Footballers – giving back to society

ACTION IMAGES

By Cressida Smart

A recent tweet suggested that Joey Barton’s sending off provided the extra time that
allowed Manchester City to score two more goals and lift the title. Perhaps there is some
truth in it, but it really is water under the bridge now. Barton’s actions highlight the
wider issue regarding Premier League footballers’ reach and contribution to society.

For those who missed the action last Sunday, Joey Barton was shown a straight red
card for catching CarlosTevez with an elbow; he then struck Sergio Aguero, confronted
Vincent Kompany and had to be pulled away from Mario Balotelli after being restrained
by Micah Richards. The incidents involving Aguero and Kompany came after Barton
had been dismissed, meaning they fall outside the jurisdiction of the referee. He has
accepted one FA charge of violent conduct, but denied a second; he admits clashing with
Aguero after being sent off, but says he has no case to answer for his confrontation with
Kompany. In addition to a four-match ban for his second red of the season, each charge
could carry a three-match ban; the FA’s regulatory panel also has discretion to increase
his suspension.

Joey Barton isn’t the first to receive a red card and of course won’t be the last. What
strikes me as worrying is his post-match action. He was quick to jump on Twitter, “Still
not my proudest moment but who gives a f*ck, we are safe……….and that is all that
matters.” This is one of many abusive tweets that has sprung forth from his malicious
tongue or should I say keyboard, over the past week. As of today, Joey Barton has 1,543,
819 followers. Beyond that, it is hard to estimate how often his tweets are retweeted and
are read by those who revere and despise him. The message he sends out is that he can
physically assault on the pitch, verbally assault off the pitch and walk away with a slap
of the wrist in the form of a probable match ban and fine. This is all to the tune of his
£60,000+ weekly salary and an extraordinary lack of remorse for his actions.

From where I am standing, it seems like football players live by a different set of
laws and take little positive action with their fame and influence. However last week,
Jermaine Defoe, a striker for Tottenham Hotspur bucked my view and possibly the public
opinion of Premier League footballers as overpaid, irresponsible and spoilt. Defoe is
acting as a mentor in a project set up by the football club that’s entitled E18hteen. The
name refers to Defoe’s squad number but also to the age of many of the participants.
E18hteen aims to train and find employment for 160 young people who are, or have
recently been in care. The teenagers are drawn from four boroughs of London– Barnet,
Enfield, Haringey and Waltham Forest – close to Tottenham’s ground; Tottenham was
the centre of last summer’s riots and looting. While E18hteen doesn’t speculate about the
underlying causes of the disturbances, there is an understanding that the club needs to
reach out to some of the more deprived neighbourhoods that surround the stadium.

For Defoe, his ties with the violence and crime in the capital are personal. Three years
ago, his half-brother, Jade “Gavin” Defoe, was killed in a street fight. He says that he
had been growing increasingly concerned about the plight of young people in London,
but the death of his half-brother made him stop and ask what he could do. He also has a
cousin who was in care but is now in prison. Defoe approached the Tottenham Hotspur
Foundation, the club’s community charity, and said that he wanted to get involved in

helping young people in need. The result was E18hteen, which has now been operating
for seven months. The scheme focuses on teenagers in or from care because, statistically, they face the biggest challenges in society: 53% leave school without any qualifications;
29% are designated Neet – not in education, employment or training; 23% of the prison
population has been in care. In addition, 20% of women leaving care between the ages of
16 and 19 become mothers within 12 months.

The concept is E18hteen identifies individual talents and then seeks to realise their
potential. The scheme also tries to ensure that participants are armed with a qualification
in something like crowd stewarding that can deliver employment. Each member of the
scheme is allocated a personal mentor, who checks progress, maintains contact and is
there to help in moments of difficulty or crisis. Once a month a small group of them meet
up with Defoe. The footballer enjoys an easy rapport with the teenagers, sharing much
of the same slang and can speak about urban music with no little authority. However, the
point of connection that the project members emphasise is Defoe’s experience of loss.

