If you have anything to say on any subject, mail us at theeditor@football365.com
A Mail Entitled 'Bloody Commies'
I'm getting a little bit tired of people like Mike 'Power to the People' Roberts banging on about 'disgusting' amounts of money based on the fact that he hasn't got much, so therefore it's all a little bit unfair. It's an example of the chronic 'I want, I want...but done nothing to deserve' culture we now live in.
It's like when your mum used to say, "finish your tea because there're people starving in Africa". It's all relative: If £80m is offensive to Mike because he's skint, I can assure Mike that there's a guy in a third world country somewhere who thinks that the money Mike spends on a pint is offensive because it's more than he earns in a month.
A player's value is whatever someone is willing to pay for him. No, Real Madrid are probably not going to recoup this money from shirt sales alone, but Perez is planning a project for the next few years and to kickstart that he needs some new talent now.
I'm not saying it'll work, I'm not saying I like it; hell, I'm not even saying that any player is worth £80m (I don't need to put a bunch of zeros after it to understand it's value Mike), but I'm not saying it's disgusting because ME ME ME is short of a few bob at the moment and I need someone to blame or be angry with.
By his own admission, Mike's life choices have put him in a position where he can't afford a TV and struggles to get the cash together for a pint of beer. May I suggest that this is what makes him 'feel like a bit of an idiot', rather than the comparison with a multi-million pound footballing empire?
Marky B. MUFC
Loving The Gluttony Actually...
In response to Mike 'Money Talks The Wrong Language' Roberts - what exactly do you think is the right message? That football is still a small, quaint industry where the guys on the pitch are just sportingly gifted versions of the guys in the stands? Haven't you noticed - and I'm serious - haven't you? - the global marketing initiatives with footballers at the helm, the satellite TV channels devoted to the big clubs, the billionaires falling over themselves to invest in the action? This, my friend, is the new sh*t, and I think it's bloody brilliant.
The vast sums of money involved allow one of mankind's best concepts the pedestal it deserves, and your whinge centred around 'it's a bloody disgrace' is, frankly, naff. What do you propose the leading stars in an entertainment industry should be paid? Two quick points to close - who can ever be arsed with those eight para jobs? - first: I'm guessing that at least once during Chelsea's title-winning seasons you celebrated, thus defeating your 'point' instantly, and two, when I think about how many countries have an economy worth less than 80 million, I quickly reach the conclusion that there might be an island in the Pacific somewhere, but they probably do alright off tourism, so maybe not.
Basically, to borrow a phrase from those golden terraces of yore, you're sh*t, and you know you are.
Toby Sprigings
...An increasing number of angry football fans appear to be under the delusion that vast transfer fees are somehow 'wrong'. They aren't. Money isn't evil. Money is simply a fact of life, like gravity or time - a force that acts inexorably on players, as it does on us all. Cristiano Ronaldo is just particularly skilled at manipulating it (as he is gravity, incidentally).
The cash enters the game from paying punters, channeled through the turnstiles, sales of insurance and sunglasses and pints of weak lager in crap pubs. If you don't want vast sums of money spent on players - if you'd rather it went to nurses say, or dogs - just don't give it to them. Give it to nurses and dogs. If you give football clubs money then you're partly responsible.
Clubs who want to convince everybody of their own importance spend great wads of cash so that they'll be noticed. They're only showing off. Ignore them and they'll stop doing it.
Goodbye now.
Alastair Ferguson
More Fanmail For Mike
Mike Roberts - firstly if you can't afford bread then surely the internet is an unnecessary luxury? But more to the point the number of countries that have an economy less than the Ronaldo transfer according to the IMF is...1 - Kiribati. And there are more members of Real Madrid than there are people in the whole country. The fee is huge, but let's not needlessly descend into hyperbole just to appease your social circle/conscience.
At the end of the day, the market pays the price the market will bare. If it all goes wrong and Madrid can't pay back the money then it will ultimately be to their detriment. And before anyone starts complaining about them being bankrolled by the government - the government must be getting something for their money, be it increased tourism revenue or popular support etc. so Madrid are being paid for a service they provide the government however intangible/unintelligable that service might be
Maybe we should all enjoy Madrid's madness, stop whining and wait for the fireworks (either on the pitch or of it).
