It should be safe to assume Dimitar Berbatov would be drafted into the Manchester United squad as soon as possible, shouldn't it? Given Sir Alex Ferguson's side paid Spurs £30.75million for the striker, surely they would want to use him as quickly as possible?
Surprisingly, it would seem the 27-year-old Bulgaria international will not be fast-tracked into the squad. According to today's News of the World, Berbatov hasn't even joined up with his new team-mates since leaving Spurs.
Even more surprising is the claim Sir Alex had doubts about signing the player because of his less-than-stellar work-rate. Whether it's possible to to believe that while remembering the United boss collected Berbatov from the airport in his own car on deadline day is a matter for debate.
Berbatov will now be placed on an extensive fitness program in order to get his physical condition up to "United standard" - and will certainly have to quit smoking, unless he is prepared to face the wrath of Sir Alex, who is known for being strict about such things.
But, if nothing else, the claims sum-up the impending collapse of top-flight football. Spending £30.75million on a player (an amount which would be the British record if it wasn't for Man City's silly-money move for Robinho) is not really justifiable at the best of times, least of all if a manager with the experience and track-record of Ferguson was not 100 per cent convinced it was the right thing to do.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
How much would John Barnes earn now?
While enjoying a pie and a pint at lunch with a colleague, our conversation turned to former Liverpool star John Barnes. Not his international career (which, incidentally, was nowhere near as bad as some remember), but his consistently inspiring performances for Liverpool.
Given the current discussions about the obscene amount of money in the game, including Manchester City's Robinho's assumed wage of £160,000-a-week), the topic soon turned to wondering how much Barnes would earn if he was playing, at his peak, in the Premier League today? We both agreed the highly unscientific amount of "a lot." but couldn't decide exactly how much!
When Barnes was at his true peak, in the late 80s (and before Sky money destroyed top-flight football), he regularly performed above and beyond the level of any other player, at club level, in the country. If English clubs were not barred from Europe at that point, he surely would have dazzled audiences across the continent.
Has any player impressed as much as Barnes at club level since? The only player worthy of mentioning is Cristiano Ronaldo, and specifically during last season. Apart from Ronaldo, many have shone at times - for example, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Steve McManaman, Ryan Giggs - but no others have consistently performed so far ahead of the rest of the field.
So to those who think football is in a good condition and there are no problems with the English Premier League, take a look again at John Barnes in action. Is it right that mediocre, teenage bench-warmers can earn so much more than he did at his peak? I think not.
Given the current discussions about the obscene amount of money in the game, including Manchester City's Robinho's assumed wage of £160,000-a-week), the topic soon turned to wondering how much Barnes would earn if he was playing, at his peak, in the Premier League today? We both agreed the highly unscientific amount of "a lot." but couldn't decide exactly how much!
When Barnes was at his true peak, in the late 80s (and before Sky money destroyed top-flight football), he regularly performed above and beyond the level of any other player, at club level, in the country. If English clubs were not barred from Europe at that point, he surely would have dazzled audiences across the continent.
Has any player impressed as much as Barnes at club level since? The only player worthy of mentioning is Cristiano Ronaldo, and specifically during last season. Apart from Ronaldo, many have shone at times - for example, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Steve McManaman, Ryan Giggs - but no others have consistently performed so far ahead of the rest of the field.
So to those who think football is in a good condition and there are no problems with the English Premier League, take a look again at John Barnes in action. Is it right that mediocre, teenage bench-warmers can earn so much more than he did at his peak? I think not.
International football was good once!
Before top-flight football began its inevitable slide towards death, international football used to be a real attraction. The best players would put aside their club rivalries and the sheer pride on their faces when they pulled on their national jersey was a joy to behold.
The last time I remember English players acting as though representing their country was the absolute pinnacle of their career was at World Cup '90 in Italy, when Bobby Robson's side were just a few spot-kicks away from the final, and a likely win against a ghastly Argentina slide.
Since then, apart from a brief glimmer in 1996 when the European Championships were held in England (which may explain the glimmer!), international football has become something of a turn off. Perhaps it's just an English thing, but the problem does seem deeper than that.
England, by rights, should be reaching the semi-finals of the two major tournaments - at the very least. How many other top-20 countries have all but one of their players (the increasingly immobile Beckham) playing in their domestic league? Surely it's none!
