Common Sense

“Today [11^th of February 2011] is the day that common sense won”. So says Karren Brady. “The stadium was built on a promise” she continues, “a promise made in the Queen’s name, to have a legacy for athletics in London”, and if, as expected, the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s (OPLC) decision is ratified, West Ham’s owners – Davids Gold and Sullivan – and vice-chairman Brady will be the ones to honour her majesty’s word. In today’s climate it might be a decision I’d later regret, but if ever I met FHM’s 98^th sexiest woman 1995, I’d have to tell her she was talking utter shite.

Tottenham Hotspur’s rival bid for the site in East London was dismissed as ‘corporate crime’, and disgraceful waste of the government’s investment, because Spurs wanted to knock down the Olympic Stadium and purpose-build a new footballing arena on the site. West Ham on the other hand will not make any structural changes and will use their new purchase to host athletics, T20 cricket, music concerts and community events, as well as football. Even though the decision has been everything but rubber-stamped, I want to have a quick look at the two bids, and decide if common sense really did win.

At first look, it would appear so. From a corporate point of view, surely it makes much more sense to have a versatile stadium that can be funded and maintained by attracting a wide variety of punters through the electronic, x-ray, SWAT-patrolled turnstiles, rather than narrowing the venue’s appeal and thus potentially risk sustained losses and even bankruptcy by reducing the revenue potentially available? If you’ve got government backing for this Project Mass-Appeal, if the stadium is being built on someone else’s (tax-payers’) money, and if a team of realist Guy Richie extras are at the helm, what could possibly go wrong?

From a footballing point of view too, it has a certain appeal. One of England’s most iconic clubs is in desperate need of rejuvenation: images of Bobby Moore beaming and Paolo Di Canio saluting are less synonymous these days than Avram Grant apologising and Carlton Cole…well doing what he always did, or rather didn’t, do – and that’s before we’ve even mentioned the owners’ inspirational votes of confidence in the manager published in the press. Moving to a shiny new stadium might just be the tonic needed to inspire the players, settle the manager and satisfy the board’s hunger to ‘define an era’. They might start improving. They might even attract more players of Benni McCarthy ability.

Finally, it has a certain appeal ‘for the community’. Assuming such a thing exists in London – which I for one am very sceptical of – it would surely benefit those who live in the run-down areas surrounding the Olympic stadium if it was left as a monument to the unifying power of sport and the omniscient benevolence of the government, a beacon of hope to any visitors, who might feel hopeful that similar changes could be directed their way soon (although this argument seems to overlook the fact that the weekly dole allowance wouldn’t even cover the District Line ticket to the site, let alone entry to any events). Conversely, tearing the thing down as soon as the world’s eyes are diverted would confirm to many that the government doesn’t care about anything except its own reputation.

Considering the three arguments above, it is very easy to agree with Brady that common sense can indeed be considered the victor. West Ham’s bid offered the most viable solution to the problem of ensuring a massive one-off investment is maintained and enjoyed by generations to come, both as an athletics arena, and more generally, an iconic sporting arena.

The problems then. Firstly and most importantly: football and athletics do not mix. Never have, never will. The only point of contact these two spheres should have is the occasion media stunt involving a celebrity fan – although recently players have infiltrated modern football with the belief that being able to run very very fast makes up for a complete lack of talent on or near the ball: Gabriel Obertan I’m (reluctantly) looking at you.

It is impossible to recreate the atmosphere at somewhere like Upton Park, especially when I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles is in full swing, if there is a gap of up twenty metres between the front row of seats and the near touchline. With events like athletics and crickets where a big screen relays all the action to those in the back row, and attending is as much about the experience as it is observing all the action, being fifty metres away is OK; but at a football match…you might as well stay at home, save £70 and watch MOTD.