Mark (whether it works of implodes they're will be fireworks) Costello
...In reponse to Mike (Do you fancy sharing some of that, Sir Alex?) Roberts, I only did a very quick check at the World Bank, and you can of course argue about the appropriate way to measure the size of a national economy, but when you think about how many countries in the world have an economy less than that much it seems the answer is around the 'ten' mark. And nearly all of them are territorial dependencies of former European colonial empires.
I would suggest that if you want to support your natural instinct that says 'that's far too much money' you do so by enquiring how much money we all pay, directly and (far more importantly) indirectly, as consumers of the sprawling product 'football' to finance this. If you don't like the answer, stop buying. Stop reading F365. Stop watching Sky. Never buy a Ford. And if you're really committed, don't buy a beer at the game.
Or if you're really set upon this comparision with global economic indicators, I suggest you start with GDP/capita (PPP) and start working out the purchasing power-parity income inequalities between the bloke who works 18-hour days in a mine in Niger and the guy who spends most of his time spunking his appallingly large wodge up an heiress. Then we can discuss issues of value, utility, fairness and an ethically-acceptable distribution of resources in a slightly more informed context. We could do it on the forum.
Nick, London
...Mike Roberts' lofty, bleeding heart rhetoric and 'won't somebody please think of the children' monologue seems admirable enough in intention, lamenting that Madrid spend money on footballers whilst he, 'can't afford a telly' and he has to 'save and scrape together enough change to buy one pint per match down the pub'. Meanwhile, there are people in the world who have to walk 5 or 6 miles just to get a drink of dirty water, who have no food to eat and no roof over their heads whilst any chance to grow crops are withered by blistering weather and successive Governments mishandling of resources and the economy. Would these people not be similarly indignant at you Mike for complaining about concerns as grandiose as being able to have a pint and watch the telly? I wonder if there's a website they can write into to to express their dismay at the decadence and misguided sense of entitlement of today's English, lower middle-class football fan? The bottom line is we always look at those above us in the economic food chain and complain that it's all so unfair on us, all the time not thinking about those that sit below us. That's what Madrid are doing and in your letter Mike, that's what you're doing too.
Tim 'far too serious for a Monday' Stillman
Some Support Here Though...
In addition to Mike Roberts, who I think is spot on with his analysis in this morning's mailbox: it is not just the sickening height of the transfer fees of players like Robinho, Kaka, Cristiano Ronaldo. It is also the attitude coming from these players and the people surrounding them.
First of all there is Ronaldo himself who says with a big squirky smile that he is honoured that someone pays 80 million pounds (almost 100 million euros) for him. Looking at him you see that he actually believes that kicking against a ball once a week is worth that much money. Then there is Zidane who literally says that the amount is justified because Ronaldo brings so much to the game and thus to society as a whole.
This is absolutely mental. Does anybody realise that a kid like Cristiano gets about ten times a much as any CEO of a company that employs 100.000 people (and probably feeds 10 to a 100 times that with all it's related business). And hold on: aren't we crucifying these CEOs and portraying them like money-grabbing wolves all over the globe nowadays.
I love the game and sports in general. But these athletes are no longer the role models that they once wore. I really hope that there isn't anybody in the world who looks up to some Portugese kid who thinks that he has some god given right to claim 552.000 pounds a week for supplying 180 minutes of entertainment. 180 minutes society could well do without in a time of a big recession. Like Mike said: UEFA please bring in the salary caps and limit transfer fees.
Rick Liemer
...I read Mike Roberts's contribution to your mailbox with a growing sense of camaraderie. I too have been put in the slightly awkward position of having to justify large transfer fees to people who, because they watch Have I Got News For You and support Amnesty International and know the real value of things, think the amount of money spent on football is idiotic. I too have tried explaining to these people how you can't put a price on Ronaldo scoring a jackhammer of a shot from 40 yards, Xabi Alonso dissecting the pitch diagonally with a pinpoint accurate pass, or Iniesta dribbling through three players in the space of a square metre. And I have always failed to convince them, and always thought they thought I was simply the kid who hadn't grown out of the playground hierarchy school of thought - my trainers are more expensive that yours therefore they are better etc. In short, I have always come out of those conversations feeling like a silly boy.
