Transfer Deadline Day

Since the 2002 / 2003 football season, FIFA (football's governing body) has introduced two "registration periods" in which teams can register new players who are eligible to play for that club in the coming months. The idea was met with a mixed reception by players, managers and agents in the game, but it now forms an important part of modern football.


















Fernando Torres. Image: Getty Images

Transfer deadline day (as the media have called it for the last few years) is a massive event on the 24 hour rolling-news channel Sky Sports News as they have presenters in their main studio liaising with other reporters placed at various training grounds of football clubs involved in the biggest rumours of the day.

There's always a sense of controlled mayhem, because until any deals have been confirmed by both clubs and often the player, it means the presenters are forced to free associate about any possible transfers. Today (January 31st) one of the biggest potential deals is Liverpool striker Fernando Torres (pictured above) moving to Chelsea, and Newcastle striker Andy Carroll moving to Liverpool:

Newcastle want more than £30m for Andy Carroll
Liverpool want more than £50m for Fernando Torres
Chelsea have offered £42m plus Nicolas Anelka for Torres
Nicolas Anelka doesn't want to play for Liverpool

Deals such as this can often be quite a complex process and the only reasonable analogy I can think of that is similar to football transfers is a housing chain, where one deal is dependent on another deal being done, with everything falling into place. The only difference is a constant ticking clock in the corner of the screen, counting down to 23:00 GMT tonight, where deals must be confirmed with the English FA.

The other recent impact on TDD is the use of social networks, especially Twitter as it often increases the speed at which news reaches the press and television channels. Today has seen all sorts of rumours of a helicopter at the Liverpool training ground ready to take Torres to London to complete his deal, something the club have denied. There’s also been speculation about other deals including Sergio Aguero to Tottenham Hotspur, but Aguero's club Athletico Madrid have announced that he has signed a three-year contract extension and will not be moving.

Normally users expect that the majority of everything on Twitter to be as close to factual as possible, especially as many use the network to disseminate all kinds of information to their 'followers'. In previous PR lectures I've always been told that it is important to be honest and open in all forms of communication, especially to the media. Friends on Journalism courses have in the past brought up the importance of checking out the sources behind a story to see if they are truthful, or if there is another potential "angle" that can be used as part of an article.

But it seems as if every normal type of practice for PRO's and Journalists suddenly goes out of the window on transfer deadline day, as the clubs want to 'keep their cards close to their chests' over any potential deals being done (presumably to avoid interest from other clubs that could gazump them) and journalists will take any tiny source as gospel (however unreliable) just to have something to report to viewers when asked for an update by the team at a central studio.

I do sometimes wonder how easy it would be to falsely generate a rumour about A. Trialist signing for FC Notaclub on a massive £60m deal with wages of around £300k a week. Obviously this sounds ridiculous, but if enough people say something is true, then eventually it becomes true, similar to the concept of 2+2=5, which was also touched upon in the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Transfer deadline day with all of the rumours on social media networks such as Twitter and constant news coverage does make for an exciting watch, even if the majority of the stories will be repeated several times over the course of the day (such is the nature of the modern 24 hour news network).

Anyway, I have a helicopter to catch...

Paul

Skins

This month has seen the debut of the popular television show Skins debut in the US, as well as the start of the 5th series in the UK. Many people will have seen the show in the UK, which in the past has been full of teen sex, drug use, and other post-watershed type material. But it turns out that a load of American companies decided to pay for expensive adverts on television channel MTV without doing their research.

A show aimed at the financially lucrative 'teen' audiences must have been a goldmine opportunity for American sponsors, in the way that Jersey Shore, American Idol and (shortly) The X Factor will be. But it appears that Skins isn't as popular as was hoped.

Due to the content of the show, which depicts teenagers taking drug, getting drunk and having sex many TV watchdog groups have rushed to mount their shire ponies (high horses) to criticise the show and claim that it’s a breach of child pornography laws, due to the age of some of the actors that filmed the show.

The pressure being put on the show’s producers has generated publicity for MTV in the way that banned music videos often go onto perform reasonably well in singles charts. But lots of the companies who have paid for advertising during the show have been leaving the show in their droves.

Taco Bell, General Motors, Wrigley’s, Schick (who manufacture razors and shaving foam), Subway and H&R Block (a tax preparation company) have all pulled their adverts after the criticism of the show, most of them citing reasons such as the show was "not aligned with [Schick] corporate guidelines".

The question now is why companies who were so eager to jump aboard the cash cow that is television drama in the US had not done their research on what the show would be about? Or had they thought that maybe content of Skins wasn’t too bad, but wanted to save their reputation by publicly turning their back on the show when the criticism arose. One of the most important things I've learnt (had drummed into me!) on my PR degree this year is about stakeholders, and how important it is to effectively manage each stakeholder group. But if massive companies are making mistakes like these, then I guess it shows that no-one’s perfect! MTV has said that it has no plans to pull the season, which only has 8 episodes left to air.

In terms of tele-visual quality, the US version of season 1 is nowhere near the quality of the British predecessor, but then it’s always been the case that UK television doesn’t translate well to an American audience and vice-versa. The UK season 5 has started off as a bit of a 'slow burner' in my eyes, but strangely I do believe that it could work very well in America because of the way it’s been written, plus the styling and casting of the characters.