Secondly, while it’s easy to imagine the Olympic Stadium being sold-out for two weeks straight while the track and field events are taking place in 2012 – any excuse to fly the Union Jack, sing the anthem and get pissed – it’s harder to see the 80,000 seats being filled week in week out. In these times of austerity, will people be willing to pay regularly? Will claret and blue binoculars be made available? West Ham are a team looking odds on for relegation. Can you see anyone paying that kind of money to watch a mid-week Championship game, especially when, for the same price you can watch Champions League football elsewhere in the city?

The Hammers are very well supported within London and this is and always has been built on a sizeable die-hard contingent who would walk from Tower Hamlets or Havering twice a week if needs be. But it’s hard to imagine their number being sufficient to fill an 80,000-seater regularly, especially if their seat was forty feet from the pitch. In order for the stadium to generate enough revenue then, it will have to rely on other sources of income besides football.

OK then, athletics. After 2012, will they make any significant difference? How often are athletics events held that any cares about, and of these rarities, how many are in London? The Commonwealth games and the European Championships maybe, but are these all going to be held in London from now on just to fund the Olympic Stadium? Similarly, T20 Cricket’s popularity is increasing and, marketed correctly, it isn’t unforeseeable that people will watch it at a modern venue rather than the Oval, but unless it was England Australia every week, you’d be lucky to get 10% of the seats filled. And what of the consequences for cricket across the UK if all events must be held in the capital to justify the stadium’s existence?

Plus, cricket and athletic events cannot be held in an outdoor stadium such as the Olympic Park, between October and March because of the weather (and even six months on is an optimistic estimate). Presumably these will be the months in which the majority of outside events are held in order to compensate for the income lost from summer sports.  But how feasible is it to expect a decent pitch on Saturday if 50,000 people have been jumping up and down on it on Tuesday, especially in the winter? And what damage will field athletic events do to the grass? Is there not a lesson to be learned from the Wembley ‘turf’ where concerts are staged, and the Emirates’ playing surface, which is only graced by footballers?

Once the novelty has worn off and people have been to it once, the reality is that even when costs are shared between three sports (two of which are seasonal) and supplemented by outside events such as gigs, you’re going to struggle to break even whilst still maintaining the standards required of a modern stadium. As in any capital city, the neutral sports fan’s money is sought after by a variety of big-hitting attractions within Greater London – Wembley, Twickenham, the Oval, Wimbledon, Stamford Bridge, the Emirates, the O2 Arena, White Hart Lane to name a few – and the cold hard truth of the matter is that West Ham aren’t a big enough club to bring in the majority percentage of the requisite income. They don’t make enough money to justify having such a big ground.

So the OPLC made the wrong decision then: Tottenham then were the right choice? Under their proposal the Olympic Stadium would follow the Games themselves and become and memory rather than a physical legacy, with the ground being all but demolished and a new, purpose-built footballing arena built in its place. The massive initial costs would then be recouped through this investment: having a currently state-of-the-art stadium that would theoretically last Spurs the next century or so.

Regarding the issue of the promise made by Lord Coe (you know, the guy who speaks on our behalf without us knowing) in ‘our’ Queen’s name (which none of us would ever dream of taking in vain) about a legacy of athletics in London, Tottenham’s bid’s answer was simple. Instead of manufacturing an entirely new legacy from scratch by sharing British athletics’ flagship arena with a football club, they would instead fund the redevelopment of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, the home of British athletics for the last fifty years. Surely rejuvenating history is a more fitting way of ensuring a legacy than manufacturing a new home and allowing a site steeping in history to become even more decrepit?

The lack of a running track and sole ownership of the arena are definitely initially attractive to football fans: Gooners and visiting support alike cannot speak highly enough of the quality of the Emirates, especially now initial claims regarding a lack of atmosphere have been quelled (as exemplified by their defeat of Barcelona there in mid-February). Tottenham are, at this point in time, a better candidate for stadium expansion than West Ham, judging both on their league position and performances on the pitch, but also on their clout in the transfer market and stability of ownership and manager. The Spurs are very much a club in the ascendency while you have to speculate the Hammers’ slide could just be beginning.

