Football Focus

[Steve K]

Sounds to me like a poor imitation. Just as Twenty20 cricket, isn't cricket.

Well, it sort of is, isn't it? Twenty20 is to one-day cricket as extra time is to 90 minutes of football - the same pitch, essentially the same rules, but less time to score.

 

There has to be some alternative to the appalling lottery of penalty shootouts (and I speak as a follower of Chelsea, so you might think I'd finally be a fan of them!), but I'm not sure what it is. Corners, maybe, taken in the normal way, with the teams taking them in turn, and given say 30 seconds to get a goal, or the other side have a go?

 

I don't even like penalties in the normal course of a game, where diving and refereeing inconsistency mean that their awarding often bears no relation to the state of play. An accidental nudge (or lack of one, very often) on a player running away from goal is penalised the same as a cynical hack or goal-line handball. It's irrelevant, I know, but penalties also often serve to artificially inflate the scoring records of the team's nominated spot-kick taker. With regards to that, I'd separate penalties from the scorer's "proper" goals - treat them like extras in cricket.

 

Obviously, I write all the above in the full knowledge that none of it will ever be turned into reality, but still wishing that it might...

[Gareth Collier]

Greetings,

If extra time hasn't sorted out a winner the 'win' could be given to the team that had the most possession. That might stop those teams who set out to 'park the bus' with no real intention or inclination to try to win the game normally. A team that had some sucess in Europe springs to mind over 2 semi finals and a final ;o)

Gareth

[Steve K]

If extra time hasn't sorted out a winner the 'win' could be given to the team that had the most possession. That might stop those teams who set out to 'park the bus' with no real intention or inclination to try to win the game normally.

 

It could also reward teams who play the ball all around their defence, and who value possession over real attacking intent.

 

If that's what you'd like to see, why not ignore any goals scored, and make the whole thing about keeping the ball? That would be just as tedious as "parking the bus"! Possession doesn't automatically mean a team deserves to win. And yes, I'm biased in this, being a fan of

A team that had some sucess in Europe... over 2 semi finals and a final

 

It's all tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I can't entirely agree with your otherwise admirable sentiments. I firmly believe there's room for many styles of play in the game. Although I didn't enjoy seeing Chelsea forced on the defensive for 3 games on the row, I was forced to admire their tenacity, even if I did have to watch from behind the sofa for most of it! And odn't worry, I'm not daft enough to claim that Chelsea are suddenly the best team in Europe, or anything like that...

 

Actually, here's a suggestion which isn't silly, and I know it's one that's come up from time to time: once a final goes to extra time, and half of the players are exhausted, allow each team another substitute (or even two). With fresher legs, each team might well be inclined to do a little more attacking. Of course, they may end up doing more defending, but at least it would be at a less sedate pace!

[oggy1953]

Anyone see Panorama tonight ? The racism in Poland and Ukraine is an absolute disgrace. I can honestly see games in the Euro 2012 being abandoned, should never have been awarded to these 2 countries.

[cary hill]

Anyone see Panorama tonight ? The racism in Poland and Ukraine is an absolute disgrace. I can honestly see games in the Euro 2012 being abandoned, should never have been awarded to these 2 countries.

 

Unfortunately I suspect this a generic problem with most former Soviet bloc countries, although I guess you could say that the Iberian peninsula isn't entirely clean in this respect either.

[Michael Delamar]

anniversary of the Heysel disaster today

[cary hill]

Well I'll eat my hat! See post #2114 above - it appears that the F.A.has voted for changes to kids'games, despite my pessimism. World Cup 2066 here we come ......

[43110andyb]

WE GET KNOCKED DOWN (article taken from the darlo uncovered website, sorry for the size of the piece but we really are in trouble now) http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news.php?NewsID=923

 

 

Originally published: 29th May 2012

As the headline says, we get knocked down, but I tell you what it is getting harder and harder to get back up again. Even Chumbawumba would be struggling now.

Back in January our clubs future was once again thrown into the air when Raj Singh put us into administration. Supposedly 'debt free' we had a chance to carry on. But then the full story started to unfold.