But club football has become more important - I now honestly believe a player would rather play in the Champions League knock-out stages than represent his country. A player's wage demands also seem to increase far more if they play in Europe than if they are an international.
Another issue is the transition of football from a sport to sports entertainment. It used to be nearly 100 per cent about what happened on the pitch. Now it's nowhere near that. It's a multi-billion pound industry where fans are just as interested in who is sleeping with who as who is putting the ball in the net.
The problem with football as sports entertainment is the hype that goes with it. Managers and players create "characters" in order to get the headlines. They exaggerate their own personality and have fun with it. When they start taking pot-shots at each other, the individual and character get so muddled it must make for some awkward moments come England duty.
And, without wishing to get too political, it's about a decline in standards. When England won the World Cup in 1966, one of the enduring images is of Bobby Moore wiping his muddied hands before shaking hands with the Queen. The players could hold their own in interviews and came across as thoroughly decent human beings. Now look at the current England squad...
So when England line-up against Andorra tomorrow, what will the players be thinking? Will all of them give 100 per cent, at the risk of picking-up an injury? By rights, England should score at least five, but will that happen? Or will they do enough and then take their feet off the gas, in order to keep as fresh as possible for their clubs?
And they wonder why fans are turning away from the games in their droves!
The last time I remember English players acting as though representing their country was the absolute pinnacle of their career was at World Cup '90 in Italy, when Bobby Robson's side were just a few spot-kicks away from the final, and a likely win against a ghastly Argentina slide.
Since then, apart from a brief glimmer in 1996 when the European Championships were held in England (which may explain the glimmer!), international football has become something of a turn off. Perhaps it's just an English thing, but the problem does seem deeper than that.
England, by rights, should be reaching the semi-finals of the two major tournaments - at the very least. How many other top-20 countries have all but one of their players (the increasingly immobile Beckham) playing in their domestic league? Surely it's none!
But club football has become more important - I now honestly believe a player would rather play in the Champions League knock-out stages than represent his country. A player's wage demands also seem to increase far more if they play in Europe than if they are an international.
Another issue is the transition of football from a sport to sports entertainment. It used to be nearly 100 per cent about what happened on the pitch. Now it's nowhere near that. It's a multi-billion pound industry where fans are just as interested in who is sleeping with who as who is putting the ball in the net.
The problem with football as sports entertainment is the hype that goes with it. Managers and players create "characters" in order to get the headlines. They exaggerate their own personality and have fun with it. When they start taking pot-shots at each other, the individual and character get so muddled it must make for some awkward moments come England duty.
And, without wishing to get too political, it's about a decline in standards. When England won the World Cup in 1966, one of the enduring images is of Bobby Moore wiping his muddied hands before shaking hands with the Queen. The players could hold their own in interviews and came across as thoroughly decent human beings. Now look at the current England squad...
So when England line-up against Andorra tomorrow, what will the players be thinking? Will all of them give 100 per cent, at the risk of picking-up an injury? By rights, England should score at least five, but will that happen? Or will they do enough and then take their feet off the gas, in order to keep as fresh as possible for their clubs?
And they wonder why fans are turning away from the games in their droves!
Keegan's brilliant, too early for Shearer - Shepherd
Alan Shearer may not have been the best footballer (good goalscorer, yes) but he clearly has his head screwed on correctly - if reports claiming he will turn down any offers to become the next Magpies boss.
Following Kevin Keegan's resignation yesterday, the earlier favourites for the job are Gus Poyet, Dennis Wise and Alan Shearer. But former Toon chairman Freddy Shepherd has said he would be "very surprised" if Shearer opted to take the job.
He told the Daily Mail: "I’d be very surprised if Alan Shearer took the job. I just think he wants to give it a bit longer before he goes into management."
Shepherd also pointed out when he worked with Keegan, the boss identified the players and attempts were then made to raise the funds - seemingly in stark contrast to the situation under Mike Ashley, who Keegan claimed had a structure which forced players upon him.
Shepherd said: "When I was there with Kevin we had a simple strategy. Kevin identified the players and we tried to get the money to buy them. I don’t know what’s happening with Mike’s structure, whether it’s fallen apart, but I worked with Kevin for five years and he was fantastic."
The whole situation is clearly idiotic and farcical, but a perfect example of what is wrong with modern football. The game isn't run by fans, players and managers, but by the few money-men at the top. They have earned their money in life and are enjoying spending it. But do they really know the feeling of anticipation real fans have when Saturday comes?
