Cricket escapes censure; right or wrong?

As soon as the window smashed at Lord's you could hear the journalists' keyboards being frantically tapped, the headlines had been made.

Matt Prior, the England wicket keeper, had returned to the famous pavilion after being run out and, presumably still annoyed with himself, entered the dressing room and smashed a window.

There were, rather embarrassingly, many conflicting stories of how the window pane shattered, including many over-elaborate stories that akin to that of a school boy trying to get out of detention.

The first reaction captured by the television cameras was that of Andrew Strauss, the England captain, whose disparaging shake of the head was enough to signal his true feeling of the act of petulance shown by Prior.

However, despite the initial reaction displayed by Strauss, the angst towards Prior immediately waned as soon as comments were sought from former cricketer's such as Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain.

"The incident shows Prior cares and that's what I want to see from England cricketers" said Hussain.

Funny isn't it? If this was football you couldn't begin to imagine any degree of support or sympathy for such a reaction. It would be considered 'yobbish' and in-line with football which, to everyone disconnected with the sport, is inherently arrogant and loutish.

The fact this was cricket, a gentleman's game, means that staunch criticism is seldom given in comparison to similar misdemeanours in other sports considered less gentleman-like.

The Rugby Football Union is just as guilty for failing to condemn its professionals. Last month saw a much anticipated game between Northampton Saints and Leicester Tigers remembered for nothing more than the barbaric attack from Leicester's centre, Manu Tuilagi, on Northampton and England's Chris Ashton.

It was immediately dismissed as being 'part of the game' by fans and pundits with the ever-predictable 'its a man's game' concluding statement which, in their eyes, is all the justification you need to repeatedly punch an opponent in such brutal fashion.

When the RFU did act it was, as we have come to expect, shrouded in farce. Tuilagi, the aggressor in this instance, was banned for just five weeks. The original sanction was 10 weeks but this was reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Jeff Blackett, the RFU disciplinary officer, said: "We determined that there was some provocation from Chris Ashton who pushed and struck him in the back with his knee...the top-end range is eight to 52 weeks and we determined that the appropriate entry point within that range is 10 weeks.
"This was reduced by 50% to reflect Manu's youth and inexperience, his admission of guilt and his genuine remorse" Blackett concluded.

So there you have it. For an offence that would have seen a member of the public tried in a criminal court, Tuilagi gets a reduced sentence because he showed genuine remorse. Oh, and he's young.

Its enough to make you reel in despair at the thought of a 20-year-old being considered old enough to play the game professionally yet too young to fully understand what is morally acceptable on a playing field.

Still, at least it shows he cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vOM

Inconsistencies at The FA: Toure ban to be revised

Kolo Toure could see his ban for a failed drugs test increased after it emerged that sporting watchdogs were going to revise the sanction to decide whether The Football Association were too lenient.

Toure, the Manchester City defender, was banned after testing positive for using a banned diuretic in February.

Testing positive for any illegal substance can carry a two-year suspension and many within the game were bemused when The FA-appointed panel awarded only a six-month ban last month which, back-dated to March, could see him play as early as September.

Similarities were instantly drawn to the treatment of Rio Ferdinand, the Manchester United and England defender, who was banned for eight-months for missing a drugs test in 2003.

It would appear that this kind of inconsistency is where the sticking point is.

Ferdinand, although not completely innocent, merely missed a drugs test. It would be naive and misguided to make a judgement on whether there was any sinister motive for missing the drugs test but miss it he did. Toure, on the other hand, actually failed a drugs test.

At the time it was felt that eight-months was lenient and that Ferdinand was lucky to escape with such a minimal ban. How times and opinions have changed.

Of the two, Ferdinand lost the most and not just because his ban was more severe than Toure's. The eight-month ban actually meant that he missed an entire season and would not be eligible to play for England at the 2004 European Championships.

There are, of course, conspiracy theories that will not relent until a review of Toure's ban is undertaken. Many feel that David Bernstein, The FA chairman and former Manchester City chairman, has had something to do with the sympathetic ruling handed to Toure.

Stories like these will always persist but it may be worth pointing out that Bernstein played an active part in the three-game suspension handed to Wayne Rooney for the Manchester United striker's foul-mouthed rant at a television camera after scoring a hat-trick against West Ham United.

For the balance, it should be noted that The FA have not been quite so quick to hand out similar punishment to Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards who were guilty of the same act following their FA Cup final win over Stoke City. They both play for Manchester City.

Both the UK Anti Doping and the World Anti Doping Authority are believed to be weighing up their power to appeal any sentence that they feel is inadequate.

You get the feeling that they may see it as inadequate - the ban, not The FA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz8nc1X1rC8

The FA and the need for reform

The Scottish Football Association have taken a huge step forward in becoming more in tune with the modern game, something many will argue The FA should be doing.

The chief executive, Stewart Regan, heaped praise on the organisations members after his proposed reforms gained unanimous support at Tuesday’s AGM.

Regan said: "I'm really proud, I'm proud for my staff, proud for the board and proud for the members that they have had the guts to make the change. It really is a huge day for Scottish football.”

As exciting as this is for Scottish football it is equally worrying that The FA seem reluctant to make any changes despite the increasing inadequacy of the processes involved at the top of the English game.

So united in support were the member clubs that all 93 supported each of Regan's proposals to streamline and modernise the governing body's decision-making processes during the Hampden meeting.

Rather than rest on his laurels, Regan realised on his first day in office that the processes were outdated and reform was needed.

The main changes include the reduction of the size of the SFA board from 11 to seven, including an independent member. The SFA say the board will become more strategic than representative and focus on "corporate strategy and top-line decision-making", also making sure the governing body plans for the future.

Two new boards will be created under the main board in time for the new season - one for the professional game and another for the non-professional game - with relevant representatives in each.

The much-maligned disciplinary procedures will be rewritten and a compliance officer will quickly decide whether cases will be heard by the new semi-autonomous judicial panel.

Five of the now disbanded committees - including the disciplinary and general purposes panels - were previously involved in a lengthy and often confusing structure for punishing misdemeanours, with cases sometimes taking several months to resolve.

Now a compliance officer will decide whether a case merits disciplinary action and three members of the semi-autonomous judicial panel will make "quick, up-front and transparent" rulings before the next fixture.

These are simple but effective steps that The FA could follow in order to drag the organisation into the 21st century.

Countless times last season the disciplinary process was shown to be flawed and inconsistent.

Whilst Wayne Rooney was rightly punished for his foul-mouthed comment at a television camera, Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards have, seemingly, escaped similar punishment despite being guilty of the same offence.

Under the new reforms by the SFA there will be a ban on managers attempting to influence match officials before a game, a change brought about following the referee strike in November.

The SFA have shown great humility in learning from their own mistakes and from other countries and perhaps it is time The FA followed suit.

It has become more frequent than it has widespread with the talk of match officials before a game and this needs to be stopped for the integrity of the sport.

The FA may feel that following suit would be detrimental to their pride and esteem as the home of football but the changes by the SFA have delivered a timely reminder of how important change can be.

With many still critical of The FA for not acting sooner and withdrawing from the World Cup bidding process at the first sign of corruption and the hypocrisy shown by David Bernstein, the FA chairman, for opposing the one-horse race election for the Fifa presidency; maybe its time to start regaining some faith in our game.

Is Crouch the latest player to join England exodus?

It is becoming an all too familiar story for the England football team when a player announces their decision to retire, with Peter Crouch rumoured to be the next.

If newspaper reports are to be believed then Crouch, the Tottenham Hotspur striker, will opt out of future England squads whilst under the management of Fabio Capello.

According to reports, Crouch felt humiliated at his exclusion from the squad for Saturday's lacklustre 2-2 draw with Switzerland at Wembley, with Capello preferring Bobby Zamora of Fulham as substitute striker.

Crouch, who has an average strike rate of a goal every other game, was believed to be reeling after being overlooked by the England manager and, if reports are true, is considering temporary retirement until Capello is replaced in July 2012.

It is a sad indictment of our national team when you have such a flurry of players believing that they are too important to sit on the bench for their country.

When England actually achieved success by lifting the World Cup in 1966 it was done with a group of players who saw playing for their country as the biggest privilege that could be bestowed upon them. It seems a far cry from the mentality of some modern day footballers.

Jimmy Greaves, arguably one of the greatest strikers the country has produced, didn't appear in that World Cup Final because Sir Alf Ramsey, the manager of England at the time, preferred Geoff Hurst.

It is hard to imagine the anguish Greaves must have been feeling at his omission but when the final whistle was blown, Greaves was one of the first to congratulate Hurst.

It is even more difficult to comprehend a similar gesture with the apparent discontent within the current England squad.

At the centre of these 'retirements' is a complete disregard for fellow professionals who have remained available for their country and continue to do so. Michael Owen, for instance, is one of the finest strikers this country has seen in the last 15 years and is the closest contender to Bobby Charlton's 49 international goals record.

Many will argue that he doesn't play regularly enough to warrant a starting place but is a complete exclusion from the squad wholly justified? Darren Bent, the Aston Villa striker, missed two gilt-edged chances on Saturday that would have victory for England.

We can only have hypothetical thoughts as to whether Owen would have scored at least one of them but one thing we can be sure of is that he is proven at international level.

If Owen was any other nationality he would be treasured by the fans. Miroslav Klose, the Germany striker, is remarkably poor at club level but has an imperious goal-scoring record on the international stage. David Healy, the Northern Ireland striker, is another example of someone who has the knack of scoring at international level but struggling at club level.

These comparisons are a little unfair on Owen given his superb career goal tally for both club and country, but the fact that he remains available for selection with the hope of one day being back in an England shirt is surely reason enough to disapprove of the attitude shown towards the pride of representing England.

Retirement should be the signal to the end of a players career or the signal of a prolonged club career, it should not be a card played to avoid embarrassment of being surplus to requirements.

FourThreeThree is back...

Back after a break to Australia. I know what you're thinking, I should have stayed.

Well if it wasn't for the chance to moan about the lack of leg room on the return flight, I would have done.

If Carlsberg did football blogs....this wouldn't be one of them.

The FA, Sir Alex Ferguson and Human Rights: An Overview

On Wednesday there was a certain suspense lurking in sections of the media, awaiting a ruling that would make headlines and create vociferous debate amongst men and women.

No, this ruling wasn't by The Football Association in response to Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, and his comments about Martin Atkinson, the referee in charge of United's 2-1 defeat to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

In fact, this ruling came from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which brought an end to females paying less for their motor insurance than men on the grounds that it was overtly sexist towards the male of the species.

The relevance of these stories being run concurrently will become clearer upon consideration of the Human Rights Act (1998) and that the ECJ could, should United's lawyers consider it appropriate, rule that post match comments are a breach of a person's Human Rights.

It sounds, on the surface, a ludicrous suggestion, the ramblings of a mad-man. But when you take into account this latest ruling and understand that insurance companies have statistics that prove, beyond any doubt or reason, that young male drivers represent a bigger risk than that of their female counterparts, it throws all logic out of the window.

The Human Rights Act (1998) gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Most notably is the freedom of expression and the freedom of thought.

Ferguson was clearly unhappy with Atkinson's performance as a referee and made his feelings known in his post-match interviews. Ferguson said, in an interview with MUTV: "You want a fair referee, or a strong referee anyway - and we didn't get that...I must say, when I saw who the referee was I feared it. I feared the worst." His views were reinforced by former Premier League and World Cup referee, Graham Poll, in an article in the Daily Mail in which he agreed that Atkinson had made mistakes during the game.

Some may argue that Poll is a fine one to talk, some may suggest that Ferguson's comments bring the game into disrepute, some may even suggest that it was just reward for United's fortune of having Wayne Rooney avoid suspension for an elbow on Wigan's James McCarthy at the weekend.

The Football Association, however, have deemed Ferguson's comments and have charged him with improper conduct. This is the same FA that decided to take no action against Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere after he publicly criticised referee Phil Dowd following their 4-4 draw with Newcastle United at St James' Park. This may have had something to do with the young midfielder being primed to make his full England debut a few days later, with any action potentially tarnishing The FA's image on the international stage.

If the Old Trafford lawyers hadn't thought of challenging this charge of improper conduct then they may want to reconsider after a careful revision of the Human Rights Act and with a helping hand from the European Court of Justice.

Respect is a two way street

In 1956 an autobiography was published with a chapter titled 'The Average Director's Knowledge of Football'. It consisted of a single blank page.

Len Shackleton, the former Newcastle United and Sunderland striker, nicknamed "The Clown Prince of Football", was renowned for his humour both on and off the pitch yet, 55 years on, that blank page of football still resonates with the majority of football fans and footballers.

The Football Association, quick to prove Shackleton aspersions correct, have warned players about their future conduct with improper comments made on Twitter and other social networking sites.

Former Liverpool striker Ryan Babel, now at Hoffenheim, last month became the first player to be sanctioned for comments made on Twitter when he was fined £10,000 for posting a mocked-up picture of referee Howard Webb wearing a Manchester United shirt.

As trivial as it may have appeared for some, The FA's sanction did seem to tie in with their 'Respect' campaign.

An FA statement read: "The FA has issued clarification to participants relating to the use of social networking sites, including, but not limited to Twitter, Facebook and internet blogs. Participants should be aware that comments made on such sites may be considered public comment, and that further to FA Rule E3, any comments which are deemed improper, bring the game into disrepute, or are threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting may lead to disciplinary action. Comments which are personal in nature or could be construed as offensive, use foul language or contain direct or indirect threats aimed at other participants are likely to be considered improper."

This was supposed to be a defining message, one that put to rest any doubts as to what sanctions there were for players who used social networking sites to air their grievances at the officials, authority or fellow professionals. But this did not happen.

Many questioned why Jack Wilshere, the Arsenal midfielder, was not given a similar fine to Babel's following his criticism of 'inconsistent refereeing' in the aftermath of his side wasting a 4-0 lead in the 4-4 draw at Newcastle United.

There was no significant difference between the two incidents. In actual fact, it could be argued that Wilshere's comments were worse as they undermined referees as a whole.

Those who were bemused as to how Wilshere escaped punishment for his comments were soon provided a sufficient explanation when it transpired that he would be making his full debut for England versus Denmark.

Heaven forbid The FA have a player representing the country who is being publicly reprimanded for stepping out of line. We know from experience that The FA would rather sacrifice success for their own self-engrossed reputation. Andy Carroll, the Liverpool striker, was due to be named in Fabio Capello's squad for the Euro 2012 qualifier against Montenegro at Wembley only for The FA to deem his inclusion as inappropriate because of reported misdemeanours in his private life.

You wonder what Shackleton would have made of the state of The FA today but, from this latest inconsistentcy, you get the feeling that page would remain as blank as it has been for the past 55 years.

Club vs Country: A Fan's Perspective

As another much-maligned international friendly has come and gone with the histrionics associated with the irrepressible 'Club Vs Country' row, it is the fans that have been forgotten.

Some club managers and the hierarchy within the Premier League will argue that international friendlies are a 'nuisance' and are 'too physically demanding on the players'. Whilst the latter is an argument that is fairly conceivable, the former paints an all too familiar picture of the declining importance of international football.

The England manager, Fabio Capello, and other international managers will argue that these friendlies are 'essential' and 'a chance to test new talent'. These views would, no doubt, concur with The Football Associations'.

Yet, in the ensuing debate as to whether club football is more important than international football, the importance of the fans and, moreover, their views have been shamelessly overlooked.