So I've done a lot of thinking about it and come up with an answer. Football lovers of the world, there is no need to feel guilty any longer! There is no need to be ashamed of your excitement about the amount of money spent on the world's best players (despite our moralising, who can honestly admit not to dribbling with goal-lust over a teamsheet including Kaka, Ronaldo, Silva, Ibrahimovic, Villa?) When the next superior berk says to you: 'how can a football player be worth 80 million pounds?' You say this:
'The football player is not worth 80 million pounds. You cannot say that x amount of goals per season is worth y amount of money, or the ability to complete 90 per cent of your passes is worth z amount, or even the ability to win a certain number of games a season has a precise value. Why don't you try? Is a goal in a cup final worth 10K? Is a tackle in the dying seconds of the last game of the season worth 10 million? Impossible to say. Real Madrid are not paying 80 million pounds for Cristiano Ronaldo. Real Madrid are paying 80 million pounds because that is what their popularity is worth. They are paying for the interest and adoration of the people who will pay to watch their football matches. You can do this more cheaply, like Barcelona, and coach your team to play brilliant football, or you can do it in one fell swoop by buying the players you know everyone wants to watch. It is that expensive because you are paying for the devotion of hundreds of millions of people, people who might otherwise spend their time watching a Hollywood blockbuster (comparable budget - Titanic, $200 million, in 1997). It is the value of entertainment my friend, not the value of a football player.'
For good measure you might add: 'Now put that in your overpriced frappuccino and smoke it.'
P. 'Socrates wasn't just a footballer' Birch, London
Are You All Jealous Of Arsenal Now?
Having read the email in this morning's Mailbox from: Mike (Do you fancy sharing some of that, Sir Alex?) Roberts, Chelsea fan, it got me thinking about whether other team's fans are now jealous of the Gunners. See, people are going on about the obscene (and it really is obscene) amounts of money that footballers are going for now, not to mention the even more obscene wages these guys are getting and it made me think about my beloved Arsenal and Le Prof's transfer policy. Having never spent even 1/4 of Ronaldo's fee on one player and having a very strict wage structure that has no doubt caused us to lose out on a few players down the years.
Yeah we may miss out on a few trophies for a few years but spending the money we do and coming top four every year and quarters/semi finals of the Champions League most years is still a bloody good achievement. All with our footballing 'soul' intact having not sold out to a rich sugar daddy (what happens when these all get bored?? Or like Gillett and Hicks, get skint??) but building a model on self-sufficiency, the club only spend what it makes.
So come on, how many of you are (secretly) a bit jealous of Arsenal??
Mark (going for two out of two in the Mailbox) Squire
Blooming United Fans...
Jesus, a dog really does mirror it's owner doesn't it. Some ManU fans are as hypocritical of their manager.
Zubair Umar castigating Tevez for chasing the biggest paycheck he can now he's made up his mind to leave ManU, takes the biscuit today. Fergie hasn't nearly played Tevez enough, not by a long shot. You've totally wasted him. The reason he's apparently started to resemble Kuyt is desperation, nothing else. Desperation to prove he's a bloody good striker, which he is. Which your manager hasn't remotely given him the stage to show.
You talk about City being 'as much a no-go as Liverpool' and how 'it will be impossible for any United fan to have any lingering goodwill for you'. Why should he care what goodwill is shown to him, from fans of a team that was wasting him on the bench next to Nani? You talk of the pretty wee Argentine 'having options to stay or go elsewhere'. Stay on the bench you mean presumably? And he is going elsewhere, it's no matter of yours where that is, if you valued him high enough to truly keep him he'd have had the opportunities he deserves. Your final question of 'If the adulation of the fans means anything to you, please don't go to City!!', this always gets me chuckling, it's up there with 'He wont be remembered as a Utd legend'. Why on earth would any non-local player give a flying wad of monkey jizz what you lot think of him after his gone? And after all why should you care, isn't it 'Always down hill after Utd' anyway (cough Piqué cough)?
