Scottish Football: Value for money?

Today (Wednesday 15th October 2014), the BBC published a report into the price of football. The report compared the prices of clubs across England, Scotland and Wales as well as 31 European clubs. You can read the report for yourself here.

While interesting, for me the report had one major problem. The cheapest match ticket at Manchester City is £37. At St Mirren it's £20. At Napoli it's £10.90 (according the BBC report anyway). There's a pretty obvious conclusion here: Scottish football is a rip-off. While you might expect to pay almost twice as much to see Manchester City as you would St Mirren (given the quality of football will be at least twice as good), you'd be pretty stung if you paid twice as much to see St Mirren as Napoli (I don't think this report proves that St Mirren are twice as good as Napoli).

However, we're always being told that we can't compare ourselves - on or off the field - to the "big leagues", with these generally being accepted as La Liga in Spain, the Premier League in England, the Bundesliga in Germany and Serie A in Italy. Furthermore, you can't really compare Scotland, a small north-Atlantic country with huge countries like Spain or Italy.

So, I decided to do a little bit of my own research. What follows is a comparison between Scotland, and three "similar" countries: Denmark (we're practically the same, Alex Salmond said so), Switzerland (a small country - though bigger than Scotland - generally seen as one of the most expensive places on earth), and the Czech Republic (twice the population of Scotland, but I'll get to that).

These countries were chosen because all of their leagues have a higher UEFA coefficient ranking than the SPFL. Therefore it's reasonable to say that the "product" is better despite these countries being similar in size and stature to Scotland. So if Scottish fans are paying more, we are entitled to ask why.

Before I begin, I should say that I got a 4 at Standard Grade Maths, so feel free to check the figures and correct me...

Scotland v Czech Republic

Ok, so I'll get the controversial one out of the way first.
Scotland has a population (according to Wikipedia) of 5,327,700.
The Czech Republic meanwhile has 10,513,209 - twice as many people.

So why include it?
Two reasons: The first is that with the other two countries both being Western European countries, I felt it was important to have more of Europe-wide view, so including a central/Eastern country made sense.
The second is that while the country is twice as big, football has a challenge to its sporting supremacy which it does not have in Scotland, and that challenge is ice hockey.

If we look at the average attendance in the Czech Liga (football), we get an average of 5054 (source). If we compare this to the Extraliga, the Czech ice hockey league, the average attendance there is 4,948 (source) - almost on a par with football. So while it's true that the nation has twice the population of Scotland, football has to compete far more for audiences than in Scotland.

Of course, there are other sports in Scotland. In terms of spectator sports, the main competitors to football would probably be rugby and ice hockey. However, Scotland does not have a national professional league for either of these sports, with Scottish teams instead competing in British or European leagues. In and of itself, this could be taken as evidence that the sports don't enjoy anywhere near the profile of football, or of ice hockey in the Czech Republic, but let's look at the attendances anyway.

Scotland has two professional rugby teams: Edinburgh and Glasgow Warriors, who compete in the European Pro12 League. In the 2012/13 season, Glasgow had an average attendance of 4541, while Edinburgh managed 4600 (source).
While this figure is very close to the Scottish football average attendance (which we'll get to), it's worth noting that each team is the sole representative of one of Scotland's two biggest cities. Glasgow Warriors may have similar crowds to Partick Thistle, but Partick Thistle have to compete with Rangers, Celtic and Queen's Park for supporters, so the fact that Warriors, as Glasgow's sole professional representative can only draw 4541 fans on average is indicative of the attitude toward club rugby in Scotland. It's also worth noting that if we were to take an average of the two teams (i.e a "Scottish average"), the figure of 4570 is well below the league average of 8046.

In terms of ice hockey, Scotland has four teams, which compete in the UK Elite Ice Hockey League. Those teams are: Braehead Clan, Dundee Stars, Fife Flyers and Edinburgh Capitals. Here is a breakdown of the average gate of these four teams in the 2013/14 season (source):

Braehead Clan 2590
Dundee Stars 700
Fife Flyers 1680
Edinburgh Capitals 978

If we take a "Scottish average" again, we get a figure of 1487, which is once again below the league average of 2021 (source). We can therefore probably state categorically that football is by far the number one sport in Scotland.

So how does the SPFL compare to the Czech Liga?
The Czech Liga is ranked 14th in Europe by UEFA, compared to 24th for Scotland (source).
As mentioned above, the average attendance in the Czech Liga is 5054 so far this season.
When comparing it to Scotland, I felt we could take Celtic out of the equation. Why? Well I can't do the maths to work this out, but to the naked eye Celtic seem like a statistical outlier, which would make the figures artificially higher - having one massive club is not necessarily a reflection of the health of a league. I will note at this point that I did the same for some teams in the Swiss and Danish leagues, who had a hugely higher attendance than the norm.
Once Celtic are removed, we get a figure of 4993, a broadly similar number, but undeniably less than crowds in the Czech Liga.

Next, let's compare those attendances as a percentage of capacity. For this Celtic are included. The reason for this is that the capacity is a notional "maximum attendance". Of course there are exceptions to this (Celtic could probably draw 90,000 on Champions League nights), but it's a fairly decent barometer. Therefore we can see what percentage of their "maximum" crowd Scottish and Czech teams are actually getting into the stadium,

The capacity figures for the SPFL look like this (source):

Averaging out the figures, on average Scottish stadiums are at 46% capacity (edited to amend Inverness capacity)

For the Czech Liga the figures look like this (source):

On average this gives us 53%.
The only conclusion therefore is that Scottish football teams are falling further below their maximum possible crowd than their Czech counterparts.

Now let's look at ticket prices.
The way all the ticket prices in this blog have been worked out is very simple. One adult ticket, purchased on the day. No family or online deals, just the price you'd pay as an adult if you walked up to the stadium and purchased a ticket.
Obviously, not all tickets are the same price, with different prices being given for different seats. So all the prices listed here are taken from the club website, for the next game. The price of every adult ticket is considered, then divided by the number of different ticket prices to get an average. Exchange rates are worked out by google. Where the website didn't list a price, the team is listed as "unavailable". Sound fair? Ok, lets go.
In order of price, the Czech Liga looks like this:

Sparta Prague :256 czk (£7.33)
Slavia Prague: 228 czk (£6.53)
Slovacko: 183 czk (£5.23)
Bohemians Prague: 151 czk (£4.32)
Dukla Prague: 150 czk (£4.29)
Mlada Boleslav: 150 czk (£4.29)
Viktoria Plzen: 143 czk (£4.09)
Banik Ostrava 136 czk (£3.89)
České Budějovice: 125 czk (£3.58)
Vysočina Jihlava: 120 czk (£3.43)
Hradec Králové: 120 czk (£3.43)
Slovan Liberec: 115 czk (£3.29)
Zbrojovka Brno: 103 czk (£2.95)
Jablonec: 90 czk (£2.57)
Příbram: (unavailable)
Teplice: (unavailable)

If my maths is correct - which is by no means a given - then the price of an average match ticket in the Czech Republic is £4.23.
So how does Scotland comapare? In order of price, the SPFL looks like this:

Celtic: £26
Ross County: £24.66 (although next match is Celtic so price may usually be lower)
Aberdeen: £24
Inverness: £23
St Johnstone: £22.50
Partick Thistle: £22
Motherwell: £22
Hamilton: £22
Kilmarnock: £20.75
St Mirren: £20.50
Dundee United: £20
Dundee: £20

This would give an average Scottish ticket price of £22.28.

"BUT WAIT" I hear you cry. "Scottish wages must be higher than Czech wages?".
Indeed they are. So let's look at that.

According to this the average net wage in the Czech Republic is 19 378 CZK or £554.98.
The UK average is £2063.

So looking at the numbers, the average Czech wage is 27% of the average UK wage. However, the average Czech football ticket is only 19% of the average Scottish ticket.