A reported 2,500 fans travelled to Denmark to support England in the first international of the calendar year, none of which would have thought it a 'nuisance'.

The importance of the supporter is often misplaced. Take away the supporters and the gate receipts fall which would be the catalyst of a spiral of ever decreasing interest. It may sound like a simplistic argument but the enthusiasm for the game from fans has been taken for granted, evidently in this latest row of 'club versus country'.

It is not just the clubs and the Premier League at fault for this air of arrogance. The players themselves contribute to this mindset with the increasingly frequent 'pick and choose' mentality of making themselves available for their country when it suits.

There is the obvious counter-argument that any player named in an international squad that complains of an injury requires to be checked and 'signed off' by the physio of the national team. This said, in the light of Dean Ashton's settlement which saw The FA pay compensation for his career-ending injury picked up on international duty, a firmly worded letter from the players' respective club is sure to make the national team think twice on the importance of the upcoming match; frequently friendlies.

Steven Gerrard, the Liverpool captain, seems to have the inevitable knack of getting injured prior to a friendly for England on the Wednesday but recovering in time to play for Liverpool the following Saturday. Its farcical and this is the behaviour of the England captain no less.

In a press conference held yesterday, Frank Lampard, the deputising captain and Chelsea midfielder, expressed that representing England is still "the proudest moment in a players career". This statement will resonate with some, mainly those of a time when representing your country really was the pinnacle of a professionals career.

Perhaps this is slightly unfair on those players who have pride in representing their country but it is hard to establish who those players are. After all, Gerrard is not the only player to have declared himself injured for an international friendly and then turned out for this club in the same week.

It is a sad indictment of the game, indicative of the culture and mentality of the modern professional and the greed within the Premier League. Lord Triesman, the former chairman of The FA, has reinforced this feeling in the past couple of days by insisting that Premier League officials felt that they were in competition with The FA. This is as absurd as it is worrying.

The club versus country row is not a new one but the injection of in-fighting between The FA and the Premier League, along with the disregard towards the famous 'Three Lions' shirt shown by some players is. These are rows that need to addressed promptly for the good of the game before the supporters decide to vote with their feet.

The fall-out begins following Torres' plea to leave

As Chelsea prepare to test Liverpool's resolve with an improved offer in the next 24 hours for want away striker Fernando Torres, fans have been quick to voice their disappointment.

Former Liverpool defender and Sky Sports pundit, Phil Thompson, speaking on Gillette Soccer Saturday, was damning of Torres' conduct and sees it as a "complete lack of respect towards Kenny Dalglish". Few could vehemently deny this undermining of authority.

What has most disgusted Liverpool fans, aside from the transfer request itself, is the silence following Chelsea's reported interest earlier in the week. No statement of intent was forthcoming as doubts grew as to where the Spanish strikers' loyalties lay.

Posting on social network sites and websites, one Liverpool fan said "I'm gutted. He's had nothing but love from the fans and this is how he repays us". The feeling of resentment towards the Anfield striker was not in short supply. These were sentiments echoed from many fans of the Merseyside club.

Gestures such as Torres' only serves to alienate fans and the faith shown in their players with loyalty becoming an almost archaic attribute in the modern day footballer.

As unfair as this may be on some players who have remained committed to their respective clubs for a prolonged period, we have now seen Torres join Wayne Rooney, of Manchester United, and Carlos Tevez, of Manchester City, in asking for a move away from their current clubs.

Rooney cited a vision of decline at Old Trafford as his excuse for wanting out, whilst Tevez complained of being homesick.

Torres has yet to give a reason for wanting to leave but one can only assume that he has become disenchanted with life at Anfield. If this is the reason then the timing could not have been worse.

Liverpool fans may have forgiven Torres had he demanded a move when the club was in turmoil and under the ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, but he didn't. Instead he chose a time in which the club has agreed a £22.8m fee with Ajax for Luis Suarez, a signal of real intent from the club, and a time in which the club appears to be getting on the right track to salvage their season.