The cynics amongst you will no doubt comment on the lavish lifestyle that Defoe leads.
Yes, he does earn an enormous salary and had been known to date models and reality
TV stars; why the latter should be a black mark against his name is a mystery to me,
surely he can date who he chooses. However, as Charlotte, one of the participants in the
programme has said, “…it’s not the lifestyle, it’s that he’s done what he wanted to do. You
could be the dustbin man if that’s your dream.” Defoe is using his celebrity status and
his ability to reach the youth of today to make a difference. If anyone can help struggling
teenagers who are lured by the appeal of gangs and criminal activity, it is those whom
they admire and to whom they may actually listen.

He is not the only player to use his fame in this way. Chelsea striker Didier Drogba set
up a foundation in his name in 2007 which aims to provide health and education support
in his native Ivory Coast and elsewhere in Africa. He has poured in plenty of his own
money. Craig Bellamy is one of the game’s most active charity campaigners. The 32-
year-old, currently with Liverpool, set up the Craig Bellamy Foundation in 2007, to run
Sierra Leone’s first (and currently only) football academy.

Joey Barton has an enormous following both on and offline. He exerts a negative
influence on youngsters; note I haven’t even listed his off pitch activities. I would
really like to see Barton use his money and recognition in a positive manner. However,
with his reputation in further tatters, his football career uncertain, would any charity or
philanthropic venture want to have any association with him? I sincerely doubt it.

An idiot’s guide to leaving the Eurozone

By Luke Prescott

c/o sagabaradon

It never quite went away, but the sobering debate of Greece’s exit from the Eurozone has hit markets hard. Since the entire Eurozone can be described as struggling, with the exception Germany, what is happening in Greece can be said to be economic failure.

Those marathon talks about a Eurozone fiscal compact last December failed to confound the pessimism of markets worried about holdings not just in Greek banks, but also in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian banks.

A messy election and no clear winner has left the Greek President, Karolos Papoulias, to appoint an interim government and arrange fresh elections for mid-June (which is also the date Greece is due to receive new bailout funds). Greece is now at an impasse; does it stay or does it go? Either route involves social, financial and political turmoil and further suffering for the Greeks.

Germany, the rest of the Eurozone and the markets would strongly favour Greece to stick with the Euro which sets the scene for a standoff between Merkel and the likely leader of the Left Coalition Greek coalition come June; Alexis Tsipras. This coalition has pledged to shake off the austerity measures required to gain new bailout funds. Merkel is unlikely to agree to any deviation of such measures at the risk of a backlash amongst German taxpayers heading to the polls next year.

So how does a member of the Eurozone exit? Can economies leave the Eurozone but stay within the EU, or do they need to reapply? What protocol or legislation exists for such a situation?

A poorly publicised paper in fact exists, which was released in October 2011, and within it, Eric Dor provides an insight into how events could transpire, should such an exit occur.

Adhering to current law, the only way Greece could exit the Euro and the EU as a whole would be to use Article 50 of European treaty regulations. It would then negotiate membership back into the EU. Or Article 50 could be amended to allow Greece to exit the Euro, but stay in EU. As with all things European, such an amendment would require ratification from every member state and would be far too slow a reaction.

Therefore, the most likely scenario to keep up with market reactions would be to gain agreement by the entire European Council, which could issue a new regulation allowing Greece to withdraw from the Euro quickly – the legal issues would be discussed and dealt with afterward.

A difficulty would be that Greece would leave the Euro alone, and so all current business contacts and inter-EU debts could not be immediately converted as no exchange rate exists. Add to that the expectation that a Greek Drachma could only depreciate against the Euro in the short and long term, which makes for sobering process.

Steps would therefore need to be taken in order to avoid panic which would very quickly spread through the rest of the Eurozone, and beyond. The managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde stated on 15 May 2012 that the Euro should be ‘‘technically prepared for anything”. ‘Technical preparation’ could be blocking saving accounts and even an illegal capital control within the wider EU to limit the circulation of capital within the European free market.

Legality

Some regulations may have to be ignored in order for the European Council to react quickly enough. Obviously, the UK benefits from EU membership without being a member of the Eurozone, but all countries now joining the EU must sign up to the Euro. Article 50 only allows for a full divorce from the EU, and not a selective one.