Tottenham have the grass-roots support to contribute a significant number of the requisite weekly bums-on-seats, the financial backing to ride-out the initial heavy losses incurred by building a new stadium, and are rapidly building a squad, style of play, and reputation to draw in neutrals on a regular enough basis to think about breaking even eventually. The eastwardly relocation could also prove beneficial as it would separate them slightly from Arsenal – who still have to be considered the dominant North London club – and establish them as an individual entity, rather than a bigger clubs’ neighbours.

This hypothetical move however, would be problematic: it would surely exacerbate the Hammers’ problems further as well affecting other London clubs. Kids growing up in the East End would have the choice of a Championship or Champions League team as their local club, and while family ties may run deep, six year-olds aren’t saints. As Barry Hearn points out about West Ham’s relocation: any club moving within such a condensed footballing city will inevitably hurt the smaller clubs – Leyton Orient, Milwall, Charlton and Dagenham & Redbridge – who cannot possibly expect to pull the punters in if bigger neighbours encroach on their traditional territories’. Who’s to say West Ham won’t one day be counted among the capital’s minnows?

Another problem for Tottenham’s bid, and thus a reason for them to celebrate not getting it, is, funnily enough, the community. I personally believe you’d find friendlier faces in the Libyan army than in the Burgh of Westminster at rush hour, but speaking to a Spurs fan, he says that the only thing holding the district of Tottenham together is the footballing team. Most agree that a new stadium is needed – 36,000 seats do not reflect the club’s ambitions – but that it must remain in the district to work. Moving away from White Hart Lane and ergo Haringey would disillusion fans who believe that a new stadium is not sufficient compensation for relocation.

Personally, I can’t see why either West Ham or Tottenham would want to move. For West Ham is represents a massive sacrifice on behalf of the fans, who would have to watch what is looking increasingly like Championship football played on a pitch torn-up from last Tuesday’s JLS concert and Thursday’s under-19s regional shot-put and javelin trials, from a distance that might serve as a poignant reminder as to just how far away a return to former glory days is. For Tottenham, consolidating their recent resurgence as a major European force by building a 60,000+ seater is as inevitable as it is essential, but a permanent move away from N17 could serve to disrupt all the positive strides made in the last twenty years.

It is the former however which looks most like coming to fruition. With the New Cockney Mafia at the helm and the blessing of the Olympic committee, the government and Boris Johnson, not to mention her majesty the Queen (who surely wouldn’t want anything promised in her name to be taken in vain) West Ham will relocate for the 2012-13 season, irrespective of what level they’re playing at. If the experts above believe it can work, who am I to doubt it? Who are the fans to have reservations? February 11th, 2011: a proud day for common sense indeed.

Get Bent

Forty-nine million pounds turns heads. It’s the kind of investment on which you’re going to want to keep the receipt. In four high profile moves, Darren Bent has accumulated a collective price-tag of nearly fifty mil., yet no one has ever really got him. He’s been at the clubs, turned up for training, and played reasonably well in games but never has he really gained the affections of the fans, or of the press. Why, when these clubs have shelled out progressively more and more for him, have they always needed to keep the receipt?

At 26, Bent is approaching what most would considered to be his golden years, and certainly there are no immediate causes for a mid-career crisis: 32 goals in 58 games at Sunderland; an impressive strike-rate at Spurs when you consider how many starts he got; and 31 in 68 whilst plying his professional trade at Charlton in the mid-noughties. There have never been any major concerns he would fall down the Jeffers, Nugent or Collymore route of English striking talent spurned. Yet with this move to Villa, the question has to be asked: if not now then when?