The usual conspiracy theory following a transfer request is that of the player hankering for more money. If this is to be the case then, yet again, it seems poor timing on Torres' part as his performances have been a shadow of his previous two seasons.

One thing is for certain though, Liverpool fans are not best pleased with their number nine. They feel betrayed, disrespected and let down. Not so long ago Torres had said that he would not play for another Premier League team as ' it was the least he owed to the fans'. In this instance they are joined by United fans and, to a lesser extent, City fans in this feeling.

Nothing, it seemed, could end the love affair between Liverpool fans and Fernando Torres but the romance is in severe danger of ending.

Should Torres still be a Liverpool player on Tuesday morning and Dalglish doesn't deem recent events to be a distraction then he should prepare himself for an extremely frosty reception at Anfield on Wednesday evening.

Liverpool reject Torres' last ditch transfer request

In an earlier article praise was lavished on Blackpool's Ian Holloway and Charlie Adam for the manner in which they have handled themselves during this January transfer window.

This praise, however, cannot be bestowed upon Fernando Torres, the Liverpool striker, following his plea to leave the club within this January transfer window.

The written transfer request, which was swiflty rejected by the Merseyside club, has only served to confirm the supporters' worst fears.

Few would argue that Liverpool have had a poor season by their exceptionally high standards. But this poor form is a contribution of Torres and his team-mates. Whether the Liverpool supporters blame Roy Hodgson or the players for their position is open to debate but one thing that has remained constant this season is the inconsistent form of Torres.

Since his arrival at Anfield in the summer of 2007 from Atletico Madrid, the Spanish international has been a huge success. However, similarly to Wayne Rooney at Manchester United, Torres has struggled for form amid claims that he sees his future away from Liverpool. That time has seemingly arrived.

Having been the subject of a reported £35m bid from Chelsea which was rejected yesterday, reports were circling that Torres was keen for his employers to consider the London club's bid. These rumours were later followed up by the confirmation of a transfer request from the Spanish striker.

There are a number of reasons that make Torres' intention to leave so disrespectful and ill-timed.

Under the ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett and since the buy-out by John Henry, Torres was quite vocal in his thoughts on investing in players. Liverpool fans would have been forgiven for thinking that on a day in which Liverpool had agreed a deal to sign Luis Suarez, the Uruguayan striker, from Ajax, a transfer request would not be forthcoming.

Liverpool fans might have been forgiven for thinking that, in the light of his lacklustre displays and distinct lack of interest in the first half of the season, that a transfer request would not be forthcoming as he wanted to repay the faith shown in him by the club and their fans during this testing time.

Liverpool fans might have been forgiven for thinking that, since he signed a contract extension to run until 2013/14 as early as last summer, a transfer request would not be forthcoming as he had signalled his long term intention to remain on Merseyside.

Liverpool fans might not be so forgiving now.

The real cost of the Qatar 2022 World Cup bid

How quickly things can change.

A few months ago it would have been unimaginable to have envisaged France casting ridicule over one of their greatest ever footballers, but it seems that time has arrived.

As the dust finally settled following FIFA's decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a certain Frenchman has been subjected to disparaging remarks that are threatening to undermine his reputation and status within the game.

It may come as a surprise but the individual in question is not Michel Platini, the UEFA president, but a certain Zinedine Zidane.

Arguably one of the greatest footballers of the past decade, Zidane is fast becoming ostracised in his adopted homeland for his involvement in the Qatari World Cup bid.

Lawyers are preparing their writs following an unprecedented barrage of criticism aimed at Zidane who is being accused of 'selling himself' to Qatar. Such hostility towards the man who led France in 1998 to World Cup success with two goals against Brazil would have been unimaginable a matter of months ago.

Zidane became a national hero following France's triumph but his recent endorsement of the Qatar bid, for which he earned a reported £1.9m, has seen him widely criticised for his motivations. French internet sites have been quick to cast aspersions on Zidane, with one saying "If China had paid him, he would have supported the Chinese bid".

Zidane, also referred to as 'Zizou', originated from Algeria but, in the eyes of the French public, this does not seem a reasonable motive for supporting the bid of a state with a population of only 1.7 million.

Yannick Noah, the former tennis player - turned - pop singer who is France's most popular public figure in opinion polls, summarised the recent furore when he said: "I love Zizou but that Qatar business stinks."

Noah is not the only personality to have his say. Christophe Aleveque, a comedian, went further by saying "This guy is an advertising hoarding with three neurons...who exploits his image outrageously. For me it's a form of prostitution."

Following intervention from Zidane's lawyers, Maitre Pascal Garbarini, Alvereque's lawyer, said that the comedian "regretted the use of certain terms" but maintained the thrust of his argument.

This dim view of Zidane could be damaging to his long-term commercial activities and standing in France, where he currently earns about £30m a year by fronting advertising campaigns for companies such as adidas, the dairy group Danone and the mobile phone operator Orange.

"There are no limits to one's dreams" he said in the advertisement for Qatar's bid. Only time will tell how long-lasting the damage will be from this much maligned endorsement to Zidane's reputation.

Holloway tracking Tranmere Rovers' and Bristol City youngsters

Ian Holloway, the Blackpool manager, is believed to be preparing two late bids in an attempt to bolster his squad before the January transfer window shuts.

Dale Jennings, the Tranmere Rovers youngster, has been attracting a lot of interest following a string of excellent displays for the League One side and it is thought Holloway wants to table an early bid in the hope that the lure of playing his expansive style of football and the Premier League will be enough for Rovers to part with their prized assets.

Due to the shoe-string budget that Blackpool have to play with it is rumoured that Marvin Elliott, the athletic Bristol City central midfielder, has been scouted by Blackpool as a potential replacement to Charlie Adam should the talk of his transfer to Liverpool come to fruition. No official approach has been made by the Lancashire club but it is thought that City value Elliott at around £1m which may prove to be a stumbling block.

Leyton Orient left trampled on in the race for the Olympic Stadium

Amidst all the pros and con's, the bitching and the fighting and the track or not the track, it seems that the money men and the cheque-book culture in football has forgotten an old friend.

The Olympic stadium, the subject of two much-publicised bids from West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur, is located in Stratford. It is an Olympians stones-throw away from Brisbane Road, the home of Leyton Orient, a club established in 1881, some 14 years before West Ham and one year before Spurs.

Yet, in the ensuing scramble to win the rights to the Olympic Park site, this fact has been shamelessly overlooked, swept under the carpet, ignored. Once again it is a case of the little club being forgotten, or at least hidden, beneath the stacks of notes and IOU's brought to the table by the two Premier League clubs.

Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, recently stated that "had Orient kicked up more of a fuss the West Ham and Spurs bids would have been blocked". The question is, who exactly would have listened? The Premier League? No. The Football League? No. Both have a regulation that states their Boards shall only grant consent to a member Club to move to another ground which (wait for it) 'would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location'.

Barry Hearn, the Leyton Orient chairman, voiced his concerns in a damning verdict of the proposed moves and the implications it may have on his club, was Scudamore listening? No. Hearn said: “Unfortunately the [Olympic] stadium is poorly designed, unfortunately the stadium is a waste of public money and it’s things like that, that the government and the people involved in the Olympics don’t want to hear... Whoever goes there is not good news for Leyton Orient, they’re both massive clubs and I’ve likened it to Tesco moving next to the little sweet shop on the corner."

Should Spurs' bid be successful it undermines the whole "Olympic Legacy" ethos and should West Ham be successful (and stick to their word) the stadium would be a poor spectator experience for football fans. Above all though, the biggest loser would be Leyton Orient.

How tragic that the true legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games could be the death of a club with a 130 year history and one of football's most establish community clubs.

Holloway & Adam set refreshing example during turbulent transfer window

Come February 1, 2011, Charlie Adam may no longer be a Blackpool player but this is irrelevant to the mood of this article.