Remember when you were good? When Rooney, Ronaldo (remember him?), and Tevez were giving teams heart palpations with their full throttle counter-attacks? Now, can you imagine Kuyt being part of that threesome and having the same effect?
Mark Hamilton, Everton
...So, Zubair Umar, I had no idea that United fans had no respect for such United legends as Denis Law and Peter Schmeichel.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I believe the term used in the mailbox these days is 'Tool'.
Lino, Tangerine ex-pat in the US
In Defence Of The Vuvuzela
I would prefer to hear the vuvuzela than hooligans singing about paedophiles, homophobic chants and laughing at people that died at Hillsborough and Munich.
Marcel Naicker
...In response to Tom Fitzgerald's email on banning the vuvuzela, I would have to strongly disagree with this notion. The trumpets add to the atmosphere of a football match played on the African continent and generally I've discovered the noise gets both the fans and the players going and creates a unique experience for everyone involved. If Tom wants a more 'normal' environment he should march himself to the nearest cathedral, and hope the vicar has a telly in the back room. We hear the awful chants from the terraces week in week out in the Premiership but we cant complain cause that's how English fans get behind their players, similar to how Turks show the heads of dismembered cows (I'll admit that's a bit weird).
Mtoe (Could Tom be a closet New Zealand supporter) Phuthi
...To all the contributors who complained about the trumpets or vuvuzelas:
First up: Deal with it, they are a part of the South African football culture and since SA won the bid to stage the World Cup they should and most likely will be allowed in ALL the games.
Secondly, everyone is complaining about the possibility of crime being a major problem at the World Cup next year. Did you know that these vuvuzelas are sold outside stadiums by the poorer sections of society which helps them profit from the major corporate event that is the FIFA World Cup? If FIFA were to ban them because you feel mildly irritated by a sound, then this would cause those salemen, their wives/husbands, their children, grandchildren, granparents, uncles, cousins and in-laws to be deprived of valuable income. This in turn could force some to profit from the event in less legal means. It's an over simplification, granted, but trust me, the sales of a few dozen plastic trumpets could improve the lives of the impoverished more than you would be able to imagine while you watch the football on the couch complaining, eating Doritos and drinking Stella.
Gawd, some people just want to complain about f***ing everything!
Julien (They are bloody irritating though!) Raftopoulos, Saffa in London
...Being a South African, I have become used to hearing the sounds of the bush, the sounds/annoyance that is traffic (mainly taxis, and not quite the type of taxi that you lot have across the water), gunshots, and of course, the vuvuzela. Now our locals have been blowing on horns for quite some time (yes very funny), however these were actual horns from poor helpless animals slaughtered for their meat, or horns, or both. So when some bright spark decided to make a plastic funnel type device, I wasn't exactly surprised.
The first few experiences of the vuvuzela were a nightmare. Bloody noisy plastic horns being blown in your ear for 90 mins isn't exactly fun. However, when they are not being blown into your ear, they actually create one helluva atmosphere! Sure, it's quite a bit different from the way the UK, and European supporters in general go about creating atmosphere at a game, but f*** it, its the way (most) of us South Africans can make a noise that doesn't involve learning English and at least one other of our 11 official languages.
The football-going public down here are mainly of traditional African decent, and such trying to sing a chant that will involve most of the language groups just isn't a possibility. It may not sound good to you lot, but as a colleague pointed out, it's the same as them banging on drums in South America, or having children shouting "AND HE S***S ON FABREGAS!" over in the UK, those farking air-horns in Italy, whistles in Spain etc. It's just the way our culture has chosen to express itself.
Dont like hearing it on telly? Mute. Don't like it at the stadium? Earplugs. I seem to remember reading an article a while back saying that FIFA would not ban the vuvuzela at the World Cup, and rightly so. So may I suggest that you get used to it/get over it/deal with it in whatever way is easiest for you, as it looks like it's going to be blaring through your speakers for the duration of the Confed Cup at the least.
