IOC’s I Owe You

After months of debating, arguments and counter arguments, the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) finally made its recommendation for the future use of the 2012 London Olympic Stadium once the Games are over. With three viable options on the table, the OPLC had to decide between the various avenues presented to them. One of which was retaining the original plan as intended during London’s initial Olympic bid, in making the stadium a purpose built 25,000 all-seater athletics venue. Or go with one of the two football alternatives offered in the shape of West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspurs, who were both vying to use the stadium as its base for home matches.

With the potential of football matches being played at the stadium every other weekend, and guaranteeing events at the site for a large portion of the year eradicating under use, it was always likely that one of these two options was always going to get the nod. Particularly if one looks at Olympics past, 23 of the principal stadiums used have gone on to regularly stage international football matches, with eight of these stadiums becoming the home of football clubs.

As predicted the OPLC went with one of the two football selections, and recommended that the stadium be primarily used as a new home for West Ham United Football Club. Although this decision needs to be rubber-stamped by the London Mayor, Boris Johnson and two government departments, it is expected that this approval will be ratified in due course. A package that in my opinion, and to many others was won on three key factors when compared to its football and bidding rival.

The first of which is close proximity of the Hammers club to the Olympic Stadium within East London. With a 2.7 miles journey from current ground of Upton Park (Boleyn Ground) where the club have been since 1904 to the new Olympic Stadium, its locality is of key convenience to what is traditionally an East End club with key ties to the community. With this, the club’s proposal also had the backing of the local borough. As Newham, the area where both the club and Olympic stadium are situated within supported the idea of West Ham’s potential move.

A point where Spurs fell short on with the fact that if successful, their proposal would mean a relocation of 7.2 miles of the club, and its supporters out of the Tottenham area. A factor which naturally did not lend itself to most of its followers, Haringey Council where the club presently lie within, and its proposed new area of Newham and its respective council. 

The second point, was Tottenham’s proposal was based around substantially demolishing the stadium’s structure once the Games were over and turning the stadium into predominantly a football ground. A point that would cause great controversy in taking down a stadium that cost £500 million to erect. In tough economic times, the public outcry at such an act if approved would probably have been immeasurable, and a key issue which brings me nicely to ultimately the third reason why the West Ham package was successful.

The West Ham proposal would tie in with what the London Olympic bid promised in 2005, when it was selected to host the 30^th Olympiad. An Olympic bid that claimed and was won on creating a lasting legacy, and promised a staging of sport that contributes beneficially to both the East London region, and somewhat to the country in coming years. Though I personally cannot see how those not living in London or the South-East of Britain can benefit once the Olympics are over. But nevertheless this is what was intended, along with a stadium that holds athletics at its core. 

Led by West Ham club owners David Sullivan, David Gold, and vice-chairwoman Karen Brady, the trio stated publicly a 60,000 seated multipurpose stadium as part of its campaign. A plan that has been replicated in 25 of the other previous Olympic Games, and ensuring that the stated legacy the London Olympic bidding team announced is delivered. Personally I think deep down the key protagonists at West Ham United Football Club would not want an athletics track encasing the football pitch. But to secure its proposition as a favourable candidate; the club have had to digest this hurdle and find a common ground in going forward to make a strong case for residency in the Olympic Stadium.

But all this kerfuffle regarding the Games and its main stadium, has left me pondering should it really come to this grand public tussle for a decision to be made on what happens to the Olympic Stadium? Shouldn’t this have all been decided long before an Olympic bid even took place? Shouldn’t the IOC enforce that there is a prerequisite that any bidding nation looking to host the Olympics, should have to declare their chief use for what happens to the respective Olympic Stadium that they intend to use for the Games?

Naturally I do recognise that it is hard to predict the future and foresee what was set out initially if strict this course is followed, may not necessarily be executed in the long run as unplanned factors can cause forced adaptable changes. I do accept currently each nation to the best of its abilities; do try to lay out some sort of provision plan for what their stadium will be used for after the Games. However, underlined within the financial circumstances the world finds itself in and its foreseeable future, it is such sporting administrators like the IOC, FIFA, ICC and their respective equivalents that propose and offer these events of magnitude in the first instance.