Following Kevin Keegan's resignation yesterday, the earlier favourites for the job are Gus Poyet, Dennis Wise and Alan Shearer. But former Toon chairman Freddy Shepherd has said he would be "very surprised" if Shearer opted to take the job.
He told the Daily Mail: "I’d be very surprised if Alan Shearer took the job. I just think he wants to give it a bit longer before he goes into management."
Shepherd also pointed out when he worked with Keegan, the boss identified the players and attempts were then made to raise the funds - seemingly in stark contrast to the situation under Mike Ashley, who Keegan claimed had a structure which forced players upon him.
Shepherd said: "When I was there with Kevin we had a simple strategy. Kevin identified the players and we tried to get the money to buy them. I don’t know what’s happening with Mike’s structure, whether it’s fallen apart, but I worked with Kevin for five years and he was fantastic."
The whole situation is clearly idiotic and farcical, but a perfect example of what is wrong with modern football. The game isn't run by fans, players and managers, but by the few money-men at the top. They have earned their money in life and are enjoying spending it. But do they really know the feeling of anticipation real fans have when Saturday comes?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Kevin Keegan quits - Newcastle takeover likely?
Kevin Keegan has resigned as manager of Newcastle following more than two days of speculation about what was actually going on at St James' Park. The former England boss has suggested he could not work at a club where players he did not want in his squad were forced upon him.
In a statement on the League Managers Association website, Keegan said: "I’ve been working desperately hard to find a way forward with the directors, but sadly that has not proved possible. It’s my opinion that a manager must have the right to manage and that clubs should not impose upon any manager any player that he does not want.
"It remains my fervent wish to see Newcastle United do well in the future and I feel incredibly sorry for the players, staff and most importantly the supporters. I have been left with no choice other than to leave."
Few will deny Keegan made the right choice. That a manager of his standing had Dennis Wise as his superior (or whatever the relationship was) never made any sense - a manager has to be allowed to manage, and that includes deciding which players to try and buy and which ones to sell.
Wise, the former Leeds United boss, is joint second favourite, along with Toon legend Alan Shearer, to replace Keegan on a permanent basis at 5/1. Gus Poyet has emerged as favourite at 9/4, but the prices are bouncing around all over the place as the news of Keegan's resignation is so recent.
Given Newcastle fans are among the most vociferous in the country, it will be interesting to see how owner Mike Ashley deals with the backlash (perhaps with a pint in hand?). There must be a chance he'll get out as soon as possible and the club, if they ever managed to sort themselves out, could still be a powerhouse. The new Man City owners are thought to have considered buying Newcastle, will some other mega-money consortium actually go the whole way?
In a statement on the League Managers Association website, Keegan said: "I’ve been working desperately hard to find a way forward with the directors, but sadly that has not proved possible. It’s my opinion that a manager must have the right to manage and that clubs should not impose upon any manager any player that he does not want.
"It remains my fervent wish to see Newcastle United do well in the future and I feel incredibly sorry for the players, staff and most importantly the supporters. I have been left with no choice other than to leave."
Few will deny Keegan made the right choice. That a manager of his standing had Dennis Wise as his superior (or whatever the relationship was) never made any sense - a manager has to be allowed to manage, and that includes deciding which players to try and buy and which ones to sell.
Wise, the former Leeds United boss, is joint second favourite, along with Toon legend Alan Shearer, to replace Keegan on a permanent basis at 5/1. Gus Poyet has emerged as favourite at 9/4, but the prices are bouncing around all over the place as the news of Keegan's resignation is so recent.
Given Newcastle fans are among the most vociferous in the country, it will be interesting to see how owner Mike Ashley deals with the backlash (perhaps with a pint in hand?). There must be a chance he'll get out as soon as possible and the club, if they ever managed to sort themselves out, could still be a powerhouse. The new Man City owners are thought to have considered buying Newcastle, will some other mega-money consortium actually go the whole way?
Chelsea boss denies Robinho rift
Chelsea boss Luiz Felipe Scolari has denied claims he was angry with the way the Robnho transfer saga was handled - and has warned fans not to believe unofficial "sources" who claim to know how his mind works.
It was claimed yesterday Scolari was left feeling "angry and let down" because Chelsea would not offer Real Madrid any more than £28.4million for Robinho, who eventually moved to Man City for £32.4million.
But those claims were made by "sources," rather than the big man himself, and Scolari how now officially debunked the talk. Apparently, he has no worries about missing out on the player and believes Robinho was surrounded by people who were not "serious about him coming to Chelsea" - but instead were "more interested in the best business deal". A Chelsea manager accusing a player of going elsewhere for more cash? It has been a few years since that excuse was last used.
Scolari told his club's official website: "I have seen the newspapers and that they say I am unhappy or angry with the club. These statements are not true at all. I have not said this and I do not think this. I am very happy with this situation. I talk to only a few people about my team, all inside the club. Other people have been quoted in newspapers saying they know what I think or feel, but they do not know. Only my close team knows.
"I have a press office at Chelsea and I hold a press conference every week. I do interviews for Chelsea TV and say things for the Chelsea website and my own website. If it does not come from one of these places, it will not be true, and will not be what I think."
He certainly protests well! But, assuming all of the talk in the press yesterday was pure tittle-tattle, is the claim Robinho's "people" were after as much money as possible a reasonable one. It seems unlikely as, unless they were psychic, how would they have known a middle-ranking English team like Man City would suddenly have come into money?
It seems a poor excuse, but the real danger will start in January and next summer if Roman Abramovich decides to start throwing cash around all over the place to try regain the initiative. And, sadly, that is more likely to happen than not.
It was claimed yesterday Scolari was left feeling "angry and let down" because Chelsea would not offer Real Madrid any more than £28.4million for Robinho, who eventually moved to Man City for £32.4million.
But those claims were made by "sources," rather than the big man himself, and Scolari how now officially debunked the talk. Apparently, he has no worries about missing out on the player and believes Robinho was surrounded by people who were not "serious about him coming to Chelsea" - but instead were "more interested in the best business deal". A Chelsea manager accusing a player of going elsewhere for more cash? It has been a few years since that excuse was last used.
Scolari told his club's official website: "I have seen the newspapers and that they say I am unhappy or angry with the club. These statements are not true at all. I have not said this and I do not think this. I am very happy with this situation. I talk to only a few people about my team, all inside the club. Other people have been quoted in newspapers saying they know what I think or feel, but they do not know. Only my close team knows.
"I have a press office at Chelsea and I hold a press conference every week. I do interviews for Chelsea TV and say things for the Chelsea website and my own website. If it does not come from one of these places, it will not be true, and will not be what I think."
He certainly protests well! But, assuming all of the talk in the press yesterday was pure tittle-tattle, is the claim Robinho's "people" were after as much money as possible a reasonable one. It seems unlikely as, unless they were psychic, how would they have known a middle-ranking English team like Man City would suddenly have come into money?
It seems a poor excuse, but the real danger will start in January and next summer if Roman Abramovich decides to start throwing cash around all over the place to try regain the initiative. And, sadly, that is more likely to happen than not.
So Liverpool and Man City are rivals...?
Liverpool's new-signing Albert Riera gave his first real interview after his £6million move from Espanyol. It was a fairly standard first-interview (as was Louis Saha's at Everton) but the way it has been interpreted shows yet again just how much the footballing world has changed in the past few days.
If, at this point last week, anybody on the street was asked to name Liverpool's rivals the answers would probably be "Everton and Manchester United" along with, to a lesser extent, "Chelsea and Arsenal". But according to an article on Goal.com, Riera has urged Liverpool fans to forget about his loan spell at Man City in 2006.
But why do they need to? Man City weren't rivals then, they were a distinctly average team who never really achieved anything of note. And, until the case is proven otherwise, Manchester City will still be a distinctly average team this season - though when the money kicks-in next summer, things will change.
Among other things, Riera said: "I went to Manchester City in January and we were playing for a place in the middle of the table. I was 22 but now I have three years more experience and this is very important in football. Since then I have played in a UEFA Cup final and I have played for the national team."
And also: "I know what has happened at City but the most important thing for me now is Liverpool. They are one team we need to be careful of but we need to look at ourselves. If we do good things we do not need to think about other teams."
A new Liverpool signing being asked about Manchester City. A team who have come out of nowhere thanks to a massive, obscene injection of cash. Who would have thought it just a few days ago?
Then again, Riera is probably right when he says "if we do good things we do not need to think about other teams," especially if by that he means kick the two American owners out in favour of Middle East consortium DIC. That will surely happen before the end of the year and, when it does, Liverpool will be in a far stronger position than Man City, because they are, after all, the far stronger (not to mention bigger) club.