Kyle (Although having said that, old Sepp Blatter didn't seem too impressed yesterday), Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA
There'll Be No Vuvuzelas Actually
I am South African and could have warned everybody ahead of time about the incessant and ear-popping noise the vuvuzelas make...but anybody who is worried about the World Cup next year can relax. The starting price for any tickets for next years showpiece event are actually higher then what 90% percent of the local populace earn in a month. It is doubtful that more then a handful of local fans will make any matches. The crowds for next year will be made up of: foreigners, rich South Africans (black and white), and thats about it.. It will look and sound more like Wimbledon then the 'African' World Cup and in a way it's a bit of a shame...
Mark Cohen, Vuvuzela capital Johannesburg
No, Ban The Vuvuzela
In response to some of the emails this morning about the annoyance that is called a vuvuzela, people, I feel your pain.
I am from South Africa and on the rare occasion I would actually watch a domestic league match I would always turn the sound off as the sound of that bloody plastic tube is insufferable.
But I can see what is going to happen, Blatter et al will say it is a cultural item in South African football terms and of course it should be allowed, heck even encouraged so I have to live in hope that most matches will be filled with fans from the countries playing who will not even touch the stupid thing and we can enjoy a World Cup without that bzzzzzzzing sound.
And since Bafana Bafana are pants they will probably not qualify from the group stages anyway (am I correct in saying they will be the first host nation to do this?) so we should only need to stick them for three matches.
Chris 'C'mon lads lets get a petition going' Brown, Belfast
Actually, It's Not A Tradition
I had a good laugh when I read the letters from the anti-vuvuzela brigade in this morning's mailbox. I haven't written in before as I quite enjoy watching English football but don't consider myself a supporter of any team (never having been to England and generally being annoyed with locals who support an overseas team/league over their local ones).
I'm sure you will probably have a few responses from South Africans trumpeting (for the lack of a better word) the vuvuzelas you heard at the Confed Cup but I can only assure you that they are a particularly mindless lot. I have been attending local football games since I was four years old (with my dad obviously at that stage) and in those days people used to scream, clap, sing etc. in much the same fashion as you would find in any other country. The twist is that there was always one or two chaps blowing a kudu (a type of antelope) horn as a trumpet but then only doing so sporadically during the course of the game (this was quirky and pretty cool).
I think it was around 2000 that some numpty started importing millions of cheap plastic trumpets from China which then quickly caught the attention of those people who always wanted to blow a kudu horn of their own but didn't know where to get one. It has now become such a feature of the local game that people seem to think that it is a traditional aspect of the local game. In truth, it's not. Some dude in China is making a killing and real supporters are increasingly becoming disenchanted with attending local games live for fear of losing their hearing. Casual fans on the other hand (obviously) love them to bits. You think they're bad on television? Try sitting next to or in front of someone blowing one of those things over an entire game. Ban them I say!
Annoyed old guy, South Africa
The Three Reasons The Galacticos Will Fail
Only time will tell if the second Galiticos era will bring Real success.
Judging from what we've seen over the last few years, all indications are that it will all end in tears. There are three fundamental flaws in how certain clubs are managed, especially the 'richer' clubs like Real and Chelski.
Flaw # 1 - Players being paid more than their managers
This is by no means exclusive to Real and Chelski as most clubs experiences this. It makes no sense that the person actually in charge of the team is getting paid less than potentially half of his charges. How can one demand the respect of his subordinates when he can't even match their spending power?
A typical training conversation could go down the following route:
Manager: "Yo Ronnie! Do another lap round the track will ya?"
Ronnie: "Yo! Why don't I pay you ten grand to do it yourself?"
Thus the age of super egos amongst the players was born. It also created an atmosphere where the managers are now pressured to prove themselves to the players instead of the other way round.
Flaw # 2: Players having the direct line to the president/owner of the club.
Club presidents/owners who have direct contact with players on regular basis are basically asking for trouble. They are not only undermining their managers, they are also inflating their the player's already over inflated egos.
