of Gordon Brown when he spoke about local jobs for local people. We have local schools for local children and those local children have to go to local schools. Yet in working matters we suddenly have the free movement of labour throughout Europe and that clashes with the interest of locals who because of other circumstances cannot undercut the prices for jobs on offer. The emphasis of local needs has moved into the background in football, work and parliamentary representation.  We even see the Conservatives arguing for more local government control don’t we? There is a very interesting contradiction appearing I think.

Imagine that once a politician is voted in he can then choose to change constituency and work for the highest paying constituency, so that we get better paid highly efficient MPs in some areas and not so good ones in others. That already works with lawyers, the best ones can demand the best prices, that would lead to a deterioration of some areas. Yet this principle is happily applied to football.

In education we certainly do have a post code bound system but in local government in general we are going away from it by now altering local housing services into national and commercial ones.

I think these changes go against the interests of local people in general whether in football, parliamentary representation or local government administration, its all become a business and profit venture that doesn’t allow much local choice at all. Especially the dismantling of the National Health Service that found strength in the ability to allocate national resources to local areas has suffered.

In particular that is why I assume the leader of the Church of EnglandDr Rowan Williams was concerned about the recent scandals to do with MPs because it takes away power from locals who elect representatives that they can be sacked on such issues or at least forced out with public pressure. Why call our Members of Parliament Right Honourable when we then treat them with disrespect. We devalue our own choices and the people we trust in if we do not find a more suitable system to handle discrepancies of what should be done and what shouldn’t be done especially in the area of expenses.
It seems to me there is so much uncertainty amongst a lot of MPs of what they can and what they can’t claim that it is hardly their fault but the fault of a slack system that pays out whatever.
Incidentally the Parish Councillors have lost a lot of power in the recent shake-ups of local authority organisation too.

In particular the disturbing incidence I had with the above mentioned George Galloway in that any letters of mine remained unanswered and that he invited me to come to the Hackney Empire, pay £15 entrance fee and ask questions there. This is political representation as per sale. I remarked about that in the East London Advertiser at the time and think this is a taste of things to come, in that Galloway is the fore-bearer of bad news.

The international and national elitism that this professional level of football creates has the positive effect of creating international bonds, which are good for peace but it throws away the importance of locally grown talent to compete on their own strength and ability as actual representatives of that local talent.

If MPs are no longer accountable to their constituency who can represent the constituency? It’s the constituents who vote them in and it should be the constituents to vote them out and not reporters and news coverage.
We need a more earthly approach to local issues and not neglect those local matters for the benefit of internationalism that is not always in our best interest. It was Policy Network under Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair making head-waves on international governance. I suppose a middle ground has to be found to satisfy the need for good international relations and local need.

We cannot argue away the local people who want jobs, who need recognition, personal fulfillment, who make our communities . We cannot live on the basis that all our people have to constantly move around to find the jobs within the EU, people like to live steady in the homes they bought, the flats they rent with the family they nurture, especially children need a permanent home.

What we have at the moment is mass unemployment with cheap goods delivered to our doors and great sport on the TV and I suppose a lot of us are happy as long as they can afford that season ticket. We want more personal local involvement to strengthen our communities and we have to get jobs to make us feel like we are important makers of our communities and don’t just live somewhere.

Blog Stats

  • 55,012 hits
%d bloggers like this: