Hurrah for the new Premiership season! Last season there were complaints that competition was actually quite dull, but when you see what passes for football news when no matches are taking place, the heart fairly leaps at the prospect of Bolton vs Charlton or Portsmouth vs Birmingham.
What is left of the Football Association (FA) after the bungled hatchet-job on its own coach would do well to remember that the term ‘faceless bureaucrat†is not an insult but a compliment. Anyone would think the FA controlled the game, when clearly that function is now being performed by Roman Abramovich.
This time last year the big news was that a Russian billionaire had not only got Ken Bates out of a hole at Chelsea, he was distorting a more or less dormant transfer market by splashing vast amounts of cash on a succession of ordinary and in some cases unnecessary players.
A constant debate over the past year has been whether Abramovich’s indiscriminate largesse would prove to be a good or a bad thing for English football. Now, with the bravest and most financially astute chief executive the FA have had in years out of a job, Sven-Goran Eriksson a lame duck, and the Premier League fat cats poised to get even more of their own way than ever, it is possible to attempt an answer.
Like Doctor Octopus in the latest Spider-Man movie, Abramovich can extend his tentacles to parts others cannot reach. His corrosive influence has extended not just to overestimating Peter Kenyon, undermining Claudio Ranieri, or making gifts of international players to undeserving clubs.
Abramovich also decided the England manager was the biggest lollipop in the English football sweetshop, and set in motion the train of events that has just derailed so spectacularly when he sent in his money-carrier with the usual over-inflated bid.
No one else would have done that. It would be harsh to point the finger of blame for the Soho Square implosion solely at Abramovich, yet, in a real sense, the farcical events of the past couple of weeks could not have taken place without him.
Who else would have attempted to top up Eriksson’s already generous salary, knowing the England coach had not exactly proved himself a leader of men at the previous World Cup? Why he imagined Eriksson would deliver knockabout entertainment is a mystery to anyone who has spent the past three years watching England.
The idea that Chelsea’s interest convinced the FA they had a hot coaching property on their hands, and they had better look sharp if they wanted to keep him, seems the most far-fetched of all, yet it is what seems to have happened.
Palios fought off Chelsea’s silly money with even sillier money from FA coffers, acting with a haste that pre-empted committee-level discussion and a recklessness surprising in someone with a reputation for financial prudence. He pushed generosity to the limit by rewarding Eriksson’s duplicity with a two-year contract extension.
Once that deal was done the only way it could have been dressed up as good business was for England to win Euro 2004. Eriksson winning something with England would also have increased his appeal to club chairmen around Europe, and allowed the FA at least to hope a Real Madrid or a Juventus would come along and release them from their obligations.
Given that the FA would absolutely love some rich club to take Eriksson off their hands right now, why did they feel so differently six months ago? Chelsea would undoubtedly have been willing to pay generous compensation back in March, and there was never any question of Eriksson not taking England to Portugal.
For the FA to go, in the space of six months, from wanting Eriksson so badly they gave him a seven-figure pay rise, to wanting rid of him so badly they were willing to countenance a settlement of up to £7-million, is ridiculous. This is the crux of the issue.
The question is not why the FA thinks so little of Eriksson now, but how it came to overrate him so wildly six months ago. The only answer is that financial insanity is contagious, and Palios caught a dose from Abramovich.
If this seems a fanciful idea, look around the Premiership. Chelsea have just bought themselves a European Cup-winning coach and spent £50-million on two more players. All three should be exciting additions to the Premiership, though, and by last season’s standards the club seem to be buying quite wisely.
Chelsea remain the best bet to break the Arsenal-Manchester United duo-poly at the top of the table, although they have a manager who will need time to adjust to the Premiership.
As with Liverpool, it might be a mistake to expect instant results. Arsenal could defend their title successfully if they retain Patrick Vieira, but should they lose him it leaves the initiative clearly with Manchester United.
Everyone else has abandoned all hope of challenging the top four or five to either a trophy or a Champions League finish. Sorry, my mistake, that was last season. This season everyone has abandoned hope of success except Middlesbrough, flushed with ambition after securing their first trophy in 128 years and busy doing their best to copy Chelsea on the banks of the Tees.
Most Premiership clubs are too wary of Leeds’ experience to chase success by accumulating a debt. This has left a vacuum that chairperson Steve Gibson feels Boro can occupy.
Does all this matter, given that accountants have just confirmed the English leagues as the most profitable in Europe?
Possibly not. It should be remembered, though, that Abramovich has been here only a year, and were he to prove half as capricious as the FA’s executives he could be shovelling his money into horse-racing in another 12 months. Is it possible to have too much money? It must be. Ask Eriksson. —