Real grassroots clubs underpin football in this country - and get nothing

There’s a load of baloney spoken about “grassroots” in football.

People in the Premier League (if they think about it all, which is doubtful) and pundits on TV think grassroots is just below the Football League, i.e. the Conference.

The FA (who really should know better) think that grassroots football is played by women or males under 18.

Yet, what of real grassroots football – played by tens of thousands of players for thousands of teams in hundreds of leagues up and down the country – played by adult male footballers.

My club Weysiders FC (I am the chairman) have been playing near the lowest level of football since our first entry into a league in 1974. (We did have some success along the way.)

In all that time we have to play on Council pitches. In all that time (40 years), the changing rooms where we play (Shalford Park, Guildford) have never been upgraded (they may have had a coat of paint, but nothing more). The pitches (unfortunately suffering from not being flat due to the natural lie of the land) did improve under good maintenance in 1980s and 1990s, but recently have been left almost untended. They probably get cut twice a year. They are never rolled. The result is that the surface is hardly conducive to playing football. Last week, the Council had not even bothered to re-mark the pitches (which they usually do, every Thursday).

Long grass, no lines. What real grassroots football has to put up with.

The cost of a pitch is £72.40 (going up to £76 next season). In these days of austerity, this is no more or less than a tax on the use of sports fields. So much for the fight against obesity; so much for any sporting legacy from the 2012 Olympics; and so much for football at a higher level – they just don’t care.

Yet players, clubs, referees, people who run those clubs (yes, volunteers who have been there long before purple and red uniforms made volunteering cool) underpin the fabric of football in this country. The fewer players there are at all levels, the fewer good players there will be at top level. It is obvious and it is evident. The fewer opportunities there are for people to play sport, the more prevalent will be the obesity problem.

But clubs at our level get no help at all and, as I said, are charged outrageously for poor facilities. And yes, I realise ‘this is Surrey’ and I’m sure many other counties and towns have even worse facilities.

Sport England have cut £1.6m of funding to the FA. People outside football will laugh and say, “quite right, with all the money ‘they’ are being paid, they don’t need funding.” I read (Lancashire Telegraph) that “The FA has been hit with a reduction in funding after failing to meet their participation targets, with Sport England instead opting to use the money to create a grassroots ‘City of Football’.

We are the real grassroots of football – we have never had any funding, so where the FA money has gone to reach its ‘participation targets’ I have no idea.

FA General Secretary Alex Horne said that he “understands Sport England’s decision but does not believe it will impact on grassroots football.” He’s right: grassroots football has never received any funding anyway!

Tigers: what's in a nickname need not be in a name

I'm right behind Hull City supporters in their fight against the proposed name change of their club to Hull Tigers.

Yuk.

Current Hull City owner Assem Allam has applied to the FA to change the club's name from next season. I have to confess I didn't know a club had to apply to the FA for a name change - I thought that would be a club decision. However, if applying to the FA helps stop this nonsense, then the application process is obviously a good thing. It seems that an FA council has "absolute discretion" over the name change decision.

Hull have been City since their formation in 1904, the nickname "Tigers" seemingly coming from a Hull Daily Mail reporter the following year.

Hull City supporters have formed a "City Till I Die" campaign, and they hope the FA will deny the name change application. It seems that the FA will consult Hull City supporters on the name change. If they do, then it's dead in the water. Allam has allegedly said that opponents "can die as soon as they want". That's helpful and encompassing, isn't it? He reckons the renaming will help with the branding of the club. Not where it matters - in Hull - it won't.

Football could learn a lot from other sports (use of technology, timing of play, treating injuries while the game goes on, among others), but silly suffixes to names is certainly not one of them.

Match-fixing arrests give me that sick feeling

It makes me feel a little bit sick when I read headlines like this "Six arrests in football match-fixing investigation" as on the BBC website today.

I feel sick because someone is playing around with our game for the sake of gambling and money.

And that threatens the integrity of our Beautiful Game. Which makes me feel sick.

Apparently six men (including three footballers) were arrested by the National Crime Agency (NCA) over suspected international illegal betting. But none of the investigations concerned "professional clubs" (whatever they are these days).

The NCA was reported to be working closely with the Gambling Commission and the FA.

The FA said: "We have worked closely with the authorities in relation to these allegations. The FA will make no further comment at this time due to ongoing investigations."

We can't have this sort of scum threatening the integrity of our game. Let's hope they're all wheedled out and locked up.