As of yet, Blackpool have not received a bid which they feel is realistic to prise Adam away from Bloomfield Road. Ian Holloway, the Blackpool manager, has been as open about the fact that they have received bids as he has been quick to describe them as "insulting".

It is believed that Liverpool, Birmingham and Aston Villa have all registered an interest in the Scottish international.

What makes this situation so refreshing is that both parties have a mutual understanding and respect for each other. On so many occasions you will hear the manager of a football club praise the subject of transfer speculation in the vein hope that the player will be hanging on every word and not have his ears covered by his agents hands.

Holloway has made no secret of the fact that he wants his captain to play at a higher level, meaning a bigger club. He has alluded to discussions that he has had with Adam about a "career plan" which consists of him progressing to a bigger club at some point in the near future. As entertaining as Holloway can be and as jovial as he may come across he is also a man who is a realist. He understands that Blackpool has financial constraints, he understands that their season objective was to stay in the Premier League and he also understands that keeping Adam beyond his remaining 18 month contract is highly unlikely.

Similarly to Holloway, Adam deserves a lot of praise for his conduct during a time which is surely both exciting and distracting. Unlike so many footballers previously in this position, Adam has remained silent and sustained the level of performances that has seen him become one of the most talked about midfielders in the Premier League. As of yet, and it is important to realise that there is still time for this to happen, Adam has not come out and demanded a move or thrown his metaphorical toys out of his pram. Instead, he has acted every bit like the consummate professional Blackpool supporters would expect.

After all, Adam owes as much to the Tangerines as they do to him for where they find themselves. Holloway gave Adam an escape route from the periphery of a Rangers team where chances were limited by bringing him to Bloomfield Road in the hope that he could help maintain their Coca-Cola Championship status. No-one could have envisaged that they would gain promotion to the Premier League. It was fairy-tale stuff.

Having been made early season favourites to be relegated from the Premiership, many suggesting that they would do worse than Derby County's record of eleven points in an entire season, Blackpool are currently on 28 points and find themselves 12th in the table after 22 games; something few would have predicted.

If Blackpool are to stay up then they need to retain their influential captain which is why Holloway has branded the bids so far as "disgraceful". He is acutely aware of the void that would be left should Adam leave before the end of the January transfer window and the increasingly less time he has to find a potential replacement.

Despite the shoe-string budget Blackpool has to work with and the wealth of clubs circling their club, its uplifting to see that they will not be bullied into selling their biggest asset for anything less than what represents a good deal for the club, the player and the team.

Piquionne dismissal divides opinion...

Frederic Piquionne's red card at Goodison Park yesterday has been the subject of much debate with the referee, Peter Walton, heavily criticised for dismissing the West Ham United striker.

The decision has been labelled a 'nonsense', a 'joke' and one which proves that 'referees haven't played the game'. One thing it wasn't labelled was correct.

Yes, it's a stupid rule and, yes, it's time the FA reviewed its stance on this aspect of the game but the one person who should avoid criticism in this episode is Mr Walton.

Week in, week out, fans and pundits bemoan the lack of consistency in decisions made by our referees. Some say this adds to the game and some would argue that standards need to be maintained. Last week, in the game between Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United, Rafael da Silva, the United full back, got a booking for a tackle on Wilson Palacios of Spurs. He got the ball, but the manner in which he threw himself into the tackle could, on another occasion, have seen him dismissed.

Whether we like it or not, celebrating a goal by jumping into a section of your supporters is worthy of a yellow card and, perhaps most significantly in this argument, has been for some time. This is one of the few areas of the game that referee's can maintain the consistency that is so often demanded of them by all of us connected with the game.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that Piquionne had not been given a second yellow card and remained on the pitch and, in their next Premier League fixture away to Blackpool, he scores the winning goal or has a performance that is decisive in a West Ham victory. Would Blackpool feel aggrieved? Of course they would.

Sometimes, whether it qualifies as common sense or not, you have to just accept the decision and accept that the referee is bound, by the laws of the game, to make them.