Sunday 30 September 2012

Almost... I think that one hit the post and bounced back out



I’ve sat here for almost fifteen minutes now typing away and yet I still only find myself at the first sentence of this blog. Everything I try as an opening doesn’t quite fit what I want to say or act as a good enough starting point to where I think I should at least begin as I attempt to write it. None of that really cuts the mustard either having just read it back but if I delete all of that as well then I could be here all evening and I’m pretty sure given the list of jobs that I still have to complete that going forward is going to be a better option in the main then hitting the delete button all of the time.

In essence this blog should be a reply to the piece entitled ‘The shape of Pompey's future debate...’ written by probably the most well known of all Pompey bloggers Mr Mike Hall. Now however it feels like it should be a response to not only that reply but also to the piece written by Pompey’s most well known local sports journalist Mr Neil Allen which I would tell you the title of but it’s just been pulled offline and won’t be re-posted until 9am tomorrow. Well in the words of the late great Mr Frank Sinatra … Ain’t that a kick in the head.

I think someone’s trying to tell me something….

Friday 28 September 2012

Scunthorpe (H) 29th September 2012


Ask any Manager what it takes to win a football match and one of the biggest key elements they’ll tell you is to have a little bit of luck come kick off. It doesn’t matter how many internationals players you are able to field on the pitch, it doesn’t come down to how many hours you’ve spent together on the training pitch making sure every part of your game is well drilled into the minds of every player. All it can take is one slice of luck; one kick of the ball, one deflection ,one bobble of the ball in front of the home goal as the opposing striker sends his shot high over the bar or one dodgy penalty decision. Sometimes that one stroke of luck can turn around an entire season and be the start of something that galvanises a team and a side that looked like it couldn’t beat their wives suddenly looks like its capable of anything when they enter the field of play. What Michael Appleton needs right now is a Pedro Mendes moment. One of those goals that hits the back of the net and sends the Fratton End into raptures and lifts the team out of the doldrums. It doesn’t have to be as spectacular as that Mendes goal, for all I care it can be a goal that ricochets off the back of Luke Rodgers shiny head in the 6th minute of injury time after the goal keeper miss times his clearance. Michael Appleton right now just needs that bit of luck.  

As popularity goes most club managers cannot claim to have the support that Michael Appleton has from the home fans. Their support has been unequivocal, unwavering whatever the result come the end of 90 minutes. Given the off the field troubles the club find themselves in once again he has held his head high with dignity throughout and has stayed when many other managers would have walked away from the daily pressures and no one would have blamed them for not wanting to stay. There have been many examples of managers trying to do a job with one hand tied behind his back. Perhaps Appleton is a bondage fan which is why he chooses to stay with the club which asks him to perform miracles with two hands behind his back every Saturday afternoon come 3pm. Most likely his never say die attitude to his first role in management comes from having his career on the pitch cut short in the manner that it was. There can’t be one fan that would begrudge Michael Appleton a slice of luck come kick off tomorrow afternoon. Not just for him but for the long suffering fans as a collective. It doesn’t have to be the prettiest of displays but come 5pm even a 1-0 win will be celebrated like we’re about to go off to Wembley for a nice day out in the sun. Tomorrow we need a win at all costs and to begin to turn the corner on the pitch.

The days of visits from illustrious names such as Manchester United, Arsenal and AC Milan to Fratton Park are now a fading memory and the reality of life in NPower League Two is starting to really hammer home. No disrespect to Scunthorpe United but if your life depended on naming their first eleven in the next minute unless you followed them the chances of you still being alive at the end of that minute would be very slim indeed. Without looking at the squad the only name of any player I can tell you that’s ever played for Scunthorpe off the top of my head was the cricketing legend Ian Botham and that was over 20 years ago now. However we’ve soon learned that in this league not being able to name any of the opposition players before kickoff doesn’t come with a guarantee that we’ll end the game with all three points in the bag. If it wasn’t for the generous refereeing of Mr Deadman away to Crawley Town when he dismissed two of their players Pompey would still be searching for their first win eight games into the season. Before last week’s game to Notts County Michael Appleton said that Pompey’s season started now. Let’s pretend we didn’t hear or read that one; the season starts in earnest tomorrow and three points are critical at this stage of the season. Avoiding defeat is certainly imperative.

A win tomorrow would see us leap frog Scunthorpe tomorrow on goal difference as Alan Knill’s side start the game in 18th position having seen his side his side win only once away in a 1-0 win against Shrewsbury Town. They picked up a point against Oldham Athletic following a 1-1 draw and recorded losses against Hartlepool United (2-0) and Crawley Town (3-0). Their home form has been equally as indifferent with just one win so far against Colchester United (1-0), one draw against Sheffield United (1-1) and three losses in total; Notts County (3-0), Yeovil (4-0) and Crewe Alexandra (2-1). In all competitions Scunthorpe have shipped 23 goals in 10 games including 5 in the remarkable League One Cup tie away to Derby County in round one that saw them through to the next round on penalties after the game finished 5-5.

Historically the two teams remain have been quite even with 8 draws recorded in 20 games in all competitions. Pompey have the slight upper hand with 7 wins to Scunthorpe’s 5 having scored 37 to their 27. Random fact – Pompey can lay claim to having helped Scunthorpe achieve their record home attendance in all competitions when 23,935 saw the FA Cup fourth round tie played way back on January 20th 1954. I suspect a far smaller attendance of around 10,500 will witness tomorrow’s must win encounter. Whatever the attendance there are bound to be goals but a 1-0 home win will do for me.

Thursday 27 September 2012

Challenging The Trust Or Bust Rhetoric



When 140 Characters Just Won't Do

For any of you who have a Twitter account you will I’m sure by now know very well the limitations of trying to convey with depth and meaning what you want to say on a subject with a maximum limit of 140 characters allowed. Some of you may well have read my debate with Mike Hall on the aforementioned social media site earlier today and know why I’m writing this as promised to him, but if you missed the exchange or have stumbled across this blog via a medium other than Twitter then you should probably be glad you missed it anyway; those who did read it were apparently struggling to keep up.

The basis of what I am about to write however came as a request from Mike to convey to him my feelings on the statement that had been made by the Portsmouth Supporters Trust the night before and I suppose for want of an expression what I didn’t like about how it had been phrased and the issues that I had leading from the statements comments. I would like to mention two things at this juncture which you may or may not already know. The first is that before the Portsmouth Supporters Trust began their bid to buy Portsmouth FC way back when it was more involved in community projects, that I helped to attempt to bring to people’s attention the good work I felt they were doing and to try help rebuild the profile of the Trust which had taken a real knocking in some quarters. I even went as far as to start to re-design the Trust logo though the designs were never used in the end. The second point is my involvement in the foundation and running of one of Facebook’s most notorious Portsmouth pages ‘Portsmouth’s Blue Army’ more commonly known as now as The PBA. At the peak of our popularity (or should that read notoriety) our best page views for a month stood at a little over 753,000 and we had over 3,000 members so as a fan page we had the chance of reaching a fair demographic in terms of Portsmouth supporters in an attempt to help the Trust. I would like to state for the record that at this juncture in time The PST had my support unequivocally in the direction they were telling me that they were trying to undertake. I would also like to point out that the views held within this blog are my own for the benefit of anyone reading.

For those of you who are Twitter users and follow fellow Pompey supporters the chances are that you may have come across comments from fans who feel that Twitter has become a domain where the notion of ‘Trust or Bust’ is King and that if you don’t support the Trust then you are automatically judged as being a supporter of Balram Chanrai and Portpin. This is a view I’ve read on many fans tweets and isn’t just a view held by myself. I’ve also had the opinion expressed to me a few times in private and for the fairness of those who’ve said it I won’t mention any names but there has been a general consensus that users don’t openly discuss certain matters via Twitter because they’re afraid that they might be jumped upon. Being me and typically blunt I think I used the expression yesterday that it was like watching the Waffen SS Panzer Division rolling over the hill as I read down some of the comments being made on Twitter or responses being made to other peoples tweets. Twitter it’s fair to say is fast becoming like Eastenders by which I mean it doesn’t matter how many episodes you miss on the trot you can easily pick up the storyline when you log back in and when any piece of news appears that Trust followers don’t like or similarly opinions are made with which they don’t agree, you can bet with some certainty to see the same faces appear to protect what they see at The Supporters Trusts interests. This isn’t a name calling exercise by the way, it’s my reply to a question I’ve been asked and I want to put an accurate description across on my thoughts and feelings as best I can and the reasons behind them. I don’t want to be seen to be starting a war I’ve had enough of that in the past.

This blog will be an attempt for me to say what I feel about the Trust and the statement they’ve made and I will attempt to make no reference to anything from the Portpin side of bids because there are people far more eminently qualified on that score than I am and I will just end up getting slaughtered and to be quite frank I cannot deal with the hassle at the present stage.

The following is the statement made yesterday on the PST website and has been copied word for word, although it has been replicated without permission and if anyone from the Trust takes issue with this then please let me know and I will remove it forthwith.

Pompey Supporters' Trust can confirm its bid to buy Portsmouth FC is still live and on the table. 

Despite recent speculation that administrators PKF has selected Portpin as preferred bidders for Portsmouth Football Club, the Trust has not been informed of any decision to this effect officially.
Moreover, to be successful, Portpin's bid would need to be approved by the Football League.

PST has written to the league to question whether Portpin's bid is eligible under the Football League's own rule book and Owners And Directors' Test guidelines.

PST Chairman Ashley Brown commented: 'Pompey fans have experienced a huge amount of uncertainty in the last ten months. This has been heightened by more speculation in the last 48 hours. We want to update our members and supporters on our position. We want to assure our supporters that we are still ready, willing and able to proceed with the purchase of the club if we are chosen to do so.

"Our bid is sensible, financially sustainable and viable. We firmly believe our bid is the best for the future of the football club, and offers a fair return to all creditors including the small creditors who have still not been paid from the previous period of administration. We believe Portpin is the wrong choice for PFC.

"Let's not forget the actions of Portpin have led to Portsmouth FC suffering two relegations, lose 19 points, with another ten on the cards, and go into administration twice. Local businesses and charities have suffered the consequences of their actions, as well as the players and staff, not to mention the fans.

"Portpin's comments in the media about our bid not being financially viable are simply untrue. Our bid is fully funded and the business plan is robust, both of which have been accepted by the league and PKF. Our forecasts, as they involve new money, are significantly better than Portpin's, which will introduce significant debt from day one. Our proposals also result in the re-uniting of the club and the ground on a debt-free basis.

"We have a united, professional bid team, the support of our local MP and council, and of Pompey fans who have funded our bid. We have a very good bid on the table, and it will stay there until we receive formal notification that another bidder has been selected and approved by the football governing bodies."

Ends

Now since this statement was made the Trust have held their AGM and have announced that the Portpin bid has been named as the preferred bidder for the club. At this juncture I re-iterate the fact that I agreed to write this before the announcement was made and this isn’t an attempt to go over it in hindsight with that in mind. I am writing it because I was asked for my opinions on the matter and this is my response to that request. To make it easier to reference I shall break down the parts into smaller chunks for discussion and they come from comments made by the PST Chairman;

"Our bid is sensible, financially sustainable and viable. We firmly believe our bid is the best for the future of the football club, and offers a fair return to all creditors including the small creditors who have still not been paid from the previous period of administration. We believe Portpin is the wrong choice for PFC.

Nothing generally wrong with that statement as he is stating what he firmly believes to be the case as he is very much entitled to do. So why do I take contention with anything said within the statement? Well it centres around the words ‘offers a fair return to all creditors including the small creditors,’ which without the actuall financial details alongside to back them up could be fair enough as a generalised statement. I’m not a creditor owed money by the club but if I was and that could be anyone of them from a charity, to a small business owed under £2,500 or a larger business I personally wouldn’t say that the offer from Portpin of 2 pence in the pound offers me a fair return on the money that I’ve lost. I use the Portpin example because that’s the figure that’s most well known and the most widely reported. Somewhere along the line though and I’ve read this a few times in the past week or so there’s a common misconception held amongst some fans that the offer to the creditors from the Trust side is as high as 8 pence in the pound. It’s not. The pot to pay creditors totals £800,000 which equates to 2 pence in the pound. So in the example of St John’s Ambulance who were owed £2,701.91 from CVA10 in the first administration, they can expect to receive just £54.04 in total or the Scouts who were owed £697 will see just £13.94. I could go through many examples but the point will remain the same. To me 2 pence in the pound doesn’t represent what I would call a fair return to all creditors. None of these debts were incurred by The Supporters Trust and there’s no blame attached to them whatsoever of which there can be no shadow of a doubt. But oddly you can also use that argument on the flip side.


"Let's not forget the actions of Portpin have led to Portsmouth FC suffering two relegations, lose 19 points, with another ten on the cards, and go into administration twice. Local businesses and charities have suffered the consequences of their actions, as well as the players and staff, not to mention the fans.

The obvious part not mentioned in the above statement is that Portsmouth have also twice staved off the threat of liquidation from having to go into administration. During the first relegation and points deduction the club was trying to survive from the excesses and overspending from the Gaydamak era of ownership. If the HMRC claims you are insolvent as a business you have to pray for a stroke of luck in order to survive an appearance in the High Courts and the club got exactly that. So for all rights and purposes we should have been liquidated the outcome of which would have been that the creditors wouldn’t have seen a penny. Then there’s the part about being sympathetic towards the players. Now I’m sorry but I don’t remember a lot of sympathy being displayed a couple of months ago towards the players so why anyone would choose to start to be sympathetic towards them now I have no idea. Let’s also face it if the club survives being liquidated and comes out of administration the player’s are in line to their part of £8.6 million struck under the compromised deals. None of them as far as I know have lost the roofs over their heads from no longer playing for Pompey and all of them have been re-employed by other clubs. Now the staff alongside the local businesses and charities have suffered immensely but at the end of the day they’ve suffered the most because the club previous owners of the club lived beyond their means and failed to pay their bills. It wasn’t Portpin paying the Chief Executive Peter Storrie £1 milllion a year for example. It wasn’t Portpin who took the decision to pay the players 120% of the clubs turnover as a percentage of wages. These are the types of excesses that lead to the club facing liquidation firmly in the face which in turn lead to the club being placed into administration. Without that administration there would have been no club to support. So yes whilst being placed into administration will have affected the aforementioned without it there would have been no club, no payment for unsecured creditors (although technically they still remain unpaid), no jobs for the staff and no club for the fans to support. The players however all managed to find other clubs so they’d have been out of pocket but still have found gainful employment quicker than the staff who lost their jobs.

"Portpin's comments in the media about our bid not being financially viable are simply untrue. Our bid is fully funded and the business plan is robust, both of which have been accepted by the league and PKF. Our forecasts, as they involve new money, are significantly better than Portpin's, which will introduce significant debt from day one. Our proposals also result in the re-uniting of the club and the ground on a debt-free basis.

Now to make comments to the media you have to place your basis you’d think on some sort of facts because otherwise you would open yourself to being sued in a court of law. There was no mention in the above statement that The Trust indeed to take Portpin to court over such claims. The following figures have been passed to me and I replicate them in good faith for the benefit of discussing the above statement. In interviews given on Express FM that I’m sure many have heard the PST hope to convert above 75% of pledges that have been made to the them. The FA on the overhand do not share this view and have only taken into account that a total of 50% of all pledges made will be converted. The Football League have asked from The Trust the following; A £5 million bond, £8.6 million for the deals reached on the compromises made with the players who’ve left on their remaining contracts, £3.5 million in costs and the £800,000 for creditors. That figure in total with pounds and pennies all included sits around the £18 million mark in total. The Football League I’m lead to believe values the Supporters Trust bid as totalling £6.5 million in total which is some way off their figure of £18 million. On top of those figures the PFA have requested that a substantial part of the compromise deal be paid up front and that figure is in excess of 25% of the £8.6 million agreed. I re-iterate these figures are replicated in good faith as I have had them passed onto me and I have no reason to doubt their validity in any way shape or form given the sources they have come from.

The Trusts pot is I’m lead to believe made up in the form of a £3 million loan from property developer Stuart Robinson and another £3 million from 18 ‘High Worth Net Individuals’  as the Trust coined the phrase, who’ve put in between £20,000 and £500,000 each. I mention this for transparency purposes before I go onto my next point which is the choice of the Supporters Trust to have named Iain McInnes at their ‘Potential Portsmouth FC Chairman.’ Now forgive me if I’m wrong but one of the main things I would expect from being a member of a trust would be the right to be able to vote on a selection of choices as to who I would want to represent me. The Trust board have all been elected so we’ve seen democracy at work and perhaps I might be being a tad naïve here and missing the point but my choice of Chairman for the club wouldn’t be a business man who’s business record has seen 14 dissolved companies and 1 end up in liquidation. I will point out that in fairness he is listed as having 14 companies still showing an active status but you cannot hide behind the first set of numbers yet this is the choice that has been bestowed upon us by the elected board members of the Trust as being the man they want to lead the club should they ever take over it’s running. I think it’s a given that he wouldn’t have been my first choice if you needed me to spell that out.

Now I have seen the name Swansea being used as an example of Trust’s in relation to football clubs. The use of their example seems to have been misguided and perhaps misinterpreted somewhat so for the benefit of anyone reading I will clear up the role of the Trust at The Swans. The Trust holds a 20% share in the club for reference purposes. Swansea were owned by a guy called Tony Petty who had purchased the club and its debts for the princely sum of £1. He in turn sold the club for a total of £20,000 and he did so to a consortium made up of OTH Limited, Redi Plastics Ltd, Five Thirty Ltd, Swansea Jacks Ltd and Olliedo Ltd. These groups comprised the shareholders in the new Swansea City FC. The Swansea Trust were allowed additional time by the aforementioned to obtain a £50,000 investment on the basis that the other consortium members were corporate bodies. The trust then paid a further £50,000 which entitled them to a further seat on the Board of Directors. The supporters Director helps form part of a management team which see’s the club run as a committee. The success and rise of Swansea to the English Premier League will be down to the investments made by the corporate bodies and haven’t been funded by their trust just to clarify any misgivings that anyone may have on the subject.

There are in total 29 Trust owned football clubs in England of which 26 are Non League football clubs and 3 ply their trade in the NPower League Two; Exeter City, Wycombe Wanderers and AFC Wimbeldon. So if anyone wishes to use an example of an English based trust owned club then this will be your starting point as examples and not Swansea who as I have said paid £50,000 for a seat on their clubs board and haven’t underwritten the cost of transfer fee’s and neither did they help in terms of payment towards the new stadium which was paid for by the local council.

There are other things that wrangle me but in fairness they don’t come direct from the Trust but from certain followers; like calls for boycotts of Express FM because of how Mark Mudie read a Portpin press statement following the loss at home to Swindon Town. Mudie it should be fairly pointed out is a paid up member of the Portsmouth Supporters Trust and it’s also worth noting that Colin Farmery has gone on record from the Trust since to thank Express FM for the time they have given the PST on air to put across their point of views. One of which interestingly enough has been the statement that the Trust would seek to have talks with anyone that took over the football club which could possibly be Portpin if they pass the relevant checks made by the Football League. So despite the accusations levelled at Portpin in yesterday’s statement - on past statements we can ascertain that if Portpin take over the club that The Trust would seek talks to achieve a level of involvement with someone they don’t see as being fit to run the club.

No surprise that the mention of Portpin brings out the threat of boycotts at the club should they takeover on the basis that they’ll take all the money out from the club and walk off with all the parachute payments. Well sadly for Mr Chanrai he can’t actually take the parachute payments so he’ll take the money that’s in the coffers now then? Well given that half is ear marked to pay PKF what they’re owed and taking the other half would technically make us insolvent then let’s be fair he’s going to struggle on that front as well. He could wait around and try take all the season ticket money but as it’s paid after every home game and he would have to sit around a fair few years to make that work and I don’t think it would go down to well with the FL anyway do you? Sell the players? Oh no wait they’re on one month contracts. Sell the club? Oh wait there’s a thought; Another party interested in taking over the club. One of the conditions of buying any business would be revenues being generated on the bottom line and in the form of a football club like Portsmouth at present that would come via bums on seats. Now what if part of the said buyers plan was to offer say a 20% stake in the club to the Supporters Trust? To make that viable and worthwhile they’ll be looking at the fans as part of their long term strategy and especially when operating in the lower leagues. I don’t want to label anyone threatening to boycott Pompey as a hypocrite but what I will say is that if you’ve watched Pompey at home since the late 1970s you will have paid money into the pockets of one of the following; The Deacons, The Gregorys, Venables, Mandaric, Gaydamak, Al Fahim, Al Faraj, Chanrai and CSI already. If you escape that list then you’ve either been on the world’s longest boycott and kudos to you if true or in the past 30 years you haven’t actually been that worried in the past who your money went to and let’s be honest it doesn’t make a great reading list does it now? So why start now?