With all that money washing around in the game

As chairman of a small local football club (Weysiders FC) I sometimes wonder what the FA does for us.

We are an adult club, and have been in existence since 1973. In that time we had a maximum of four teams at one time (currently we run two), have played a total of 2,453 games and used 787 players. We have never risen above Surrey Intermediate League level (we won that league in 1985, but didn't have the facilities to progress any further) and play on a pitch hired from the local council.

The Leagues over the years have provided us with organised competitions and the Surrey FA has provided us with County Cup competitions.

We pay both the League and the Surrey County FA for the privilege.

With all that money washing around in the game.

"They" say that there are not enough coaches in the game, yet to take a coaching course you have to pay (several times as there are several levels).

With all that money washing around in the game.

Adult clubs get no help at all at our level. We have to charge our players a match fee to play and the club runs on an annual budget of less than £7,500.

With all that money washing around in the game.

All the people who run the club (e.g. chairman, secretary, treasurer, managers) do so for free. They talked about volunteers at the Olympics. What about volunteers at local sports clubs (not just football) who have carried out their duties for free for years?

With all that money washing around in the game.

What does the FA do for a club like us?

Misplaced loyalty costs Fabio dear

So Fabio has gone!

The mistake the FA made when they appointed Fabio was thinking that putting a good manager in charge of the players would help create a great team.

But you can’t expect a chef to create a great meal with rotten ingredients.

And Fabio Capello couldn’t create a great team with overrated, overpaid and in the end, rotten players.

It is not surprising that the root cause of his downfall was a player who has caused and continues to cause ruffles and ructions wherever he goes. In his annoyance against the FA stripping John Terry of the England captaincy, Fabio Capello showed misplaced loyalty to a player whose very actions show little respect for the thoughts or feelings of anyone else. Capello would have been better off without him.

Whether England will be better off without Capello is open to question – and millions of words will be written in trying to answer it.

For now, it’s farewell to Fabio, but we’re still stuck with Terry.

Blatter back in as FIFA president

So Sepp Blatter was re-elected unopposed as President of FIFA yesterday.

The FA's "too-little-too-late" attempt to postpone the election in the light of corruption investigations and unopposed candidacy was mocked and scorned by a succession of speakers from Haiti, Congo, Fiji, Benin and Cyprus. They called the FA's stance unconstituional and said that the interference from media and politicians was unwarranted. I'll bet.

The FA went out on a limb, with little support, and their position was defeated as 172 delegates (of 206) voted to continue to the election. Blatter was re-elected. "Today something marvellous happened and I'd simply like to tell you I'm deeply moved and honoured. It's a challenge, a new one for me, and I accept it," he said, in somehwat mock surprise.


Is there any light at the end of this murky FIFA tunnel?

Well, maybe the corruption investigations will find something to stick.

It appears that the way World Cup venues are chosen will change to encompass votes from ALL the delegates rather than the 24-man executive committee. That should make it more difficult for widespread corruption from potential hosts.

There were words (let's hope, not platitudes) around making FIFA more transparent and to "restart the credibility of FIFA". Blatter said: "Everyone was waiting for solutions - now we will apply them."


I'll not be holding my breath.

Dismal England's problems are deep-rooted

England's showing in the 2-1 defeat against France last night was truly poor.

Comparisons were made beforehand about both countries' dismal efforts in the World Cup in the summer, but whereas England have maintained a position of sixth in the world, France fell to 21st. On last night's evidence, these positions will soon be reversed.

France showed good control, passing and movement and kept the ball for long periods. England's control was sloppy, the passing wayward, there was little movement, and possession amounted to two or three passes at most.

France have bounced back since the World Cup; England patently have not. The reason is that France had good players before, during and after the World Cup - but were poorly managed and rebellious. England did not and do not have very good players (despite a good showing in World Cup qualification), and it doesn't really matter how England are managed, nothing changes.

Fabio Capello may make mistakes, but the underlying problem is not really his fault. When the FA appointed him they thought that a 'big name' with a 'track record' was what was needed. It was deluded thinking. At this level, a good manager can turn a good team into a great team, but a good manager cannot turn average players into good players, or even into a good team.

As I have said many times before, the problems are much more deep-rooted than this. With so few English players playing at the top level (e.g. the English Premier League) it is little wonder that we cannot produce a top-class eleven to compete with the best in the world.

We were told and we hoped that after the 4-1 thrashing by Germany in the World Cup that 'something would have to change now'. It didn't.

The misery is with us for many years to come.