It was disclosed that we were not actually debt free, Raj Singh had 'loaned' money to the club. But fair play, he publicly stated that he would waive his loan repayment if the community was going to step forward and take over the club.

After some failed attempts to buy the club by businessmen it became apparent that the only option left was for us, the fans, to buy the club and rid it of all of the problems we have had in recent times.

In January the club was effecitively liquidated with Harvey Madden informing the players the club had gone. But an extra time intervention by the fans lead to £50k being invested and the promise of further investment with the view to purchase the club. The administrator changed his mind and the club was back in business. Crowds of over 6k turned up for the next two games.

Football fans from around the country chipped in and from a club with a hardcore fanbase of around 1400, we pooled together £14000 in two weeks to help the players out as they were not getting paid.

A further £70k was then injected by Darlington 1883, the fans group formed to take over, this helped the club tick over and also gave the group exclusivity to buy the club. The funds were once again made up of fans groups donations including the DUFF fund which was built up from not only Darlo fans but football fans from across the country and further afield.

The crowdcube pitch then went live and within weeks we hit the first £250k, this gave us the money to pay off the football creditors, further funding then stalled and settled around the £325k mark. We didn not have enought to pay off all of the non footballing creditors but a CVA could have been agreed. This would mean the club would pay off non football creditors over 3 years, but this all hinged on Raj Singh accepting the CVA. In the end it was not accepted, and the communities efforts were in vain.

At this point it became apparent that without a CVA we were going to be punished by the FA, who had already given us a 10 point deduction in the Blue Square Premier and put us under a player embargo which effectively relegated us.

With the club not actually owning the stadium, this due to the previous owner splitting it from the club and then defaulting on a loan, it meant that it was not feasable for us to play in a 25k seater stadium in the Evo Stick. The cost was over £270k a season and on reduced income it was not possible. So now we had to make the drastic decision of moving out of town with a view to returning to the area hopefully within 12 months to a new basic stadium once we have rebuilt. We, as a Community Club, do not want any repeat of going into administration again. It just isn't right and we must fund a way to run the club within it's means. After discussions with the FA for advice, 1883 decided to choose Shildon. It appears 1883 were given assurances by the FA that this would not affect any decision they would make regarding which league we were to play in.

Due to the change in situation of how 1883 planned to take the club forward, Financial Services Authority regulations meant that we had to return all of the money invested through crowdcube and hope people reinvest in a new Community Interest Company. www.1883cic.org

1883 then purchase Darlington Football Club for £100k, this including the £70k previously invested in the club back in February. They also gave a gaurantee to pay the footballing creditors what they were owed over the next three years, this is reported to be worth a further £100k.

Raj Singh then informs 1883 that he will sign over the football share, which the club needed to continue playing football, but according to The Northern Echo, attached certain conditions. These conditions were against the FA rules so 1883 could not accept them. Please don't ask me how a football share can be owned by an individual and not the football club, but thats just another FA rule nobody has explained.

1883 head to FA headquarters to plead our case and after the meeting it was deemed that all had gone well and hopes were high that we would only be relegated two leagues, to the Evo Stick league. Still a shock, but a punishment we felt was fair considering previous precedents that have been set.

Then we hear the news from the FA that because the club does not own a football share we are being treat as a new club and demoted 4 divisions to the Northern League division 1. But the inconsistancies continue. It has been like a scene from Rocky, day by day as we try to clamber up the ropes to regain our feet we get the biggest whack to lay us back on the floor.

Bam! Firstly if we are being treat as a new club then why are we being allowed to play next season, you have to be registered by March 31st to start the next season, but we will cough cough that one I think

Wollap! We are then told Shildons ground would not be acceptable in any higher league, 1883 claim that they were told by the FA that upgrades could be done to make it reach evo stick standards.

Smash! We are then told we have to change our name as Darlington FC no longer exists. So what have we actually purchased from the administrator? Thought it was Darlington Football Club?

Kaboom! We are the told by the FA on Monday 28th May that we cannot appeal as we are not registered with the Durham FA, even though we registered with the Durham FA as Darlington Football Club on Friday 25th May.

