Ambition? Why Howson leaving has caused so much ire…

January 24, 2012 Spoughts 2 Comments

When people in the future look back at the departure of Jonny Howson from Elland Road, hindsight may get the better of them. Should Jonny not succeed in the Premier League, hampered by his injury, little will be said. Should Leeds United manage to get promoted from The Championship, Howson’s departure may become little more than a footnote in the annals of Leeds United, overwhelmed by the end result. However, as I feel, this day will be looked upon in the future as a genuine low point at Leeds United, on par with Woodgate’s departure that symbolised the end of the ‘living the dream’.

For a man who inspired such extreme opinions, Howson’s transfer to Norwich has inspired an incredible outpouring of grief. Social networks were ablaze with anti-Bates sentiment when initial news of the transfer came out of the club, and on Saturday, a size-able protest aimed at Bates gathered before the Ipswich match and continued to voice itself throughout the match. One of the moments which symbolised the extent of the fan’s ire was the seconds that followed McCormack’s equalizer. As is natural, following a turnaround to lead 2-1, those in the Kop celebrated, but immediately followed this by chanting “Bates out” once again.

Protests existed at the beginning of the season, but tailed off. Why did Howson’s sale symbolise such a momentous shift in the mindset of Leeds fans? In the view of this writer, Jonny Howson, Leeds United club captain, is simply the symbol of much of the success that has occurred at that club in the last five years. Not only this, but Howson had great potential to be the player that Leeds built the next few years of the club around.

Carlisle, Jonny Howson scored the two goals that sent Leeds to Wembley under Gary McAllister. Manchester United, the day that is still sung about around the goal, Howson played the impeccable, incredibly under-rated long pass that led to Beckford’s match winning goal. Bristol Rovers, Howson scores the equalizing goal that led to the win Leeds required to gain promotion from League One. Last season, Howson scored ten goals from midfield to supplement the strikers in what was ultimately a failed joust at the play-offs.

This aspect of last season truly revealed how great a player Howson could ultimately become. Simon Grayson, making him vice-captain and ultimately captain of the club, clearly saw Howson as the first name in any match day squad. In naming sides, he sacrificed prolific strikers in order to play one up front, with Howson slipping in behind Becchio. It is here that Howson revealed the force Leeds fans hoped he would become, showing himself to be a potentially great trequartista, playing as an advanced playmaker. As part of a front four of himself, Becchio, Max Gradel and Robert Snodgrass, Howson brought the other three men into play, caused havoc on the opposition back-line and looked simply unstoppable when running at a center back. Played in what had become his ‘natural’ position, given his forced adaptation into a central midfielder after a youth career playing as a striker, Howson looked a player worthy of building a team around.

Whilst he played incredibly infrequently in this role this season, on the few occasions he did he looked just as devastating. Against Nottingham Forest, for example, only the second time he appeared there, with Becchio ahead of him for the first time, Howson ran the game, even scoring a spectacular volley from the edge of the area against one of the league’s top goalkeepers. Injured in the next match, Leeds fans hoped for the best when he returned. A bright future seemed ahead, with a team built around this trequartista.

Yet Howson will now ply his trade at Norwich City. His potential is such, and especially considering that he came through the academy, that I feel this is a momentous event. Howson, upon recovery from his injury, could prove to be the most astute signing of Lambert’s yet. Genuinely a player to build a team around, Howson could easily prove to be a Premier League standard modern attacking midfielder. His potential, given the improvement over the last year alone, is almost limitless, and you can easily understand why Leeds fans are so unhappy at his departure.

Articles, News

Lead the nation? They should not even represent it

January 23, 2012 Spoughts Leave a comment

4/5 on. Evens. 15/8 by far the highest. Harry Redknapp, given the success he has had at Tottenham, is most certainly the current favourite to become the next permanent manager of England after the departure of Fabio Capello in the summer. However, on this day of trial and tribulation, we at Spoughts felt it apt to consider this seemingly inevitable appointment. The conclusion? Precedent suggests that it is not entirely acceptable to see Redknapp as the next manager.

As Harry Redknapp stands in the dock, accused of receiving bungs that he avoided mentioning for tax reasons, alongside his former Portsmouth chairman Milan Mandaric, thoughts will not be cast back to an event over eleven years ago. We’re nothing but picky here, however, and whenever rumours abound over Redknapp’s imminent appointment, minds cast back to the trial of Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer.

Whether Harry Redknapp is guilty of the crime he stands accused of or not is not the issue at hand. On the 2nd of November, in the year 2000, Peter Taylor, England caretaker manager, was told by the Football Association that he would not be allowed to include the two Leeds players in his squad for the friendly match against Italy. They stood accused of a racially motivated assault on the streets of Leeds, and the FA therefore told Taylor that whilst the trial was ongoing, the two could not be involved in the England set up. Yet there has not been any consideration of the implications of this precedent on the employment of Harry Redknapp.

Understandably, given the nature of what Redknapp stands accused of, compared to the supposed crime of Bowyer and Woodgate, leeway could be given. The trial may be over well before Capello leaves. Yet the manner in which the next appointment will be made gives cause to our caution. Capello has already announced his departure, and even if one were to suggest the FA is a mildly incompetent, it is unrealistic to suggest that discussions have not even reached preliminary stages as to who the future appointment may be. Redknapp, standing trial in an English court of law, much like Bowyer and Woodgate all those years ago, remains the favourite, despite the fact that England previously wouldn’t have two potentially guilty men represent their team, never mind lead it into the next World Cup.