When that does happen there will be two bottomless pit clubs in England, meaning the chain reaction of mega-money that will take football to the brink of destruction and beyond will continue at an ever-increasing pace.
If, at this point last week, anybody on the street was asked to name Liverpool's rivals the answers would probably be "Everton and Manchester United" along with, to a lesser extent, "Chelsea and Arsenal". But according to an article on Goal.com, Riera has urged Liverpool fans to forget about his loan spell at Man City in 2006.
But why do they need to? Man City weren't rivals then, they were a distinctly average team who never really achieved anything of note. And, until the case is proven otherwise, Manchester City will still be a distinctly average team this season - though when the money kicks-in next summer, things will change.
Among other things, Riera said: "I went to Manchester City in January and we were playing for a place in the middle of the table. I was 22 but now I have three years more experience and this is very important in football. Since then I have played in a UEFA Cup final and I have played for the national team."
And also: "I know what has happened at City but the most important thing for me now is Liverpool. They are one team we need to be careful of but we need to look at ourselves. If we do good things we do not need to think about other teams."
A new Liverpool signing being asked about Manchester City. A team who have come out of nowhere thanks to a massive, obscene injection of cash. Who would have thought it just a few days ago?
Then again, Riera is probably right when he says "if we do good things we do not need to think about other teams," especially if by that he means kick the two American owners out in favour of Middle East consortium DIC. That will surely happen before the end of the year and, when it does, Liverpool will be in a far stronger position than Man City, because they are, after all, the far stronger (not to mention bigger) club.
When that does happen there will be two bottomless pit clubs in England, meaning the chain reaction of mega-money that will take football to the brink of destruction and beyond will continue at an ever-increasing pace.
Man City fans need to be realistic - Hughes
Mark Hughes must have had a strange few months. One moment he was manager of Blackburn and winning plaudits, the next moment he was heading towards the end the transfer window as Manchester City boss. Then, as we all know, Man City were taken over by multi-billionaires on deadline-day and became the richest club in world football.
Now the former Manchester United and Wales striker has told fans to be realistic! Is that really a reasonable request when the new Middle Eastern owners can earn more in interest on their wealth than they can ever sink into a football team?
However, to be fair, the comments Hughes has made in an article in The Metro are probably spot-on. They show he is still aware money doesn't buy everything. Well, not quite everthing, anyway. And he's not telling fans to temper their desire for world-class players - far from it - but instead pointing out signing big-names in January, halfway through the Champions League tournament, is never easy.
He said: "There are exceptionally talented players around that we would bring to the club if they were made available. The difficulty will be getting the clubs to release those players. We obviously are talking about players whose clubs are involved in the Champions League.
"They may not be very receptive to losing those players midway through a Champions League season. Maybe it will be more difficult in January than people realise. But we will pursue targets we can realistically get."
At least the mainstream media is finally coming round to the idea that Man City do, in fact, have practically unlimited cash. The article mentions "almost limitless wealth," so hopefully fans of other teams in the Premier League and beyond will finally start accepting the full implications of Monday's takeover.
Now the former Manchester United and Wales striker has told fans to be realistic! Is that really a reasonable request when the new Middle Eastern owners can earn more in interest on their wealth than they can ever sink into a football team?
However, to be fair, the comments Hughes has made in an article in The Metro are probably spot-on. They show he is still aware money doesn't buy everything. Well, not quite everthing, anyway. And he's not telling fans to temper their desire for world-class players - far from it - but instead pointing out signing big-names in January, halfway through the Champions League tournament, is never easy.
He said: "There are exceptionally talented players around that we would bring to the club if they were made available. The difficulty will be getting the clubs to release those players. We obviously are talking about players whose clubs are involved in the Champions League.
"They may not be very receptive to losing those players midway through a Champions League season. Maybe it will be more difficult in January than people realise. But we will pursue targets we can realistically get."
At least the mainstream media is finally coming round to the idea that Man City do, in fact, have practically unlimited cash. The article mentions "almost limitless wealth," so hopefully fans of other teams in the Premier League and beyond will finally start accepting the full implications of Monday's takeover.
Silly money in the Unibond League
While I am convinced top-flight football is terminally ill and its death is inevitable, I would have to be a fool to deny the amount of spending in lower divisions is anything other than outrageous at times.