And when we are laid on the floor, gasping for air, the FA have kicked us right in the goolies with another beauty. We are now told we cannot play in any FA competitions as the 'new club', which the FA told us we were on Friday 25th May, was not registered by April 1st. The old club applied, but obviously not the 'new club' as it didn't exist back then.

It is now reported that Raj Singh has not attached any conditions to the release of the football share and an appeal is now likely. But listening to the FA comment on our situation it appears that they have very little knowledge of the history of our situation. As it stands it looks like we have paid £200k for well, erm, not sure at the moment.

As a Darlington crisis goes, this has got to be the biggest test of our strength ever. We have had everything taken from us, and I mean everything. We have nothing left for anybody to take. Stadium, gone. Manager, gone, Players, gone. League status, gone. FA competitions, gone. Now they want to take our name, sweet holy jesus!

We have had middle aged ladies lay out hundreds of pounds to purchase scarves to resell for a profit ( http://www.darlofc.c....php?NewsID=893 ), we have had pensioners bike ride to Lincoln, ending up in hospital, bucket collections around the country, fundraising matches, sponsored abseils, quiz nights, race nights, and all to be kicked in the teeth from the powers that are supposed to be looking after our beautiful game. But at least the sheiks got the trophies they wanted. I know that sounds bitter but from a fan of the lower leagues it seems that is all that matters these days.

It is time to rebuild, fight back and show these men in suits that we don't need them. We are normal hard working people who just want to support our home town club. All we have done is try and do the right thing by people who are owed money. It appears we would have been better off letting the club go bust back in January and start again as a phoenix club. At the moment we are neither dead or alive, and as this evening's news stated, we are infact a zombie club. This situation is actually encouraging clubs in future to go bust at the first opportunity, fighting to try and pay off your debts and give your club some diginity back does not work in your favour.

I wouldn't wish any of this on any other football fan, it is just so so typical that once again Darlington fans have been smashed in the face. This time we are in intensive care, but the life support machine will never be switched off, even when some are trying to unplug it.

Yes some things have been said against the FA, but it is out of sheer frustration, so many people have put hours of time and thousands of pounds of money into our small club, yet we have seen no reward for it at the end. We have lost everything, and as a football fan it is hard to take. Just please mr Football Association, give us a fair crack of the whip, recognise that we now have the original football share. Listen to our appeal and please allow us to continue the tradition of Darlington Football Club and allow us to start rebuilding in the Evo Stick.

Edited May 30, 2012 by 43110andyb

[S.A.C Martin]

Absolutely disgusting what has happened to Darlington. I think the FA are taking the right royal with this one.

 

Pity they are not so consistent in the top league with levels of debt.

[bike2steam]

Since when has the F.A. been fair, a club gets into hard times the F.A. make it worse - it happens time, and again.

[62613]

I agree with this but, moving on, has anybody noticed that the Annual General Meeting of F.A.ahareholders takes place today and there are apparently proposals to radically alter the format of the the game for 7 to 13 year olds - under-7s and 8s to play five-a-side,under-9s and 10s to play seven-a-side, under-11s and 12 to play to play nine-a-side, only moving to full size pitches,targets and team numbers at under-13.

 

This would bring us more into line with our more successful European footballing neighbours, where smaller pitches and reduced team numbers lead to increased contact with the ball and much better technique.

 

No more big boys at the back hoofing it long; no more midgets in full size goals impersonating Petr Cech: no more demented coaches barking contradictory adult instructions to confused kids and instilling a win at all costs mentality almost from birth.

 

Nothing will change, of course,because of the innate conservatism of the County Associations wishing to protect the 11-a-side game, so that a marauding band of Wayne Rooney wannabes can seize their destiny as under-9 champions of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes District League Division Five, sweeping all before them with a series of close 14-0 wins.

 

These teams are urged on from the touchline by platoons of "Ray Winstone" clone parents - I know because I see(hear?)this every other Sunday morning with our village teams.

 

Would such changes help our game and player skills in the long run?