With countries looking to offer diverse levels of grandeur to these events and wooing such bodies, all in an effort to help ensure these grand occurrences come to their nations and showcase their states to the world, putting on these extravaganzas are risky ventures. Especially in trying to ensure that the facilities to be used are of a particular immense code and particular standard that appeases the sporting body. Usually of which requires new buildings to be built. But as custodians of these sporting events, such bodies should take a greater responsibility in the process of building a legacy, and the venue/s use once each of their spectaculars come to pass.

A good friend of mine showed me a report that all the stadiums used in the 2010 World Cup are now running at a loss and are not overly utilised. This statistic is compounded with exactly half of the venues used to stage the football tournament, were new and specialised built for the World Cup. But stand as icons of past sporting brilliance, but an unclear future.   

Many cynics amongst you may feel that such sporting bodies are not concerned with such matters and only will look at the profit margin once their shows are all over. This possibly maybe true, but the thing that strikes me also with all this discussion is that one key aspect is being overlooked here. If we use the Olympics as an example, once the Games road show leaves the respective towns and countries in which they are held, never mind about the main stadium what happens to all the other newly laid buildings and venues aside?

In London’s case will all of the newly constructed buildings really be utilised fully? Look at the farce that was London’s Millennium Dome, a multi-million pound project that nobody knew what to do with once the building was completed. For years it was housed as an expensive derelict land that was a nonentity, until entertainment group Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) brought the site and have turned the venue into one of the most popular entertainment districts in the world. With an arena that will indeed host some of the sporting events during the 2012 Olympics. But look at how for such a prolonged period of time the site was not used and was looked upon as a white elephant. Is this what awaits the Olympic Park and its associated venues?  

With billions now seamlessly being spent to stage the Olympics successfully and £9.3 billion being spent on the upcoming London 2012 Games, future Olympic host organising committees and the IOC cannot afford to let such questions go unanswered.

Back To The Future?

Last weekend saw the culmination of the AFC Asian Cup, where the football tournament was held in Qatar. Yes folks, the same Qatar that was recently and somewhat contentiously selected as the host nation to stage the 2022 World Cup. Deemed a controversial decision sanctioned to many at the request of FIFA President Sepp Blatter, and his band of merry men within the organisation. I think this gives you an insightful clue as to where this post may be heading. However, before we get into that, I do believe congratulations are in order for the successful Japanese team that won the Asian Cup, defeating Australia 1-0 after extra time.

Like many showpiece finals, the match can only be described as an uninspiring contest. But with so much on the line and tactics set out not to lose, you can understand the reason for such an exhibition. With a superb volleyed goal from Tadanari Lee scored in extra time befitting to win any match, Japan secured a third continental triumph in the last four tournaments to go along with their successes in 2002, and in 2004 respectively.

With the plaudits put to one side, for those following the event we got a glimpse of the future. If the sound bites are followed, in exactly 11 years time and at this point of the year, football’s gatekeepers FIFA have suggested that the World Cup breaks 92 years of tradition, and be staged in Qatar outside the standard months of June and July. A move aimed to combat the situation of both the players, and their supporters being exposed to the extreme temperatures of the Middle East country during that time in the year. 

Technically speaking, football’s World Cup has been contested in much cooler temperatures in the past, or even in the winter months of its hosting nations. You only have to look at last year’s tournament in South Africa as a recent example of a winter World Cup, and looking slightly further back, the 1978 competition in Argentina which the host nation won. But it has always fallen in line with being played in June and or July, and an aptly time when many league and cup competitions in Europe have finished. But what football’s chiefs are putting forward is nothing short of a logistical minefield all for the sake of not scrutinising efficiently, the enormity of the potential problem of the event being held in temperatures that could reach 50 °C.

Now I am all for emerging groupings getting their time to shine, and those who have often been overlooked showcasing what they are all about to a grand stage. I always like to see challenges to the status quo, and champion revolution in the correct manner. With globalisation thus making the world smaller and far more accessible, the days of the long established nations always leading the way are beginning to cease in many fields. This too can be said in sport, and a factor in which I felt there was only going to be one winner in who was to stage the 2022 tournament. I personally am glad the World Cup is going to new territory in the shape of Qatar, though query the 2018 decision, but that is for another time.