However, I was stunned to discover Eastwood Town, of the Unibond Premier League, have a wage budget of £9,000-a-week. Just to clarify, the league is one rung of the ladder below the Conference North and, therefore, three rungs below League Two and six rungs below the Premier League.
Assuming - and I honestly know little about the club or the league they are in - Eastwood Town have 20 players on their books. That would mean, on average, they earn £450-a-week each. Obviously some will earn quite a bit less and some quite a bit more. But, in any case, that does seem a lot of money for someone plying their trade in the seventh-tier of English football.
Interestingly, I only discovered this while browsing through the Manchester Evening News and found an article about a game between FC United and Eastwood Town. It transpires FC United, who were created when the Glazers took over Manchester United, have a wage-budget of just one-sixth the size of their opponents!
Is there anywhere a real, traditional fan can go to watch a football where money isn't the main influence on the game? Heck, even though it's unlikely the European Union would never allow it, perhaps it's about to to introduce a stringent, Europe-wide wage-cap with the maximum set differently for the different tiers.
Seventh-tier and averaging £450-a-week per player. Where did it all go wrong?
However, I was stunned to discover Eastwood Town, of the Unibond Premier League, have a wage budget of £9,000-a-week. Just to clarify, the league is one rung of the ladder below the Conference North and, therefore, three rungs below League Two and six rungs below the Premier League.
Assuming - and I honestly know little about the club or the league they are in - Eastwood Town have 20 players on their books. That would mean, on average, they earn £450-a-week each. Obviously some will earn quite a bit less and some quite a bit more. But, in any case, that does seem a lot of money for someone plying their trade in the seventh-tier of English football.
Interestingly, I only discovered this while browsing through the Manchester Evening News and found an article about a game between FC United and Eastwood Town. It transpires FC United, who were created when the Glazers took over Manchester United, have a wage-budget of just one-sixth the size of their opponents!
Is there anywhere a real, traditional fan can go to watch a football where money isn't the main influence on the game? Heck, even though it's unlikely the European Union would never allow it, perhaps it's about to to introduce a stringent, Europe-wide wage-cap with the maximum set differently for the different tiers.
Seventh-tier and averaging £450-a-week per player. Where did it all go wrong?
Newcastle a tragedy and disaster - Roeder
Is Kevin Keegan still the manager of Newcastle United? Who knows but, whatever happens, former boss Glenn Roeder has said the club is a "tragedy," moving from "one disaster to another".
When Alan Curbishley left West Ham yesterday (Wed, Sep 3) it was not even clear if he was the first Premier League manager to leave his post this season - because Keegan may have already quit or been sacked. One of the few things known is Keegan did not take training on Tuesday.
Roeder, currently manager at Norwich, should be saluted though for actually seeing through all the hype and spin. He clearly has the ability to remember football's better times and, impressively, can still see how those times continue to shape the present. For Roeder knows Newcastle is only the club it is due to the fans.
He told Radio Five Live: "The club is a tragedy and it goes from one disaster to another. There's no stability at the club and I don't think there has been for a long time. They go from one manager to another and the people who suffer the most are the most important people, the supporters. When they talk about Newcastle being a great club, it's only great for one reason - because it has great supporters."
It would be great if Mike Ashley, the Newcastle owner, takes note of what Roeder has to saw as, amid all the claims and counterclaims of the past view days, his words shine like a beacon across the darkness - just as Newcastle may shine like a beacon to attract foreign investment if Ashley decides he has had enough.
When Alan Curbishley left West Ham yesterday (Wed, Sep 3) it was not even clear if he was the first Premier League manager to leave his post this season - because Keegan may have already quit or been sacked. One of the few things known is Keegan did not take training on Tuesday.
Roeder, currently manager at Norwich, should be saluted though for actually seeing through all the hype and spin. He clearly has the ability to remember football's better times and, impressively, can still see how those times continue to shape the present. For Roeder knows Newcastle is only the club it is due to the fans.
He told Radio Five Live: "The club is a tragedy and it goes from one disaster to another. There's no stability at the club and I don't think there has been for a long time. They go from one manager to another and the people who suffer the most are the most important people, the supporters. When they talk about Newcastle being a great club, it's only great for one reason - because it has great supporters."
It would be great if Mike Ashley, the Newcastle owner, takes note of what Roeder has to saw as, amid all the claims and counterclaims of the past view days, his words shine like a beacon across the darkness - just as Newcastle may shine like a beacon to attract foreign investment if Ashley decides he has had enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