 

This is a bit like re-inventing the wheel. In 1995/6 I took to coaching, not very well, a team of under-9s; we played 11-a-side on slightly smaller pitches, but we were the last under-9s in that particular league to do so. From the following season, under-9s played mini-soccer, i.e. 6v6 on small pitches with small goals. A couple of seasons later, it was extended to under-10s. A few years after that, under-8s started playing. Gradually it's evolved, so thst, in that particular league, the under-8s play 5v5, under-9s 6v6

and under-10s 7v7. The under-8s matches are non-competitive, in that no tables are published, nor are there knock-out cup competitions. The children allegedly play for the fun of it.

 

I don't know what you do with the Ray Winstone clones, though. I would guess that the ref. would have to take notice if the team manager wasn't. The ultimate sanction is to ask the parent's club to de-register his son (or daughter) so that he doesn't turn up at matches.

[62613]

Since when has the F.A. been fair, a club gets into hard times the F.A. make it worse - it happens time, and again.

Since when has the F.A. been fair, a club gets into hard times the F.A. make it worse - it happens time, and again.

 

No, the FA have followed their own rules regarding 'phoenix' clubs. Darlington are regarded as such due to the way they went about sorting their debts out; they exited administration without an approved CVA. It states clearly in their rules for the non-league pyramid that phoenix clubs will start at Step 5 of the NLS, or lower. The real problem is that the two guys who caused this mess passed the FA Fit and Proper Persons Test, even though the main one was a convicted criminal.

 

It's also worth pointing out that The Football Conference would inevitably have expelled them from their competition at their upcoming AGM, due to the administration, so at best they would have been in the Northern Premier League. The FC are very harsh on financial irregularities, probably the harshest of all competitions, as Boston and Northwich Victoria, in the last couple of seasons, will testify

[highpeak]

Your suggestions have nothing resembling a 'normal' match. Didn't the US in the 1970s experiment with all sorts of different Rules? It was only FIFA that took action, by telling them to desist or risk getting kicked out of FIFA that stopped them.

 

The best solution IMO is extra time of 15 minutes each way. If still level, then a replay in a few days time, with extra time again if required. If still level (after 240 minutes), then have the penalties, as probably the players would have difficulty standing.

 

Kevin Martin

The North American Soccer League did tinker a bit with the laws of the game, and FIFA did threaten to throw the US out. Among the changes they made was an alteration to law 11 with an additional line drawn across the field 35 yards from the goal line. You could only be offside beyond that line. Interestingly there had been proposals to liberalise law 11 similar to that in the 20s when you had to have three opponents between you and the goal line, and the FA of Wales recently proposed changing law 11 to only apply in the penalty area. That suggestion did not actually come to a vote at the IFAB meeting...

But NASL did have one idea that Mr Blatter might want to entertain. NASL matches had to end with a winner, since Americans find the idea of a draw a bit odd for some reason. Instead of kicks from the penalty mark, NASL used a series of ice hockey style one-on-ones to decide the outcome. A player started with the ball from the 35 yard line and could dribble and do what he wanted to try to beat the keeper. Here's Trevor Francis showing how to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYI-3EPZf4Q

[Ohmisterporter]

In the 1970s Blackpool played in the Anglo-Italian Cup competition, winning it in 1971. In the final in 1972 between Roma and Blackpool the line of the penalty area was extended across the pitch to the touchlines. There was no offside up to those lines. I don't remember how it affected the game, but I never saw it tried again although the idea has been suggested at various times. Probably the novelty of it took some getting used to, it was a strange time to experiment like that, the final of a competition. Roma won 3 - 1 as I recall.

 

Edit : To include more information.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Ohmisterporter

[DavidLong]

Fine old club like Darlington FC beset on all sides by lack of money and officialdom.

Chelsea spend £70m on two players.

Sometimes I just despair.

 

David

[kevinlms]

Fine old club like Darlington FC beset on all sides by lack of money and officialdom.

Chelsea spend £70m on two players.

Sometimes I just despair.

 

David

 

So what solution do you have?

 

Should we return to a situation where the great Stanley Matthews received the maximum wage of 12 pound a week?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Matthews

 

Admittedly 12 pounds was a lot of money in 1949-50, but is nothing like the dizzy heights of today, way beyond inflation.