His seven England caps have been explained many ways, but the simple fact is that the FA appoints national coaches with all the thought and tact of a Tijuana temping agency. This is because the arrogance of the press decrees The Eleven Lions should pick themselves; we invented football and if only the weather/ref/WAGs/Germans had/hadn’t done this or that we’d be as unbeatable as Bolivia are when they play at the Estadio Hernando Siles. If the press aren’t on your side, the manager can’t pick you. And the more Bent roams off the pitch – on the pitch his off the ball movements aren’t the most subtle – the closer he wanders to journeyman status. And then he’s definitely not going to get picked.

It should be said that, while Bent lacked none the opportunities presented to more successful, but not necessarily more talented, strikers he’s never had a mentor. Charlton, Spurs and Sunderland have had twice as many managers in the last 7 years as Bent has international appearances, and the rewards to be reaped of full managerial backing can be best seen in his spell under Steve Bruce – possibly why his response to Randy Learner’s inquisitions was verbatim to Houllier’s instruction to his American chairman: get Bent. When old candle-face made disparaging comments about his finishing ability (not something any man wants) you have to feel it was not just the striker’s ability to breech David James’ goal he was bemoaning, but his credentials as a Champions League striker.


In that case then, more fool Villa surely: they’re the ones paying over the odds for a distinctly average striker. Or does Houllier believe that his investment is just that: something to be nurtured and built upon? The stats are there to see, and while Steve Bruce was able to rebuild Bent’s confidence, a lack of top-level managerial experience might have limited how far the rebirth could stretch. The Frenchman has nearly thirty years under his belt managing national (Lyon), European (Liverpool) and world (France) champions. Belief from him could prove the catalyst for consistently inspired form. At the end of the day, it comes down to individual temperament, the desire to be the best.

While you’re reeling from this sensational conclusion, I’d like to say, this article’s main focus isn’t actually Darren Bent (it just made too good a title not to pursue). The England man is however a salient case-study for the core discussion: the January transfer window.

Events on Monday have both dwarfed, and to an extent justified, the price Villa paid – Bent’s record looks like Shearer’s compared to Andy Carroll and while the latter is considered England’s hottest striking prospects, I would direct your eyes to aforementioned forwards before telling me which one you’d rather have in your team. The January transfer window is essentially double-glazed though: you have 30 days in which to pay an inflated fee for a player based on their performance since the start of the season; then you have 24 hours where all hell breaks loose. It paid to get Bent sooner.

The window’s initial purpose – to create stability – was doomed to failure from the beginning; why people thought that clubs would spend more sensibly if you limited the time in which they could do so is anyone’s guess. It’s like saying: there’s a food shortage and everyone’s hungry. In order to stop panic buying we’re only going to open Tesco from 5-8 in the evening. It’s already the busiest time of day but people definitely aren’t going to shit themselves when they release their access to already limited resources is being restricted further;  I’m sure instead they can be trusted to save their existing food, not try to steal anyone else’s, and only buy what they need so that nothing runs out.

January brings out the worst in everyone – players become overly ambitious and therefore ever more egotistical; the director/board members jerk their puppets’ knees even more vigorously than usual and staff are discarded faster than the team is sinking; those managers who do survive desperately scour Football Manager for a decent full-back and a 20-goals-a-season centre-forward; meanwhile the press don’t so much fan the flames, as stoke the fires with all the methane they’re blowing out their ass, Lynx-can-on-a-bonfire style. Don’t get me wrong, it makes great viewing, Requiem for a Dream in footballing terms. It’s just that it is killing the Premier League.

The main problem about allowing players to move in January is that prices are based on form, not on ability. Players who were relatively unheard of in the summer become the obsessive focus of frenzy-eyed gaffers; while those who burned brightest in the spring are now highly-paid charcoal, desperate awaiting their phoenix’s arrival. The off-season in the summer – European Championships and World Cups obviously aside – allow for progressive scouting, sensible negotiations and a considered bargaining process (either that or Real Madrid post a cheque at the first available opportunity). A 5 million pound centre-back in June is still a five million pound centre-back in August. The difference is the selling club has had a chance to find a suitable replacement.