What Redknapp stands accused of does, however, pale in comparison to what Bowyer and Woodgate stood trial for, and this may be where the discrepancy occurs. The Football Association, so keen to stamp out racist action ten years ago, has however, allowed a situation to arise by which the man leading England into the most imminent tournament could find himself in court for a similar crime. John Terry has had his file passed over to the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the Anton Ferdinand incident, by which he stands potentially accused of using racially aggravated language against Ferdinand. This has led to a series of racially motivation incidents involving Chelsea fans over the previous few months, and therefore, Terry could be seen, in an extreme light, as responsible for inciting these.

Terry remains captain, and no discussions have truly taken place in the media as to the potential for him to lose ‘the armband’. When compared to Woodgate and Bowyer, the positive aspect to Terry’s issues is that he has not, as of the time of writing, been brought to trial. There is no guarantee that he will be. Chances are, however, that if he is, it will be between now and the European Championships. In our view, should Terry’s case come to trial, he should not be allowed to represent the nation, never mind captain the side.

Given the potential for the timing of Terry’s potential problems, he should not be involved in the preparations for the European Championships – until the matter is solved, a defence should not be reliant on a player who by FA precedent should not be allowed to play for the side. Furthermore, discussions should not take place with Redknapp until his trial ends, as to do so would be a violation of the same precedent. This is why I feel it is unacceptable for either man to have a role to play in the present or near future of the England set-up.

Articles

Ken Davy and the Galpharm Stadium

January 23, 2012 jthornton26 4 Comments

The 30^th April 1994. Huddersfield Town have just played their final game at the decrepit Leeds Road stadium. It is not, however, all doom and gloom for the Yorkshire club. Just over the road is the undeniably impressive 25,000 all-seater McAlpine Stadium. Surely this is the start of a glorious chapter in the club’s history? Wrong. Financial mismanagement, a brush with liquidation, boardroom politics and one man’s ego have jeopardized the club’s very existence and turned the stadium into a white (and blue) elephant.

The stadium was initially set up in a 3-way structure between the football club, Kirklees Council and the rugby league team Huddersfield Giants. The shares were split 40:40:20 with the football club and the council having the greater share of this so-called ‘community stadium’. The stadium had been largely funded by the sale of the old Leeds Road ground, and the council, as reflected in this setup. The stadium was initially fairly successful. Town were promoted in their first full season at the new location and in the summer of 1995 American band R.E.M. visited, performing in front of 70,000 people. Despite this, the fortunes of the football club, and the stadium, were to take a nosedive – starting in 2001.

Local businessman Barry Rubery was just one of a number of modern day entrepreneurs attracted by the lure of trying to take a football club to the ‘Big Time’. As is so often the case, the football club spent way beyond its means attempting to get to the promised land of the Premier League. Town were relegated to the 3^rd division in 2001, which only exacerbated the financial problems at the club. Despite the admirable attempts of Lou Macari – and the dreadful efforts of Mick ‘Total Football’ Wadsworth – the club slipped through the relegation trapdoor and into the 4^th tier of English football in 2003. At this point Town had debts of up to £17 million. Town plunged into administration and for a time there was a genuine possibility that this proud football club would go out of business. The club would eventually be ‘saved’ by Huddersfield Giants chairman Ken Davy to the relief of Town fans everywhere.

What does this have to do with the stadium? Upon his purchase of the club, Ken Davy transferred Town’s 40% share of the stadium into his own private company ‘Huddersfield Sporting Pride’. Surely he must have paid a hefty amount to get a 40% stake in a modern, 54-acre stadium? Well not exactly – the colossal sum of £2 to be precise. Even the most frugal of Yorkshiremen would see this as a great piece of business for Davy. This company also possessed the shares of Davy’s other team, the Huddersfield Giants, meaning this stadium, supposedly created for the benefit of the community, was now 60% owned by a private organisation. Davy has argued that he did this to protect the club from future liabilities, yet as the club emerged from the troubled backdrop of administration and financial turbulence, the shares have remained privately owned.

Dean Hoyle, the current Town chairman, agreed a deal with Davy to buy the shares back shortly before Christmas 2009. If messageboard talk is to be believed then the deal was rumoured to net Davy £3 million pounds, making him a 150,000% profit on his initial purchase price of £2. Had this deal gone through, I believe Davy would have retained at least some respect among Town fans. At the end of the day Davy is a businessman with no prior attachment to the club. Had he returned the shares at this premium price there would, in my opinion, have been an understanding that Davy had supported the club at a time of great difficulty, made his money back and prevented the community from losing its major sport team. The deal, however, fell through. The council held up the deal before deadline after deadline passed with no progress. Allegedly the reason for the collapse was Davy and his insistence on changing the agreement to further benefit him. Despite netting a cool £3 million from the share transfer, he pushed for further changes including the changing of the so-called ‘set in stone’ rental formula which would lead to the football club paying an even higher proportion of rent on the stadium to the Giants. Whether this is more than messageboard gossip remains to be seen, but Hoyle has promised Town fans that the truth behind the collapse will eventually come out.

It is amidst this backdrop that Town fans have begun a series of protests against the collapse of the deal, ranging from boycotts of the catering outlets to the donning of t-shirts in front of the Sky cameras. Huddersfield Town, and its fans, are the major providers of income to the stadium. Yet they are arguably little more than guests in a stadium that is their rightful home. Without question the stadium needs the full backing of the council, the football club and the rugby club to work effectively. As it stands Ken Davy and his private company hold far too much influence for the property to be an effective community stadium. The halcyon days of R.E.M., Bryan Adams and, (*ahem*) Blue seem a distant memory. The shares issue continues to cast a grim shadow over the football club and the community. What the final outcome of the stadium ownership will be remains to be seen. This trailblazer of a modern stadium, which inspired the Emirates, Wembley and erm, the Reebok, will continue to be a burden, rather than a source of pride, to the community and the football club until this saga comes to its eventual conclusion.