"B19clubs will simply roover .

Ip tne b0S~k s and stick the-n lito a batterv-nen svste-n ~ t the rare Ian cormnq t"lro.Jgh arc tt-e res! 0+ t e consignment left on the scrapheao"
Only the brilliance of Cardiff City's keeper denied us the three points we deserved on Sunday. Only temporary loss of concentration by Darren O'Dea gave Cardiff their only goal. O'Dea was immediately substituted due to a recurrence of the condition he suffered at Birmingham. He has been given a scan to ensure that there is nothing we missed after last Wednesday's game; we wish him well. Meanwhile, our performance on Sunday showed that we fear nobody. Bring on Southampton. Two home games, two draws when on both occasions we were the better team and should have won, yet here we sit seventh with just one quarter of the season played. Another four points and we would have been a clear third. This is going to be a tough season and with the exception of Southampton, the league table is very close with just four points separating no less than nine clubs. Tonight gives us an opportunity to return to winning ways and get higher up the pecking order. During the phone-in on Sunday afternoon, one fan was complaining about the visitors being relocated to the south end of the West Stand, which just shows that you can't please everybody. One of the reasons that the visitors were relocated was to free up the South Stand for our fans to give greater support to..tbe players from behind the goal, in accordance with many fans' requests. He also commented on the treatment of the Cardiff fans, but there were a few reasons for this. Firstly, they have a poor reputation and It precedes them. To come to Eiland Road, they have to travel by dedicated coaches and stop at a motorway service station to collect their tickets. Furthermore, it was a Sunday lunchtime kick-off instead of the traditional 3pm on a Saturday and of course it was shown live on TV. In return we got a large police bill and a measly £100,000 TV fee. A pain all round and the club looses all ways! The sacking of Eriksson from Leicester City was not unexpected; the surprise was that he was appointed in the first place. His reign was another demonstration that money does not necessarily buy success and should provide food for thought to those who were complaining that Leeds had not spent enough in the summer. It is believed that Leicester spent about £15m yet yesterday evening they were 14th in the table. Bristol City are subsidised to the tune of £1Om a year, yet they are firmly rooted on the bottom rung, complete with Neil Kilkenny. Nottingham Forest are another club who have been spending big but so far, success has eluded them. However, at Leeds we don't spend money we don't have, and football is a diminishing attraction to rich men who would like a football club as a rich man's toy. I did in fact meet one such person last week in Monte Carlo - he told me that football was simply a matter of mathematics. He had a system to ensure that four goals were scored in every game and the problem with English football was nobody, but nobody - coaches, players or their managers - knew anything about the game. I made my excuses, left the meeting wondering where Revie, Ferguson, Busby, Shankly, and Wenger had all got it so terribly wrong! October 20, 2011 AD was a very significant day for the future of youth development in England. At a Football League meeting in Walsall, the 72 clubs looked at a proposal to legalise the theft of young Academy players by the Premier League clubs. The proposal was in fact a take-it-or-Ieave-it ultimatum. The FAPL proposal is that, subject to the status of their Academy, a Championship club will receive a payment of £480,000 per annum (the current contribution being £180,000), guaranteed for four years. There was also the warning of the failure to accept the FAPL proposal would jeopardise the current "solidarity" payment which is worth £2m a year to Championship clubs. In the back of the Football League clubs' minds was also the fact that the new TV contract for 2012113 onwards is much lower with clubs having a smaller sum from the Football League central fund (in the case of Leeds it is £660,000 per annum less). Nevertheless no less than 22 of the 72 clubs voted against it. Seven in the Championship Qncludlng Leeds) said no, as did 15 of the 48 League One and League Two clubs. However, it was passed and the agreement has come info force. In return for these miserable payments, the legalised theft of young players from our Academy comes into force. The details are both lengthy and complicated because they cover every age group (under 9-11 and then 12-16). Put briefly, if a club steals a player under the age of 11, we will receive £3,000 per season he is registered with us. Yes, it's not a misprint £3,0001 For 12-16, we will receive £25,000 per season registered. In addition, further payments will be made if the player appears for their first team. However, history shows that doesn't happen too often! This scheme abolishes the previous Tribunal System which acted as a deterrent to predatory Premier League clubs. Man City poached two of our kids and offered us

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful