Swimming against the current

To some, it may appear that I am swimming against the tide in choppy waters with regard to the 39th game proposal. But I am not about to take the easy way out and clamber aboard a life raft, far from it. I still believe there is merit in the idea and the hysteria surrounding it should stop. I have been shocked by the universal condemnation of the 39th game by media and fans alike.

I agree that there are features that need addressing, but I still believe in its principles. I have listened to the arguments, some of them valid, and have formed my own opinion, in support of the extra game. People should consider for a moment the good points behind the idea and think of it as an exciting spectacle. The draw for the 39th game, for example, will create a buzz similar to that of the FA Cup draw, something I find a thrilling prospect.

One of the responses to my last blog raised the issue of the logistics behind the 39th game, and how to make the process fair. I think the suggestion that the 1st placed team plays the 2nd, the 3rd versus the 4th and so on is a rational idea, but I don't think it would work. You need to send 4 clubs to each of 5 cities, and one of these clubs must be one of the big five. The idea underpinning the proposal is that all clubs receive the same income from the project which narrows the gap between the big and small clubs.

I accept another comment that the vast majority of the income created from the 39th game would go to increasing players’ wages but I do strongly believe that some of the wealth will percolate into the grass-root programmes, improving the future of English football. The English game will also improve as a result of globalisation; the increased wealth the 39th game brings will create a greater opportunity for English clubs to win the Champions League and Uefa Cup. The more money that comes into the big Premiership clubs, the better chance they have against the likes of Barcelona, AC Milan and Real Madrid. 

I think it's a mistake to dismiss an idea for fear of the future. It is currently a proposal, by no means a final idea, but the first step of many. I accept there are weaknesses, but I believe these are outweighed by the positives.  If you preclude an idea because you fear the next step, the back pass to the goalkeeper would still be allowed, teams would be playing multiple replays (as there would be no penalties) and there would be no substitutes; so I don't think this proposal should be dismissed out of hand.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my and our club's sympathy to Eduardo following our game with Arsenal at St Andrew's. It was a terrible unfortunate accident; Eduardo will have been subjected to many tackles every match, not dissimilar to the tackle from Martin Taylor, and normally at worst, escapes with bruises. I saw Martin immediately after the match and he was distraught, and all he wanted to know was when he could see Eduardo.

He visited the hospital that evening.  He wasn't able to see Eduardo then, but did the following morning, and despite the language barrier was able to express his regret, and demonstrate there was no intent. Eduardo accepted this with understanding and good grace.

The medical staff were faultless with the way they handled the incident, the ambulance was there at the ready, and Eduardo was in hospital under the care of the top surgeons in the country within minutes.  It's great to see him in the papers up on his crutches and we all look forward to watching him back on the pitch in the future.

I was disappointed by the response of Arsene Wenger following the match. I was glad that Arsene later rescinded his comment about banning Taylor for life. Martin Taylor has a fantastic record over 15 years, especially for a defender – with only one other sending-off, and that was in 1999 – this tells you how he plays the game. He is certainly not a 'dirty' player. I reiterate that this was an unfortunate accident.

Gallas, particularly as he is the captain, should know better than to react as he did to Birmingham’s last minute penalty, especially with Arsenal's record of scoring in the final minutes, as Nicklas Bendtner did on Saturday against Aston Villa! I understand the disappointment he must have felt, I too feel devastated when we lose or draw a match in the last minute of the game; but he must not forget that they are at the top of the Premiership, and may want to  consider the position Birmingham are in, fighting to stay in the league. I know it may not be his place to think about the clubs at the bottom of the table, but it may offer some perspective.

Comments

[Steven Hamilton]

I hope somebody has put Frank back in his box and given him his medicine now that Eduardo has confirmed Taylor's story of visiting him in hospital.
It was a terrible accident Frank, don't make a drama of it.

[Frank]

Mr Gold,

You sir are a complete liar. Everyone who knows Eduardo's personality knows that he would never lie and he has told Croatian TV that your fool of a player Taylor DID NOT visit Eduardo in hospital.

Please can you explain how you claim that he did?

Why lie?