 

Funny in regard to sporting 'wages', its the employer that encourages OTT payments and not as usually claimed a push by a union. Sorry to bring politics into this debate, but I think this issue is off the norm bashing.

 

I guess clubs COULD gang together to reduce transfer fees & player wages, but they have little desire to do so. The need for the big clubs to spend BIG money to ensure access to the benefits of playing (better still, to do well) in the UCL, means they need the best players. After all the top Spanish & Italian clubs do exactly that.

 

Kevin Martin

[DavidLong]

So what solution do you have?

 

Should we return to a situation where the great Stanley Matthews received the maximum wage of 12 pound a week?

 

http://en.wikipedia....tanley_Matthews

 

Admittedly 12 pounds was a lot of money in 1949-50, but is nothing like the dizzy heights of today, way beyond inflation.

 

Funny in regard to sporting 'wages', its the employer that encourages OTT payments and not as usually claimed a push by a union. Sorry to bring politics into this debate, but I think this issue is off the norm bashing.

 

I guess clubs COULD gang together to reduce transfer fees & player wages, but they have little desire to do so. The need for the big clubs to spend BIG money to ensure access to the benefits of playing (better still, to do well) in the UCL, means they need the best players. After all the top Spanish & Italian clubs do exactly that.

 

Kevin Martin

 

Sorry, Kevin, I don't have a solution. It was just the unfortunate juxtaposition of the two events. Darlington supporters raising what are pitiful sums for a club like Chelsea and then, when they do, getting knocked back by officialdom. This is also not an arguement for clubs getting into financial difficulties and then being able to get off without any consequences. In the same breath I am not one of those who wrings his hands about the amount of money in the Premier League and the sort of players that it can attract. Despite not being a Chelsea fan I look forward to seeing the talents of Eden Hazard on a regular basis next season.

 

David

[Steve K]

Fine old club like Darlington FC beset on all sides by lack of money and officialdom.

Chelsea spend £70m on two players.

A real difficult time for Darlington (or whatever name they are going to have to use from now on - unbelievable). Despite being a Chelsea fan, believe me when I say that the other leagues do matter, and it's awful to see any team go through what Darlo are experiencing at the moment.

 

Do all clubs get treated equally fairly by the FA? It's hard to tell, as every case is different. However, I'm reminded of what I heard some financial guru say some time back. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially, the idea is this: if you're a few thousand pounds in debt, you're in trouble, but if you're tens of millions in debt, everyone wants to bail you out.

 

(Edited for missing letters and general ham-fistedness)

Edited June 2, 2012 by Steve K

[Claude_Dreyfus]

So, Liverpool have Brendan Rogers as their new boss. It was inevitable that he would move on, but this is a big step up - despite Liverpool's recent difficulties.

 

If he can bring Swansea's recent style of play to Anfield, not to mention the home record, the Kopites will be a very happy bunch. It sounds like the owners are being realistic, not expecting instant success, which is good as Liverpool as a squad are far behind the two Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and even Newcastle in quality and certainly application. It will take a couple of seasons for them to really compete. The owners have certainly put a lot of faith in him, but have also signalled their desire as to how football should be played at Liverpool - attacking, quick and expansive.

 

If he can get the team to adapt to his style - which is a world away from King Kenny, and to a certain extent Roy - then Liverpool could be a really exciting team to watch over the next few years.

 

This could also be good news for Joe Cole, who has made it clear that he wants to stay at Liverpool, as Roger's worked with him at Chelsea. Will also be interested to see if the reported 'Gentleman's Agreement' the Swansea chairman talked about is actually in place.

 

I wish him and Liverpool luck for next season - it has the potential to be a very good combination.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

A real difficult time for Darlington (or whatever name hey are going to have to use - unbelievable). Despite being a Chelsea fan, believe me when I say that the other leagues do matter, and it's awful to see any team go through what Darlo are experiencing at the moment.

 

Do all clubs get treated equally fairly by the FA? It's hard to tell, as every case is different. However, I'm reminded of what I heard some financial guru say some time back. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially, the idea is this: if you're a few thousand pounds in debt, you're in trouble, but if you're tens of millions in debt, everyone wants to bail you out.