Yet since its selection both FIFA and the constructed Qatar event organisers appear not to be on the same page, with the FIFA President claiming it most likely the competition will be staged at the start of the calendar year. Blatter’s European equivalent at UEFA, Michel Platini has also backed the idea, and even suggested the tournament could be co-hosted by Qatar and its regional neighbours. 

Both views which have been rebuffed by the Qatarian coordinators, and have insisted they plan to hold the competition during June and July, in a solo effort as proposed as part of their bid. But where was the correct foresight and provisions in place to deal with this matter at hand? There is no point in FIFA and some of the game’s influential individuals to now recognise that after two years of a bidding campaign, and choosing the nation to host the 2022 edition of the World Cup that this is a real predicament to negate.

Fair enough many of the stadia during the competition are planned to be air-conditioned but what about the fans travelling to and from the stadiums? You cannot air-condition a whole entire country? Yes, 2022 does seem like a long way off and who knows what technologically advancements or proposed allowances can be employed, to make both the playing and spectating experience more comfortable. But the lack of foresight and making wild statements without sound consultation with the event organisers of Qatar, a nation FIFA in the end did give the World Cup too is nothing short of staggering. Not to mention the lack of acknowledging the sport’s numerous football associations, and clubs whose fans and players will be taking part.

Now Michel Platini has gone a step further and wants to make football a summer sport from 2015, where every league in the world would have their domestic season being played from March to October.  A plan that would allow a time of six weeks for a scheduled program of international qualifying games to be completed in Novemer and December, with a rest period for the players of four weeks that covers the festive season. Platini’s scheme would mean all the big international tournaments to be contested such as the World Cup and continental competitions to be held in February and March, just before the start of a new domestic season at club level.

Gentlemen, as key figures within the world of football let me remind you your job is to administer the safekeeping and continual development of the sport we all love so much. Not to enforce your whimsical ideals in an almost dictatorship fashion to the world’s beautiful game, with consultation clearly being absent. There are far more pressing matters that need your respective organisations concentration.

Issues that include as clarifying once and for all the open-endedness and ambiguous interpretation of the different and active phases of the offside rule, which in fairness to the officials is not making their lives any easier to supervise over during match play. The latest addition to this subject’s ever-growing catalogue was seen this week at the Emirates Stadium, as Arsenal played Everton in the Premier League. Everton’s Louis Saha scored a contentious goal which for many was deemed offside, however the game’s officials and their understanding of active phases allowed the goal.

How about introducing the aid of technology of to conclude matters of fact in the game? More specifically goal-line technology to prove whether the match ball has fully crossed the line, eradicating endless situations like what we saw in the 2010 World Cup and the quarter final clash between Germany and England. Or are you waiting before such a tournament is won or lost in the final with similar circumstances, before you boys get your act together.

I agree perhaps there maybe a need to formulate a more concise football calendar, but these rather are key topics that need to be looked into more urgently. Not the half empty gestures that you show in proving that doing your jobs, and taking wasted affirmative actions against banning of all things, snoods!

Fernan-Go Torres

 

“Football, it’s a funny old game”. The tongue in cheek phrase former England centre forward Jimmy Greaves bestowed on football, yet acts as a suitable description of the crazy and unpredictable world the sport has now become. If a game of football can change in a second when a goal is scored, well what is one whole week where several unanticipated moments can occur changing the dynamic and landscape within the industry. Well guess what, I think it is safe to say it was one of those extreme weeks we have observed over the last seven days.

Those of you who know me, are well versed and shrewd enough to know that I am a Liverpool fan. I would like to add a long suffering fan, compared to its past and illustrious history. Nevertheless, I like many ‘kopites’ live in the hope that a time will come when we see Liverpool Football Club add to its tally of 18 English League Championships.

But as I watched Liverpool play against Fulham last midweek in the Premier League with F.B.S, yes folks that would be my old man, my dad, little did we know that a week later we would have witnessed Fernando Torres’ last game for Kenny Dalglish’s men in a 1-0 win. Likewise, I think the Newcastle faithful could not have imagined that during this time span, their hometown striker Andy Carroll would no longer be stepping out in the black and white at St. James Park.

With the imminent departure of Fernando Torres after stating he wanted to leave Liverpool, his proposed move sparked a whirlwind frenzy involving the two players mentioned. This along with other transfer activities, late bids, and humorous alleged sightings of players reported to have been circling the regional areas other clubs on deadline day. Focus was primarily centred on the British transfer record being broken twice, as Liverpool recruited Andy Carroll’s services for the hefty sum of £35 million plus add-ons as replacement for  the out going Torres. 