With performances on the pitch struggling and the club’s reliance on fan attendance for cash flow any boycott of the club if Portpin were to take over would ultimately have an effect on something we all hold dear to our hearts. No… not Balram Chanrai obviously, but ultimately the football club that we all support. I may be wrong but I’m going to suggest that the large majority of the 7,200 season ticket holders that brought their tickets before the season without knowing who the next owner would defiantly be did so to be able to watch the side that they love play at Fratton Park. Now if Portpin took over and then re-sold the club a month down the line how silly would you feel genuinely as a season ticket holder if you were able to claim a refund on your money which I find doubtful would be possible but you never know or ripped it up in disgust only to find that the club had been sold again. All totally hypothetical you understand but also a very real and given possibility all the same. Well it’s nearly 3am and I’ve definitely exhausted more than 140 characters to get to this point so I will draw a line under this piece. I have however answered what I was asked to do. I re-iterate that the views held in the above piece remain my own just for clarification purposes.

Sunday 23 September 2012

ONE HANDSHAKE OR A MUCH NEEDED SHAKE UP?



UEFA's continued failure to deal with the problem of racism


One handshake, one international retirement, one message; one game, one community – kick racism out of football. Sunday September 23rd and we saw Luis and Patrice do what John and Anton couldn’t do a week earlier and that was simply to shake the hand of an opponent before today’s game with Liverpool and Manchester United. Whether the pair would have followed the same path as a week earlier if the game hadn’t been the first at Anfield following the release of the Hillsborough verdict we will never know, but the history books will show that a hand shake took place and it’s a start. Fast forward into the evening and the ex-England Captain John Terry retires from international football ahead of this week’s FA hearing into allegations that he racially abused Anton Ferdinand last season, something he had previously been cleared of in a court of law. He claims his position has been made untenable by the accusations levelled against him. The bigger man would surely have realised that his own actions had made his own position untenable in the first instance. Let’s face it had he been the average man on the street who couldn’t have afforded the same law team he would surely have been found guilty in the court of law before footballs governing body The FA finally got a chance to act on the matter. The fact that a court of law found Terry not guilty in the first place is irrelevant to the message that calling a fellow human being a ‘black c*nt’ has any place in society, let alone on a football pitch in a league watched worldwide weekly by millions all over the globe.

The electronic advertising hoardings at Anfield showed the message ‘One Game, One Community Kick racism out of football.’ We’ve seen the signs and we’ve seen the T Shirts pre-game but are the relevant authorities really doing everything in their power to eradicate this problem from the sport? Racism is nothing new in football but will it ever become a thing of the past domestically or internationally? Could football’s governing bodies be doing more to crack down harder on the blight that is racism or is it more of a case that they turn a blind eye to the problem time and time again and hope that the role of society will play a bigger part in changing people’s attitudes towards their fellow human beings?

This summer the European Championships were awarded to two countries with known racial problems not only in society but also at a domestic level in their relevant football leagues; Poland and Ukraine. Whilst Sol Campbell wasn’t correct in the assumption that fans would return home in coffins, it came as no real surprise that there were reported instances of racial abuse recorded several times during the tournament. That these two nations should have ever been awarded the tournament in the first place is somewhat unforgiving, though compared to the lackadaisical punishments handed out to the offenders after the horse had bolted from the stables as expected, can we ever believe that any governing body really wants to kick out racism from football?

The following has been lifted from a post made on June 19th 2012;

What sort of message if EUFA sending out in its attempt to combat racism in football?