 

Of course, there was the distinct possibility that Chelsea could have gone that way had Roman not rode in to the rescue with his billions.

 

It may be a cruel thing to say, but that is the fact for so much of life. There are the haves and have nots...and many of the have nots are in that situation because they (collective term including suspect owners and dodgy managers, bad accounting etc. etc. etc.) put themselves there. Darlington are in that situation, just like Leeds were, Southamton were, and my own team Portsmouth still are. It is sad for the supporters when this happens, and not a little galling when your club could be saved and have its debts wiped out for less than the price of some individual players, but that's life.

 

The same with debt - Man Utd has a debt that would obliterate pretty much any other club in the country - certainly kill off any of the league clubs. But they have the turn-over and resources to manage the debt. On the flip side some clubs would quite happily have the debt the size of Portsmouth's and would bite your hand off for Darlington's.

 

Just another couple of comparisons, a few years ago Accrington Stanley were threatened with winding up over a £300,000 tax bill. That is less than a month's wages for most of the Premiership's star players. Christiano Ronaldo's transfer fee to Real Madrid could have paid for Portsmouth's planned 36,000 stadium at Port Solent outright.

 

All that said, I do honestly hope that Darlington survive and get themselves back on the road to recovery.

[highpeak]

In the 1970s Blackpool played in the Anglo-Italian Cup competition, winning it in 1971. In the final in 1972 between Roma and Blackpool the line of the penalty area was extended across the pitch to the touchlines. There was no offside up to those lines. I don't remember how it affected the game, but I never saw it tried again although the idea has been suggested at various times. Probably the novelty of it took some getting used to, it was a strange time to experiment like that, the final of a competition. Roma won 3 - 1 as I recall.

 

Edit : To include more information.

One of the problems with that kind of idea is the impact it has on the assistant referee. You would end up running only from the goal line to wherever the new offside limit line is, reducing your ability to help the referee out in the rest of the field. You'd end up needing additional touchline ARs to provide the same level of assistance to the referee.

[Ohmisterporter]

I see the Football League chairmen's meeting has voted for seven substitutes on the bench from next season. Only three can be used, but I can't help wondering where this will end up. I think they had seven before they dropped it to five. Make up your minds fellas.

[BoD]

How about making it like American football. An attacking side, a defensive side and a penalty taking side all exchanged as and when necessary. It would have to happen 'on the hoof' though, as play switched from one end to the other, so as not to slow the game down.

[S.A.C Martin]

Between the Football League, the FA, the Premier League, and the Referee's Association, there's so much backtracking, meddling, and over enthusiastic rewriting of the laws of the game in specific areas that it's become something of an in joke over the last decade.

 

The basic laws have remained the same in principle, but in trying to remove one grey area they normally introduce two more. The offside rule and its wording hasn't changed largely since its inception but how it is taught and how referees/officials play it has (and it's normally different to how the clubs, fans and pundits interpret it). It's not the only one for which that rings true.

[62613]

Between the Football League, the FA, the Premier League, and the Referee's Association, there's so much backtracking, meddling, and over enthusiastic rewriting of the laws of the game in specific areas that it's become something of an in joke over the last decade.

 

The basic laws have remained the same in principle, but in trying to remove one grey area they normally introduce two more. The offside rule and its wording hasn't changed largely since its inception but how it is taught and how referees/officials play it has (and it's normally different to how the clubs, fans and pundits interpret it). It's not the only one for which that rings true.

 

There was a big change in the offside law in the late 1920s when the number of defending players was reduced from 3 to 2. Defences still hadn't worked out a solution by 1930/31(?) when 'Dixie' Dean scored 60 goals in a season in the 1st Division; a record which stands to this day.

 

It does say somewhere in the LOAF that the number of substitutes is at the discretion of the competition. Just because it says you can have 7 subs, it doesn't mean you have to name seven, especially when you can only play three of them. If a professional football club can't muster 19 registered players, they've got a serious problem.

Edited June 2, 2012 by 62613