A situation that occurred before Torres himself was being transferred to Chelsea for a staggering £50 million, in a remarkable series of events. A chapter which has got those within the game and onlookers asking at combined total of £85 million being spent on the acquisition of these two players, can this be justified within a global recession and financial cuts?      

Away from that and aside from a ton of disappointment and anger Liverpool fans felt as they knew their idol was desperately looking to leave to Premier League rivals Chelsea, an ill-feeling resides amongst many in the transfer’s aftermath. But if viewed upon objectively without the flurried emotion of the switch, is it all as sinister as some Liverpool fans and bystanders have it?

Although sadness usually hangs when a top level player leaves your club for pastures new, from a personal standpoint I can look without bias and have no lingering gripe with the Spaniard. Now before you smash your mouse or mobile display in a fit of rage hear me out Liverpool fans. The lad left his home town club, his beloved Atlético Madrid in a big move from Spain, for both him as a person and in his career. A move to a club steeped in history in an effort thought to improve his chances of ending his baron spell of club honours.

Now already stated, by the club’s own lofty standards set in the 70’s and 80’s, Liverpool are not the same force it once was. However as was one of the active marquee clubs both in England and in Europe during the time Torres joined, the chances of success could have been looked upon as favourable for both parties. Unfortunately for what can be considered a number of reasons, silverware has not necessarily materialised for both Torres and Liverpool at this level in football.

Barring European and World Cup success on the international stage with the Spanish team, which conversely coincided with his time at Liverpool, Torres still has never won anything at senior level with the clubs that he has played for. As he embarks on his 27^th birthday in March, this is a point in his profession which is considered a footballer’s peak years. How long is he to go without fulfilling his clear and obvious talent? With the detrimental ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, along with the breakdown of relationship Torres had with Rafa Benitez, and what appeared to be nothing more than a lukewarm union with Roy Hodgson, El Nino’s departure was always a distinct reality.

Likewise, there is no benefit to Liverpool keeping a player who frankly speaking (yes the pun was indeed intended), has looked a forlorn figure for large patches of this season and for the last 18 months as a whole for the club. With the money attained from his sale, Liverpool can and have used these funds to strengthen its core squad and future fortunes. 

With El Niño now London-bound, his move now adds more fuel to a fire between the two clubs. A rivalry that really came to light in my mind in January 2005 with a controversial late winner by then Chelsea player Joe Cole at Anfield, as the reds were denied a penalty beforehand. With several high profile clashes that have occurred since, including the contentious goal that was given to Liverpool when facing Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final again in 2005, this weekend’s showdown will be fanatically contested.      

But the key aspect in all this is it shows despite all the kissing of badges and subjective statements of love for their clubs players make, fans should no longer expect to make the emotional investment into a large portion of players that they watch on the field representing their club. With the stakes rapidly being raised all the time with money being king, results are more important like never before. You only have to look when a team goes without a win in three games, questions are being asked from a variety of groupings.

This does not apply to all, but today’s football fans are quick to question the manager’s capabilities for an indifferent patch in form. A manager could sound off or begin to look at the board or owners looking for more investment in which he can use for buying new players, and puts this down as the rationale for no wins. More typically, a club’s overseers look at the manager as to why the team have not won in such a spell, and look at how this will effect league survival or Champions League qualification. All in which usually ends in the manager being given his marching orders. 

In such a knee-jerk structure, the players are all powerful and can make demands and transfer requests at the drop of a hat whenever. Significantly this usually is put into execution with little obstruction. Top stars such as, Cesc Fabregas, Javier Mascherano, Carlos Tevez, Wayne Rooney, Emmanuel Adebayor, and Darren Bent in one way or another either looked for a move, or has voiced quite clearly a move which in the end was facilitated during this current season.

With both Torres and Carroll being added to this list and leaving their respective clubs on unplanned and on less than cordial terms, there leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the fans they leave behind. But fans should hold one of the true real values in football, the players in today’s age act as expensive jewellery of the outfits that they play for, which can come to an end at any moment. But it is club that should and will always resonate and that spirit comes from its supporters, and as long as that is there a clubs lifeblood will always continue.