Agents want a place on the FA council

After the figures were revealed earlier this week of the amounts paid to agents in football, Mel Stein, chairman of the Association of Football Agents has called for agents to be represented on the FA's ruling council.

It was shown that £70 million was paid to agents in the year to September 2009 and Stein was not surprised. "They are in line with the industry average, which is around five per cent on player transfers or contract renegotiation," he said. "It is unjustified to criticise agents on the basis of figures published into a vacuum and with no context of what agents do on a deal, or indeed how many people may be involved."

He said that no one was holding a gun to clubs to work with agents.

"Agents perform a valuable role," he continued. "We should be acknowledged as stakeholders in the game. The AFA has more than 300 members and I believe we should have a place on the FA council so that we can make a contribution, and other parts of the game can hear our voice directly."

Manchester City paid £12.87m to agents; Chelsea paid £9.56m; Liverpool paid £6.66m; and Tottenham paid £6.07m.

I wonder if the fans of all those clubs think the money was well spent. The trouble is that there is so much money going out of the game, and many clubs are hugely in debt.

Is this the basis for a sound future?
Do the agents care about that?

Sir Alex gets two game ban, but union boss says it's not enough

The FA decided yesterday that no one is above the law, including the most successful manager in the history of the game.

Sir Alex Ferguson was handed a touchline ban for two games and fined £20,000 for "grossly improper" remarks about the fitness of referee Alan Wiley in October.

Peter Griffiths, QC, who chaired the regulatory commission, said: "Each member of the commission recognised Sir Alex Ferguson's achievements and stature within the game. Having said that, it was made clear to Sir Alex that, with such stature, comes increased responsibilities.

"The commission considered his admitted remarks, in the context in which they were made, were not just improper but were grossly improper and wholly inappropriate."

Alan Leighton, national secretary of the Prospect union, which represents referees, did not appear to be satisfied with the punishment. "From our point of view it is disappointing. The Football Association had a chance to make a point and they flunked it. To question the fitness of a referee is to question his ability to do the job and his integrity. We don't think this is sending the right message out to other managers.

"This is not a personal vendetta against Sir Alex, but he has a particular stature within the game and, if he is seen to be getting off lightly, other mamagers may think what he said was not beyond the pale."

There is a further two-game ban suspended until the end of the 2010-11 season.

For me, the punishment seems about right. I think it does send the message to managers that they need to be as much part of the Respect campaign as eveeryon else, whatever their standing in the game.

Oldham v Leeds live on the FA website - for free!

I noted from the fixtures in Sunday's paper that the Oldham Athletic v. Leeds United FA Cup first round tie is due to kick-off at 5.15pm on Saturday 7 November.

It also said "Live on the FA website".

As a Leeds United fan based in the south of England, I found that interesting, but following the Ukraine v. England game being shown live on the internet last month, I wondered with sinking heart how much it would cost to watch.

My research today on the FA website found this banner:

But I could find nothing more - no information on how to access it or how to pay etc.

Next port of call was the Leeds United website, where they are selling tickets for the game, but letting fans know that they must buy tickets before the game.

At the bottom of the ticket advice page was this line: "The game will be available to watch live on the internet free of charge at www.thefa.com."

I'm looking forward to it already!

The FA charges West Ham and Millwall

The disgraceful crowd scenes at the Carling Cup tie between West Ham United and Millwall on 25 August have resulted in multiple charges against the clubs by the Football Association.

With three separate pitch invasions, objects being thrown and a Millwall fan stabbed outside the ground, consequences were inevitable.

Both clubs will be charged with having taken insufficient action to stop missile throwing and violent, threatening and racist behaviour at Upton Park, with West Ham facing four charges and Millwall three.

Included for both clubs are allegations of racism. Carlton Cole of West Ham and Jason Price of Millwall both complained of racial abuse by opposing supporters.

If the clubs are found guilty, then they could face hefty fines or even ground closures.

Millwall were said to be "shocked and disappointed" by the charges against the club.

A spokesman said: "We maintain we did everything in our power in regard to ticketing arrangements for this game. We expressed our concerns in advance about ticket allocations and arrangements in general. Our question for the Football Association is what can Millwall Football Club do to control individuals' actions once inside our opponents' stadium?"

West Ham are reviewing the charges, but a spokesman said: "We do acknowledge the appalling behaviour of a minority of fans inside the stadium and, in conjunction with police, will continue to take strong and appropriate action against anyone found responsible."

The clubs have 14 days to respond to the FA charges.