What do you think of the UK / US versions of Skins?
Should companies pull out of advertisements because of the content of the show?

Let me know.

Paul

Offside

I understand this blog is at least 24 hours later than the UK news agenda, but some if it will still be worth reading, especially as not enough has been written about the next steps for the organisations involved, and how they can repair the damage done to their reputation.


















I don't want to hark on and on about what happened, so I'll surmise; two Sky Sports presenters (Richard Keys and Andy Grey, pictured above) made sexist remarks about a female assistant referee (Sian Massey) and West Ham chairperson Karen Brady, which were at the time not broadcast but somehow reached the public consciousness.

The footage was a conversation that should not have been heard, spoken by two people who really should know better. This is not the first time commentators have been caught out; a lot of people will draw comparisons with sacked ITV pundit Ron Atkinson, who made racist remarks about ex-Chelsea player Marcel Desailly.

Some of the journalism this week hasn't exactly done much to promote equality in football; asking disinterested women (and men) on the street if they understand arguably the most complex law (as a once-qualified football referee, the interpretation is the hardest part to gauge) in football is at best, pretty banal and doesn't exactly do its bit for engaging women in the sport.

So what should everyone do next?

The FA (Football Association) should continue with its various schemes and programmes to improve the standard of all refereeing in football. Any "knee-jerk" decisions to introduce more female referees and assistant referees into the Premier League will be quickly touted as "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted", rightfully so. Many see the FA as a fair organisation trying to promote football at all levels, so they should not engage in any activity that will endanger this perception.

Sky should also have been less ambiguous with the length of "suspension" for the pairing of Gray and Keys. At the time of writing they were due to miss all of the midweek televised fixtures, and will miss out on a further week of Monday Night Football because of the FA Cup games replacing Premier League fixtures, to which Sky doesn’t own the television rights.

An on air public apology at the top of the next broadcast will go some of the way towards showing that Sky is not a sexist broadcaster (even though most of the female presenters on Sky Sports News have been lauded as sex icons by wide areas of the channel’s mainly male demographic), but by the time this happens many will have forgotten about the comments.

Keys and Gray should also receive referee training (if they are not already qualified) as this would re-enforce the need for new officials, especially at the grass-roots levels of the game. Sky could even televise the pair "running the line" in a Sunday League game, which would probably be quite entertaining to watch as they try to keep up with play, and might act as some form of scarlet letter punishment.

The point is that although the obvious temptation is to make radical changes in order to shed the "white van man" image that football fans have, it will be the minor adjustments to the game that will attract the least derision from fans.

Some of the key words within the offside law are “advantage” and “interfering with play”. The comments by Andy Gray and Richard Keys were certainly offside in the modern game, but the question now becomes which parties are “seeking to gain an advantage” on the back of this issue, and will it interfere with play?

UPDATE 26th Jan: I've just back from lectures at uni today (25th January) and BBC Sport are reporting that Andy Gray has been sacked from his role as a commentator / pundit on Sky Sports, as he apparently has a bit of a "track record" for sexist behaviour. Another pundit, Andy Burton has been 'stood down' from coverage of the Carling Cup Semi-Final 2nd leg between Birmingham and West Ham on Wednesday 26th January after he referred to Sian Massey as "a bit of a looker" in an off-air exchange with Gray prior to the live coverage on Sky.

I have a feeling this isn't the end of the matter...

Paul

Spot Fixing

This is just going to be a short entry about spot fixing, and there will be a link to a questionnaire at the end, PLEASE FILL IT IN!! (as I would quite like a good mark in my university assignment!)


















This is relevant because the players involved in the spot fixing scandal (Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Amir, and Salmon Butt, pictured above) are this week having their cases heard in front of an ICC (International Cricket Council) tribunal in Doha this week.

Spot fixing has the potential to be a really damaging issue in modern cricket if it is not challenged or stopped by crickets governing body. I have loads of ideas about how it can be stopped (which is why im writing a 4000 word ethics report about it), but I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.

If you have an opinion, please write it in the comments below. Please also head to the questionnaire below (thanks to everyone at Survey Monkey) and fill it in!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLW3LGR

Thanks for your help,

Paul

Ryan Babel

I'm a huge fan of reading a long drawn out Twitter rant, and Kanye West is still the master at them, but today is still first time I've heard about a footballer having a moan!

Liverpool striker Ryan Babel took to Twitter to publicly criticise referee Howard Webb after Manchester United were awarded a slightly dubious and maybe a little soft clearly legitimate penalty in the first minute of today's E.On sponsored F.A. Cup Third round tie at Old Trafford.

Babel sent out the following tweet after the game: "And they call him one of the best referees? That's a joke. SMH."

Here's the picture in question. It depicts match referee Howard Webb in a Manchester United shirt.














Note: It is at the moment unclear exactly who made the picture, but I would really like to think that Babel put the hour he spent on the substitutes bench to good use!

Although he later apologised - "Sorry Howard Webb. My apology if they take my posted pic seriously. This is just an emotional reaction after losing an important game." Babel is likely to be on the receiving end of an FA disciplinary hearing for allegations of bias.

The FA should add another game onto the ban for trotting out the old 'in the heat of the moment' type excuse...

Still, at least he can spend the time on the sidelines dabbling on Photoshop!

Paul