Phil Neal on that documentary about Heysel last night. As you probably know when asked to give his thoughts on Heysel to Observer reporter Jamie Jackson in April he replied "People who want my views pay".
Well, the people behind last nights documentary 'How Heysel Changed Football' obviously did. I hope he didn't get much, because a penny for his thoughts would be too much. A particular gem was his claim that the Liverpool dressing room was "like a morgue".
Who, earning £40,000 per week, has applied for and been granted legal aid to defend against the disorderly conduct charge arising from the allegations that he spat at a Middlesbrough supporter earlier this season....
Apparently the aid was awarded because he doesn't speak English and may need an interpreter. If I had known that interpreters are so well paid I might not have screwed around so much in my French lessons.
Although the Premier League could have far more to pay when Cole's lawyers have finished with them. Something along the lines of 'time to end this ridiculous situation where footballers are not allowed the same freedom to seek alternative employment as every other worker in Europe'.
This is after they point out to a high court judge that the fines are disproportionate compared to previous near-identical cases and shortly before Chelsea's lawyers go into bat.
Yes and the Premier League's response was a little worrying (for them at least). Although out of step with the rest of European football (and common sense), the best the spokesman could come up with was along the lines of "Ashley learnt his trade at Arsenal and should show some loyalty to the club that made him great". It's the sort of twaddle that a 13 year old fan would come out with.
It should all make for some entertaining court room action. It's odd that these football bodies keep appointing brainless lawyers. The Football league's legal arguments against ITV digital (not to mention the intial contract drafting) were comically silly.
It was one of the more...er... memorable Premiership statements, wasn't it?
I'm 'loyal' to my current employer, but if someone headhunts me and offers to treble my salary, they won't see me for dust (bar the month's notice). I can see what's going to happen now. Cole - who would probably have put up with a fine of £10K - will take the Premier League to court. The judge, stifling laughter, will blow the entire football contract system as it stands out of the water, ending up with players switching clubs so long as they serve one or three month's notice. If he's reasonably switched on, he may even deliver part of the judgement in song: 'Transfer window? You're 'aving a laugh; tranfer window? You're 'aving a laugh [etc, etc ad nauseum])
Well he can't quite do that actually because the EC has already ruled that contracts are okay. Or I'm almost certain it has...
The point is that a contract can be "bought out" (by a transfer fee) by other clubs or the player himself. Doesn't the army still run along those lines? Maybe not. I once knew an awful army chap, who bragged all through college that he was having his fees paid and that "soldiering" was great. His attitude changed rather dramatically when he got posted to Belfast as soon as he graduated. I digress.
There's nothing wrong with fixed-term contracts. They benefit players as much as clubs and neither would want to scrap them. The problem comes in attempting to prevent players discussing buying out the contract.
The contradiction (or one of them) is that clubs are able to discuss terminating their players contracts with other clubs, but players themselves aren't able to. So Club A can say to Club B, do you fancy buying Player X? If Club B agrees Club A asks player X if he fancies it and suggest it might be good for his career because he has no future at club A.
This whole case is crazy as it goes on all the time. I think the participants are being punished for being brazen and arrogant (meeting in public), rather than their actual crime.
The games schedule for the World Cup has been released and it is, as Phil Thompson would say, a bloody disgrace. There are 10 midweek games scheduled for 2pm BST and lots of others at 5pm or even 4pm BST. I thought the World Cup was supposed to be about maximising tv revenues. How can putting games on when European tv fodder is at work do this? Crazy.
Your memory is pretty accurate, LB. Tokyo is 8-9 hours ahead (depending on summer time/daylight saving, etc, etc); and the US 5-9 hours behind.
It does say on the official schedule that kick off times are subject to change.
One thing, though - I don't think that there's anything particularly new about the middle of working day starts. England's first game in France 98 kicked off at 1.30pm. I'd guess that the 1700 and 1800hr starts are to accommodate the crowd, so as to avoid complaints that the stadium is half empty.