The primary focus of mid-season transfer should be to patch-up a squad; not to dramatically alter it for better (as in West London and arguably in Merseyside) or for worse (as on Tyne and to a lesser extent Wear). While nobody can deny that injuries, poor form and acts of God make it essential for the market to function in some respects during the season, to have fully blown bidding wars and the resulting fallout at a time in the year when most Premiership teams play mid-week and weekend is clearly massively detrimental to all involved.

The obvious solution would be to allow players to move on loan in January – and maybe even throughout the whole season – but limit transfers to the off-season: first of June to the middle of August, say the Tuesday or Wednesday before the first Saturday to let the furore die down a wee bit. That way holes can be polyfillad without rushed major structural changes. It might also instil some loyalty into players who consider a four-year contract to be worth roughly the same as Mark Lawrenson’s opinion: millions on paper but in reality fuck all.

Loan moves might then become more significant, it’s true – no longer just a way for youngsters to fill their boots a bit or fringe actors to kick a first team ball, but a major indication of a player’s preferred career progressions. But as long as the balance of power regarding the authorization of loans remains relatively even (i.e. the smaller or financially weaker clubs are not bullied into loaning their stars) squad deficiencies could still be addressed without the circus of permanent transfers. A club’s player would also be their player for the whole nine months of the season rather than the four in autumn.

Talented footballers could still achieve their dream moves to big clubs and play Champions League football or win trophies; they would just have to do so in a way that was respectful to those who got them where they were. Liverpool weren’t interested in Charlie Adam when he was a Rangers reject; only because of Ian Holloway is he the player he is (though whether or not the Tangerines’ manager deserves a cut of any sell-on fee is another matter). It’s only right therefore that the Scot plays the way he has been and does everything he can to keep Blackpool in the Premiership, before moving on amicable in the summer with an established replacement in place.

A model example of this can be found in an often much-maligned midfielder and captain. Cesc Fabregas has been the subject of admiring overtures from Barcelona since before Wenger’s last Specsavers test – and the fact that they are his dream move is both perfectly understandable and no secret – yet he continues to be the best player in an Arsenal shirt and honour his contract while those above him squabble about when (not if) he’s going to move and how much for.

By allowing players to sign for a mid-table team with sunny grins in the summer, raise golden hopes of Europe in the autumn and then crack, freeze and melt away into the shadows of a bigger club in the winter only benefits the over privileged: egoistical players and financially frivolous board-members. It increases pressure on managers by tacitly telling them if they’re struggling in November, someone else’ll be in by December so the squad can be overhauled in January; gives the already dreich demeanour of messers Moyes, Holloway, Bruce ECT an added venom as they use the twigs at their disposal to fend of the hyenas; and shatters squad morale by painting loyalties, etched shades of grey by the press, in stark black and white: “I think I deserve better teammates than you lot”.

Whether or not this will prove the case with Bent (or indeed Torres, Carroll, Luis, Sessegnon et al.) only time will tell. Anelka’s transfer in 2008 revitalised his career while Bellamy’s stuttered after a promising start. Both Bolton and West Ham however are still tenderly recovering from their brief flirtations with two of the Prem’s most notorious journeymen. That they had outgrown their ponds’ is evident, but the timing of their departure hurt the clubs that had nurtured their careers back to multimillion-pound health. Bent’s mileage doesn’t quite put him on this level yet, but he’s not far off. By being able to move in January you’d have to say the Black Cat’s chances of Europe have been severely jeopardized.

Nothing can be won in football by Christmas, but everything can be lost. Whether it’s the prestige of the title, European glamour, mid-table comfort or survival’s lucrative promises, a club aims to reach May with some dignity and pride intact: this season was a progressive one, we did well. Players receive various awards and accolades, but ultimately it’s the team which is held to account most in the summer. How is it fair to do this when ambitions can be crippled as early as the end of the January transfer window?