International Law is a useful here, as it would allow the Greeks to leave the Eurozone of their own accord (without EC involvement) but remain in the EU. Dor points out that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows any sovereign nation to suspend or withdraw from any international treaty of their choosing (even in the case of the Eurozone, which does not contain a ‘get-out’ clause).

The convention also stipulates that clauses within an international treaty can be withdrawn from whilst remaining within the treaty (the EU itself) overall – this appears to be the only legal way for Greece to withdraw from the Euro, but to remain within the European Union.

The fall-out of abandoning the Euro

When countries first joined the Euro, they did so together, from old established currencies into a shared currency which provided an easy and simple conversion of trade contracts, and inter-governmental debt. A sole nation leaving in a panic, from an established currency into a completely blind and new currency would allow no way to convert holdings, contracts or debt. There is simply no way to relatively convert from the Euro to a new Drachma.

Debt is main question here, Greece currently holds billions of the €644 billion Germany’s Central Bank has so far lent to struggling Eurozone nations and banks. As the receiver, would Germany want to receive their repayments in Euros or Drachmae?

The Greeks as borrowers would prefer to pay in Drachmae (which would be very weak against the Euro), and the Eurozone lenders would wish to be paid in Euros to get more back. According to the principle of lex monetae, as the lending state, Germany would have the final say on which currency would be used: more bad news for the Greeks.

Since the Greek national and domestic banks would have their holdings frozen and then converted to the severely depreciated and weak Drachma, they could quickly go bankrupt.

Again, with no real way to establish an exchange rate between the two currencies, panic would ensue and money would be quickly pulled out of banks in Greece, and the banks that lent to them – possibly causing another credit crunch. Was this why the IMF was fundraising recently?

Dor sets out the following step-by-step process to follow;

1. As the secessionist, Greece would need to freeze accounts of both domestic and national banks for all residents (foreign holdings would not need to be frozen).

2. The foreign holdings would instead be converted at a 1:1 ratio of Euro:Drachma and this also applies to all loans from the ECB and other national banks and organisations.

3. Trading would open on the foreign exchange market of the new currency, where the Drachma would quickly depreciate. But this depreciation could be measured, and used to provide an accurate conversion rate.

4. The frozen domestic accounts would be used to buy sovereign bonds in order to stop the new currency devaluing too much against other currencies. The free market and free exchange of capital within the EU could also be temporarily and illegally frozen.

5. On a more practical note, Euro notes would be stamped to state they were worth only what they could be converted into in Drachmae. Those who still keep their savings under their mattresses would have an amnesty period whereby they could go to currency shops and have their notes stamped for use as temporary legal tender.

6. The wait for new Drachma banknotes and coins would then begin.

Which ball in and in whose court?

It seems that whether Greece stays or goes, an uncertain and difficult future awaits Greece, the Eurozone and the EU. Difficult negotiations are ahead. The best outcome would be to keep Greece within the Euro currency, if only as a firewall to prevent markets turning their attention to the much larger and equally worrying economies of Spain, Italy and Portugal.

Concessions to austerity will need to be made in order to keep the next Greek government willing to adhere to the fiscal pact. On the other hand, the markets and rating agencies will circle like vultures at any deviation from this pact, which could hint at a possible Greek default. Not only this, but Merkel is aware of the upcoming election and angry German taxpayers. With recent gains for Socialists in Europe, Merkel will be incredibly wary of allowing the loss of hard-earned German tax money.

Francois Hollande and Merkel met on 15 May 2012 for their first euro talks in Berlin. Hollande suggested that ‘everything is on the table’ – including Eurobonds – that were originally rejected by Germany. Hollande stated, “I want to renegotiate what was accepted at a certain stage to give it the dimension of growth”.

A happy middle ground needs to be reached by Merkel and Hollande for the benefit of Greece, the rest of Europe, and the markets. Perhaps, it would be best to stick with the rigid budget guidelines agreed in March 2012 but also to free up funds to alleviate joblessness in Europe and the corrosion to living standards in Greece caused by this unflinching budgetary discipline.