If you can lie about him visiting the hospital then I put it to you that you can lie about him feeling distraught over what he did and you could also be lying that it was an accident and that he wasn't instructed to hurt Eduardo.

[1 General Krulak]

"The idea underpinning the proposal is that all clubs receive the same income from the project which narrows the gap between the big and small clubs"

Stopped reading at this point,even though i was already wondering why i was bothering.

If the "big clubs" already have more money how do's sharing the money "narrow the gap between big and small clubs"?

ANSWER:
It doesn't, just puts more money in the pockets of men like "Mr" Gold.

Do's he think were all stupid???

[Pip]

So, David Gold appears to be saying that, on one hand, he wants to narrow the gap between big and small clubs which, as a previous poster pointed out, ain't gonna happen if all the clubs split money evenly.

Then, on the other hand, he says that the extra money will help "English" clubs to prosper against the likes of Barcelona, Milan and Madrid. Which English clubs? Not Birmingham, or Villa, or Portsmouth, or any others outside the top four. In fact, by generously enabling the big clubs to compete in Europe, he's actually advocating the creation of a bigger imbalance, as those clubs will go on to rake in yet more millions from their extended European runs and accompanying merchandise sales.

Unless UEFA is going to start rewarding small clubs when their league leaders do well in Europe? No, wait, that's redistribution of the wealth. That wouldn't fit with the ideals of the capitalist juggernaut that football is fast becoming, driven by the idiocy and greed evidenced in self-serving nonsense like the 39th game idea.

[Phil, Nottingham]

I'm a Blues fan, and I just don't buy this 39th game. I'd much rather we address the problems we have in the premiership where the so called 'big 4', or now 'big 5' according to Mr Gold, dominate the entire proceedings. The premiership would be a far more interesting place if it was made more open. I'd rather we see a ban on loan players (within the premiership/championship) so that the larger teams can't buy all the best players, and then farm them out so they can get a game. I'm really not that bothered about English teams in Europe, as when I watch Arsenal they are in my view a foreign team anyhow (controversial I know, but it is a free world ...to a degree).
So I'd like to a see a fairer system for the premiership, and more opportunities for the English (British even) players in the top level.
We seem to be transfixed about getting revenues from the far east and the like.

[David]

Mr Gold says "The idea underpinning the proposal is that all clubs receive the same income from the project which narrows the gap between the big and small clubs". Explain how that works if all the clubs are to receive the same amount?

[Jim Goodwin]

Well said. Dave. By whom I mean Dave in the comments section, not David Gold. His support for the 39th game still sounds ridiculous.

[Steven Hamilton]

Dear Mr Gold,

I think you have pitched this comment piece well in noting that the idea of the 39th game needs work; I think that the problem is in the way that it was handled and communicated. If a campaign is to be conducted in the media it needs to have the answers to the difficult questions that journalists will ask; in this case the arguments were not well developed and what might have been a reasoned debate has turned into something more akin to mud slinging. A shame, because it is an interesting proposal.
I echo your comments with regard to Eduardo, I sent a message offering my sympathy to the club, and would agree that tackles such as the one that injured him happen, and indeed go unpunished, every week in football. The Makelele/Faubert tackle recently was much worse, but the players leg was not grounded and he therefore escaped with a much less serious injury. Makelele was not even booked.
Might I also add that I think Alex McLeish has done a great job organising the team and instilling some belief; I think if he is able to keep us up he should be backed with suitable funds in the summer to bring in the players he wants.

Best regards,
Steven Hamilton.

[Dave]

When the whole village thinks you are the village idiot then you usually are. When the whole world thinks an idea is stupid and unworkable then it probably is. Would David Gold still think this was a good idea if Birmingham got relegated by 1 point having played Man Utd 3 times and losing all 3 and the team that stayed up had got the vital point in a third game against Middlesborough.
As for competing with AC Milan Real Madrid and Barcelona - well 2 of the 3 are out this year and it is likely that 50% of the quarter final places will be taken up by Premier league clubs, so that argument looks pretty weak and if you like the FA cup draw so much rather than making the league like the cup try staying on the competition a bit longer.