Think of the worst scenes you’ve scenes so far during Euro 2012; Whilst the sight of Denmark’s Nicklas Bendtner baring his underwear during a goal celebration might have not been to great on the eye it pails into insignificance compared to the sight of Croatia’s fans racially abusing Italy’s Mario Balotelli. So you would think that UEFA’s stance would reflect this when handing out the punishments for two very different rules being broke. UEFA fined Croatia’s football association 80,000 Euro’s ($101,000). The charges related to the “setting off and throwing of fireworks, and the improper conduct of supports (racist chants, racist symbols),” UEFA announced in a statement. Unbelievably the fine is 20,000 Euros ($25,000) less than the one handed done to Bendtner for revealing the name of betting firm Paddy Power on his underpants.

UEFA received reports from monitors based inside the stadium that around 300 Croatia fans made monkey noises at Balotelli. The Croatia association was also fined 25,000 Euros ($31,500) last week for the behaviour of its fans during the match played against the Republic of Ireland. UEFA announced that the fine was imposed for “the setting off and throwing of fireworks and missiles, and a pitch invasion by a supporter.”

In comparison Bendtners goal celebration with no racial undertones or fireworks being set off causing games to be held up whilst they were cleared resulted in a fine of 100,000 Euro’s ($126,000) the maximum that UEFA could impose on the player under disciplinary rules.

National football associations can be fined up to 1 million Euro’s ($1.26 million) by UEFA. What sort of message is UEFA sending out to the world in a bid to combat the problem of racism when it imposes a higher fine for showing the name of a sponsor that it does for punishing fans found guilty of racist abuse? To compound matters Paddy Power have offered to pay the fine after receiving several days of worldwide exposure for its company.

Russia’s FA have also been fined 120,000 Euro’s ($151,000) following the attack by their fans on stewards in Wroclaw after the end of a Euro 2012 match. UEFA are able to impose several sanctions upon national bodies which are held responsible for their fans behaviour. They range from warnings, a sliding scale of fines to points deductions and can even go as far as expulsion of sides from competitions. With the latter in mind wouldn’t kicking out sides out of a tournament send out a message that a change has got to come about and that this needs to come from UEFA and go down to the grass roots of the game and onto the stands of the stadiums.

This isn’t the first time that the Croatian FA has been charged by UEFA for the behaviour of its fans. Four years ago they received a fine of 20,000 Swiss francs which at the time was about 12,450 Euros ($19,600) after fans unveiled Neo-Nazi flags and for chants during a game against Turkey in Vienna, Austria.

In 2008 world football governing body FIFA imposed a fine of 30,000 Swiss francs, then 18,800 Euros ($27,700) after Croatian fans directed racist chants at English forward Emile Heskey during a World Cup qualifier in Zagreb.

UEFA Head Michel Platini had previously urged Croatian political and football leaders to pass laws which would help control their problem fans. Possible sanctions muted included suspending both national and club sides from European Competitions. So with this threat having been made to the national federation we see things haven’t improved any and surely calls have to be made from other footballing nations for UEFA to finally take a proper stand against racism.

Fining them less than a player showing a betting firms name on his underwear puts out a message that UEFA is either unwilling to tackle the problem or head on or doesn’t accept the seriousness of the situation. The world is watching – It’s time to take a stand and get tough on racism.

Three months on from the original post and the build up to two games in the past two weekends in the English Premier League has seen considerable focus and column inches devoted to whether between four adult professional footballers, they would be able to make two handshakes between them? In the end only one was achieved. Please don’t think I’m knocking Anton Ferdinand in any way shape or form because had I been in his position I wouldn’t have wanted to have shook John Terry’s hand either but why has it taken so many months for the FA to hear the case in the first place and what sort of a message has that sent out to footballers and the world that exists beyond? Should John Terry have been allowed to represent his country in any game or during the Euro 2012 Finals with such a large FA charge hanging over his head? Should the FA have done more to ensure that the case was heard months ago when it first arose? Should the FA still be pressing ahead with the case after he was found innocent in a court of law? I guess you can only decide the questions you believe should be asked and the answers that are given to them.

Whatever the questions you would hope would be asked and dare I suggest possibly ever answered if they were asked in the right places to the relevant authorities, alongside the examples given from the blog lifted above, nothing is really being done to stamp out the problem of racism. Yes I know we have some things being done – I mean really, really being done!

When Manchester City took on Porto in their Europa Cup tie last season both Mario Balotelli and Yaya Touré were both subjected to racial abuse. So UEFA stood up to be counted right? Because kicking racism out of football is an important message to send out to those who take part in the game and to those who watch it? I am right aren’t I?

A Uefa statement said: “The Uefa Control and Disciplinary Body has imposed a fine of 20,000 euros on FC Porto for racist conduct of their supporters (Article 11bis – Discrimination and similar conduct) at their first-leg round of 32 Uefa Europa League match against Manchester City FC on 16 February in Porto.

That’s right a fine of 20,000 euro’s or in pounds and pennies just a paltry £16,700 to show to the world that making monkey noises towards black players in 2012 is totally unacceptable. So what happened when the same side Manchester City fielded the football pitch a little later than was expected of them in their Europa Cup tie against Sporting Lisbon in the second half? Don’t quote me because I’m unsure of the exact time they were late but it was I believe no more than a minute and for that they received a fine. OK fair enough, they were late and rules are rules and have to be adhered to so they got fined. When you’re Sheikh Mansour paying fines isn’t really a problem let’s face it. What is a problem is the amount and the relevance the context has against other things you could be fined for… For example fans chanting monkey noises at black players.

Does anyone reading this rank being late for the second half of a game by one minute a bigger offence or crime than racist abuse?

Does anyone reading this rank flashing a sponsor’s name on your underpants as being a bigger offence or crime than racist abuse? Honestly? Either question; Are either of these offences deemed worse than racist abuse in your book or own mind because neither are in my mind.

For the offence of being one minute late onto the pitch Manchester City were fined 30,000 euros or £24,740 in pounds sterling, a total of 10,000 euros or £ 8,040 more than Porto FC were for their fans racially abusing black players on the field of play in a Europa Cup tie being televised to millions around the globe. Once again I can only slow clap in a mocking fashion UEFA’s inability to grab the problem of racist abuse by the scruff of the neck and show to the world that it treats it as a serious issue and is prepared to start to do something about it at any point in the near future. It’s an utter disgrace on their part. You wouldn’t mind if they didn’t have the powers to force clubs to play games behind closed doors for example as a punishment but they do. For some reason though UEFA have decided to have a three strikes policy before implementing such offences.

Take the Italian side Lazio as an example. Their hooligan following The Irriducibili is well known for their fascist following and for having had problems with racist chants during matches at a domestic level and European level. UEFA have charged Lazio with improper conduct in relation to accusations that racist chants were aimed at Aaron Lennon and Jermaine Defoe during last week’s Europa Cup tie away to Tottenham Hotspur. Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe has implored UEFA to hand down a stiffer sentence than a fine of 20,000 Euros and force the club to play behind closed doors as a punishment. Powar is quoted as saying;

"Lazio are a strong club. They have been part of the European football scene for a long time. There needs to be quite a hard symbolic action taken when these instances occur.

"This punishment is one way of waking the club and the fans up to some of the problems that they face."

This is the same Lazio that have allowed The Irriducibili to not only have an office within the Stadio Olimpico but also have direct contact or certainly did at one stage with the son of the Lazio President who would choose which Nordic and Celtic banners could be displayed during their home games and which were - how should we put it? A little bit to risqué or pushing the boundaries of good taste and could be possible be seen as a little too right wing for some. Yes this is the same Lazio that the now Swindon Town manager Paolo Di Canio gave the fascist salute to their home fans during one game when playing for them and they all lovingly saluted him back in the same fashion. This took place in 2005 after the Rome Derby way back in 2005 some seven years ago. Seven years to have tried to eradicate the problem of racist behaviour and here we are in 2012 with them still only facing a fine of 20,000 Euros. That’s over 2,500 days in which to have tried to address the issue of racism and or fascism more seriously. Take that in the context of hours passed and that’s over 60,000 and let’s not even start to break it down into minutes or further because it really does become quite frankly a major embarrassment that in 2012 UEFA are failing spectacularly with their attempts to kick racism out of football.

One handshake, one international retirement, one message; one game, one community – kick racism out of football. Sunday September 23rd and we still have years of work ahead of us unless the relevant authorities really and truly start to act properly, forcefully and quickly to kick racism out of football once and for all.