Last Day of the Premiership

Image

© Canada.com

By Cressida Smart

It all comes down to the last day. After nine months, 37 rounds of Premier League
matches and 1,034 goals scored, the 2011-12 season will reach its crescendo on ‘Survival Sunday’. There could barely be more at stake. The results of the 10 games will determine who wins the title, who qualifies for Europe, caveats to follow, and who becomes the third and final team to be relegated. All 10 matches will kick off simultaneously at 3 p.m.

The notion that tomorrow is ‘Survival Sunday’ is misleading and only applies to one of
three things to be decided – the relegation battle. By far the biggest issue to be resolved
is who will be crowned Premier League champions. As it stands, Manchester City and
Manchester United are level on 86 points at the top. City, however, have a superior goal
difference (+63 compared to United’s +55), and thus are in pole position to win their first
championship since 1968. Continue reading

Local Elections 2012: a powerful blow from an effective opposition, or a voter-toxic Coalition?

Image

c/o NevilleHobson

By Luke Prescott

The local elections in England, Scotland and Wales have seen huge gains for the Labour party. Indeed, if mirrored in a general election vote Labour would have a comfortable majority, with Labour taking 38%, the Tories on 31% and the Lib Dems 16%. Big gains across swing seats in the South and Midlands illustrate that Labour and Ed Miliband are making the required headway into the seats that decide elections; even in Cameron’s own backyard.

So, is Ed Miliband leading Labour back to power for 2015 with an effective opposition? Not exactly; the current government is an opposition in itself and does not require a formal opposition to sit in Parliament alongside it. Cameron and Clegg (along with their lieutenants) wage war with each other on a number of issues (like the AV referendum) and have been doing so for some time. The beleaguered and delayed reform of the House of Lords is likely to give way to more open disagreement between the PM and Deputy PM.

The infighting of the Coalition is not going away, for both parties’, it useful in distinguishing themselves as each Party proves toxic to their opposite party’s core voters. This provides breathing space for Labour, as the Coalition partners save the most visceral of attacks for one another. Such an atmosphere is new to the opposition, and Ed Miliband needs to seize the opportunity to run a clean campaign in the run up to the general election.

Whilst the Lib Dems bleed the Tories by seemingly tying them down to the centre ground, and the Lib Dems haemorrhage voters, Miliband can concentrate, not on attacks, but on saving the NHS and tangible plans to nurture the economy back to health. Tory MP Gary Streeter has suggested that the Conservative party faithful are ”gagging” for the government to veer right on domestic issues traditionally seen to be in the Tory backyard, such as law and order, and the police. These credentials have been damaged of late; the cuts to police forces are seemingly to blame for the riots spreading around London, and the rest of the country.

Not only domestic issues, but the rise of UKIP (securing around 13% of votes where it fielded candidates) is also an inevitable source of tension. UKIP have seized the EU vacuum. Pressure has mounted on Cameron from influential elements of the Tory party to renegotiate and repatriate powers from the EU before the next election.

The pressure to veer right on domestic issues, such as the upcoming Lords Reform and Tory backbenchers eager for a Euro-showdown, will lead to disarray in the Coalition in the lead up to 2015. Ed Miliband has two roles in opposition: to derail the current Government, and then to promote his own. With one of these responsibilities taken care of already, Labour can concentrate on portraying themselves as the natural successors of the beleaguered Coalition in 2015. A positively run campaign will distinguish Labour and Ed Miliband from the pack, as voters shun austerity and hardship for a more optimistic vision.

However, a pit fall may come in the danger of losing national focus. The major legislative debates over the coming years will lead to inter-coalition battles and the media will continue to feed into the idea of a strained marriage between two coalition partners, seemingly putting on a brave face for the kids. Ed Miliband and Labour will struggle to be heard at times, and a danger is that at the next election they may look like the kid at a wedding, struggling to find a seat at the grown up’s table.

Down to the last wire

by Cressida Smart

Image

© Quick fix sports

This Sunday, Manchester City visit Newcastle United and then host QPR, and if they can win both of those matches they will win the Barclays Premier League and become the champions of England for the first time since 1968. Manchester United, meanwhile, host Swansea City and then travel to Sunderland on the last day of the season. They can repeat as champions if they win out their games and if City drops points.