Even great managers like Mourinho and Capello have suffered because of this, with players going directly to their club presidents/owners whispering all sort of nonsense and getting their managers sacked. Note that neither Real or Chelski had great success after having Capello or Mourinho removed.
Flaw # 3: Having your president/owner treat the team as his team.
It may be his club but it's not his team. It's the manager's team. Being a club president/owner means that he's probably a very good business man and pretty handy at wheeling and dealing. But it doesn't mean that he's a footballing master tactician.
By meddling with the team, he'll just end up either alienating his manager and over-indulging his players (step up Roman Abramovich, Ramon Calderon, Florentino Perez) or worst-case scenario, alienating everyone (Jesus Gil, Mike Ashley)
So these presidents /owners will inevitably end up hiring and then firing a whole hosts of yes men managers along the way.....
Having said all that, the second coming of the Galaticos will be quite a ride. Watching them implode will be exciting!
Keeps, Kuala Lumpur
The Villa Situation In A Nutshell
Valencia are trying to get as much money as possible for Villa, whom they are more or less required to sell due to exorbitant debt levels. Villa doesn't want to leave Spain. Barcelona seemed unwilling to pay enough to buy him. Real Madrid, consequentially, had Valencia by the balls, as they were the only ones in the market for him, so to speak. Real Madrid use their mouthpiece, Marca, in an attempt to further force Valencia's hand, claiming a deal was all-but-done on Saturday.
Valencia counter by asking for the collaboration of Real Madrid's arch-rivals, Manchester United and Barcelona, in bidding for Villa, driving up the price tag for Real. Barcelona's bid appears genuine because they want to offload Eto'o and presumably replace him, + Villa wants to stay in Spain. ManUtd's bid appears genuine because they lost Ronaldo and need to replace him, and while Villa wants to stay in Spain, ManUtd are the kind of club who can supercede such desires.
Clear as mud.
Oliver Dziggel, San Diego, California
Time For The Big Four Domination To End
I have been pondering over the stranglehold of the big four for a while now, as as the mailbox is quiet, maybe it will spark a bit a debate.
I'm a Villa fan, and I have no preference for any of the top teams and I see it like this.
1) Man U are reliant on SAF. He is integral to the club, and there is no way any manager can walk into his shoes and maintain the success that the purple noser has achieved. Not immediately anyway. When he goes (say in 3-5 years time) they will be weaker
2) Arsenal. Same as 1. Everyone knows it's really Arsene Wenger FC. His shoes are arguable more difficult to fill than SAF's. Surely when he decides to call it a day, Arsenal will be nowhere near the team that they currently are.
3) Chelsea - One day Roman may get bored and leave the club high and dry.
4) Liverpool. Appear to be massively in debt (but so are the others). Rafa has done a great job, but could be replaced more easily than SAF and the Prof, so possibly in the best place to maintain their status, depending on the cash situattion and spending power
I'm not saying that the big four will all of a sudden drop into the bottom half of the table, but I do think that in the not too distant future, they will be weaker, giving an opening for the chasing pack.
All things must pass, and I'm hoping that in the case of the big four, it will be sooner rather than later...
Yeah?
Phil (AVFC), Brum
Woodgate No Longer Crocked
Out of pure curiosity, why is Woodgate still referred to a constantly injured, or famously crocked as your summer spending spree says? He has played 34 league games in the past season? He played 28 in the league the season before that ('Boro and Spurs); the season before that he played 30 games in the league. Surely after three years of playing the majority of the season you can stop calling him injury prone. Ledley King is injury prone. Darren Anderton was injury prone. Woodgate is a regular starter...
On a side note, how does his form during the last few games of the season stop him from getting a call-up to the England squad?
Leigh Bennett, Oxford
Where Now For Mickey Then
The exclusive disclosure of Michael Owen's sales brochure on F365 has got me thinking this afternoon...really, what next for the England/Liverpool/Real Madrid/Newcastle reject?
I'm fairly sure we can discount completely the top four. None of them are skint or desperate enough to take him on. Well - except Arsenal, but whilst he may not look it, he's clearly a bit old for Wenger's tastes. And there are other issues that make a move to Arsenal unlikely, which I'll discuss later.
So, moving on from the top four, we come to Everton. At first glance they look a likely bet, but as has been pointed out on this site before, no club with a Yakubu/Louis Saha/James Vaughan strikeforce supplements that with the only man since Darren Anderton to make their injury records look tame. Villa are another good shout - in theory - but with Heskey, Carew, Agbonlahor and Delfouneso in the ranks, they'd be better giving £65,000 a week to a couple of centre-halves. Next up is Manchester City, and whilst the wages wouldn't be a problem, the presence of Craig Bellamy, Robinho and Daniel Sturridge (for now) in the 'little man up top' role suggests their priority is for a big man. They won't be in for him.
The next group of clubs that you'd think of all have the same problem. The London effect. Spurs, West Ham and Fulham might all fancy their chances of bringing EMO to the capital, but as a lifelong (admittedly really, really soft) Northerner, I'd imagine Owen would prefer to stay north of Birmingham, given the chance. This is the other reason I can't see him at Arsenal - he clearly quite likes flat caps, whippets and rain. When you break it down further though, you can also see that Spurs have the little man role sewn up with Keane and Defoe, and West Ham and Fulham's financial positions surely couldn't justify paying so much in wages (probably taking up most of their summer budget) to the most broken of strikers. I can't see either of their frankly quite sensible managers deciding to take a punt on that.
What we're looking for then, is a club that needs a striker, preferably a smaller one as opposed to a target man. Said club should ideally be based in the north, have money to burn, and a manager with a history of taking in ex-footballers then making them look like real players again.
Step forward Steve Bruce and Sunderland AFC.
Can you imagine Newcastle United's club-record, marquee signing doing one on a free to Sunderland? And then doing well? It makes sense AND it's hilarious. If Niall Quinn really is a man of the people, he'll get this done.
Right, I'm off to print this in a glossy brochure.
Rich Prince
Linda Apparently Eats LOADS, Like, Startling Amounts
First of all, I'd love to see the 36-page brochure that Michael Owen's management company have put together to try and convince potential suitors that he isn't a past-it, injury prone, overpriced midget. I can imagine it decorated with soft focus shots of our man looking pensive and thoughtful staring out into the middle distance through the windows of his Cheshire mansion with a copy of Proust on his lap; or smiling compassionately as he serves hot soup and a bap to a homeless man at a shelter. I presume it will also include his vital statistics like his keepy-uppy record; results from the crossbar challenge; how many press-ups he can do with the ball balanced on the back of his neck etc.
Secondly, if you've got to the stage in your career where you have to hawk your services around using a bloody pamphlet, I'd suggest you're in no position to dictate your wages. In every story linking him with a club is the line "but his £110k weekly wage may prove to be a stumbling block" - well how about he lowers his demands to £60-70k a week (the horror!), that way he might get a few takers. Shirley even he (or his management/advisors) can see that he is no longer the A-list marquee player that he once was, and as such is not on the same level as other players who earn the top, top money (unless of course he goes to Man City where everyone is seemingly on at least £100k a week) - the delusions of grandeur amongst some footballers never fails to amaze me.
Thirdly, people moaning about trumpets (sorry, vuvuzelas) and rubbish attendances at the Confederations Cup. What I say to you is just be glad that there is any footy on TV - I know I am and I'd certainly rather listen to some rooting tooting vuvuzela honking than the Mrs rattle on about her dull day at work and how much Linda has eaten today the fat tart. If it really offends you turn off the sound - I can't believe people are actually turning the channel over! And did anyone really expect this tournament to be a sold-out affair? This is a relatively pointless and unimportant competition (I only realised it was on at all about three weeks ago!) but it does have one good purpose - giving SA a dry run before the WC next year, kind of like a dress rehearsal. The low attendances can be put down to the fact that the tournament itself really isn't important; there are only eight teams competing, some from the other side of the world; tickets I would imagine are relatively expensive for the local population; and people are probably saving their pennies for the main event next year!
In short, stop your moaning.
Lots of love
Dave (someone MUST have a copy of the Michael Owen brochure - please send it in to F365...) Sutton, Sussex