Monday night was a disaster for Sir Alex Ferguson’s men. City now sit in first place ahead of United with two games left in the campaign, thanks to their 1-0 win on Monday. With the
victory, City pulled level on 83 points (they have identical 26-5-5 records) with United at the
top of the table. However, with City’s vastly superior goal difference over the red half of
Manchester, it means that in order for United to win the League this year, they will almost
certainly have to do it by finishing with more points than their bitter rival. Continue reading

Marvel’s Avengers Assemble

Image

© Marvel

Joss Whedon’s labour of love matches the hype

by John Spence

When pondering what other event has generated so much hype and expectation amongst its core fanbase as Marvel’s Avengers Assemble (hereafter known as The Avengers as it should have bloody been known in the first place) has for the comic book crowd, the only thing one could come up with was Armageddon for eschatologists and the ‘rapture-ready’ religious right. That’s the biblical Armageddon of course; not the Bruce Willis v giant meteor movie, obvs.

And, like Armageddon, The Avengers has had several portents. The six films (five, if you discount Ang Lee’s Hulk, which would be reasonable) that have fed us a drip drip drip of Avengers-based teasery have been of mixed quality, but common to all has been the limitation that, as they’ve all been produced as fore-runners to this film, they have always felt somewhat incomplete.

Continue reading

Party caps and money fairness

By Duncan Reynolds

(C) Pen Waggener

On the Andrew Marr show (15/4) , Ed Miliband proposed that party funding should be limited, not to the £50,000 that David Cameron was suggesting but to 10% of that, a seemingly low £5,000. This is a radical change from the current unrestricted donations allowed (full details of current regulations can be found here) but is it for fiscal fairness, or comparative advantage?

With stories circulating in recent months about how a donation of £250,000 to the Conservatives puts you in the “Premier League”, where “if you’re unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at Number 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee”, a drop to even £50,000 let alone £5,000 seems odd but when taken in context is perhaps sensible. Those claims by former Conservative Party Co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas have been vehemently denied by David Cameron and it is likely that Mr Cruddas was exaggerating the power of money to gain donations but the basic point still stands; money talks and not everyone has that kind of money.

The average wage in the UK is around £26,000 a year, and even within that there is huge disparity with the average being £17,500 in Wales and £27,000 in London. The proposed Conservative cap is therefore around double the average earnings of a UK resident. The donations by the less well-off therefore won’t be that much more significant because they are still being hugely out spent by richer people. It would appear then that lowering the maximum to £5,000 is a step in the right direction to make ordinary people as important as the richest when donating. A cap of £50,000 would not stop the wealthiest influencing policies although the idea of donating £5,000 to a political party to the vast majority of people is still absurd.  In relative terms, there is only one winner but it would not solve the problem by any means.

However this isn’t simply Ed trying to make money fairer in politics. All the main parties receive donations above £100,000 so you would be forgiven for thinking that Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives would be hit relatively equally. This would certainly not be the case if Ed’s plans went through.  Every year through membership ties, the unions donate £7.5m to the Labour Party. This would be technically allowed under the £5,000 limit because no more than £3 per person is being donated. The scheme is opt-out for union members but there is fairly compelling evidence that most people who don’t want their money given away will not find the time to opt-out in a system like that. The Conservatives receive the majority of their donations from large private donors who would now be excluded, but the largest private donor of the Labour Party – the unions – would not.

I believe that there does need to be some regulation of how political parties get their money and a cap may be a way to do this, but the far more pressing issue should be that money buying influence (as it has been claimed to do) should be eradicated. It has no place in our liberal democracy. A cap will help this but it is the internal working of parties that is the main threat.

Depending on whether you read the Telegraph or the Guardian, you’ll see this move as a “wheeze” by a scheming Miliband or a “Tory snub” on a defiant Labour proposal. Either way, a complete rejection by Cameron could send out the message that the rich can buy influence in politics and acceptance would bring Miliband under fire for manipulating legislation for his benefit.