Put another way, the average Czech football ticket would represent 0.76% of the average Czech wage.
Meanwhile, the average Scottish ticket is 1.19% of the average UK wage.

It's also worth mentioning that while the four of the top five most expensive tickets in the Czech league can be found in Prague, the centre of Czech economic activity where wages are likely to be highest, Scottish prices vary very little between more affluent places like Aberdeen and places where wages are almost certainly below the UK national average like Kilmarnock, Motherwell and Paisley (if anyone wants to check that then be my guest).

So, simple comparison so you don't have to actually read all that:
                                                                   Scotland                         Czech Republic
Average attendance                                   4993                                 5054
Average Attendance by capacity              46%                                  53%
Average ticket price                                 £22.28                              £4.23
Ticket price % of monthly wage              1.19%                               0.76%
Uefa coefficient rank                                  24th                                  14th

Scotland v Denmark

 So, simple one here. Population of 5,612,000, so definitely an effective comparison to Scotland.
The Danish Superliga is ranked just above the SPFL in 22nd place.
The attendance figures Denmark look like this (source):

From this we can see that two clubs FC Copenhagen and Brondby far outstrip the league in terms of average attendance. Therefore, as with Celtic they're considered outliers, and not included in the average attendance figure.
The average attendance figure for the league as a whole stands at 5276 when we exlude those two teams. Once again this is close to the Scottish figure, but is once again higher.

Now, this is where things get tricky. Unlike the Czech Liga and the SPFL, the Danes don't helpfully list the attendance as percentage of capacity on their webstite. As such, I had to do the calculation myself, by dividing the average attendance by what the capacity of their ground was on Wikipedia. Given my notoriously poor maths and the unreliability of Wikipedia, I'd give this figure a 3-4% margin for error. However, the attendance to capacity figure I got for the Danish Superliga is 47%. Again this is higher than Scotland.

So, those ticket prices again. I'm sure you can scroll up to see the Scottish prices, so here are the Danish ones in order of cost.

Copenhagen: 172.5 DKR (£18.51) - Note club website kept crashing, so this only average of highest and lowest
FC Nordsjaelland: 145 DKR (£15.56)
SønderjyskE: 125 DKR (£13.41)
Brondby: 125 DRK (£13.41)
FC Vestsjælland: 125 DKR (13.41)
Randers FC: 123 DKR (£13.20)
Silkeborg: 120 DKR (£12.87)
Aalborg: 120 DKR (£12.87)
Hobo IK: 100 DKR (£10.73)
OB: unavailable
Efsbjerg FC: unavailable
FC Middtjylland: unavailable

This gives an average price of £13.77 (128.36 DKR).

However, this is where things get very interesting indeed. The average wage in Denmark is 23,245 DKR (net) or £2498.85 - higher than the UK average.
What this means is that while Danish wages are 121% of the UK average, Danish football tickets are only 61% of Scottish ticket prices.

Presented in the same way as previously, a Danish football ticket is only 0.55% of the average national monthly wage, compared 1.19% for Scotland. Scottish tickets are, in effect, over twice as expensive as Danish tickets, despite having a lower Uefa coefficient.


                                                                   Scotland                       Denmark
Average attendance                                    4993                                5276
Average Attendance by capacity               46%                                 47%
Average ticket price                                  £22.28                             £13.77
Ticket price % of monthly wage              1.19%                              0.55%
Uefa coefficient rank                                  24th                                 22nd

Scotland v Switzerland

Ah, Switzerland. This is where we'll pull it back. They'll be expensive as fuck and shite at football. Good old Swiss.

Well, maybe not. With the Swiss League 11th in the Uefa coefficient they're certainly not shite at football.
In terms of attendance too, the Swiss League is holding its Tobler-own.
After taking Basel out of the equation due to their abnormaly high crowds, we're still left with an average gate of 10,125 (being Swiss they didn't display this in a handy graphic, but check out the league page for the stats).
Unlike the helpful Czechs and Scots, the Swiss followed the Danes down the road of not giving attendances as a % of capacity. So, with the same caveats as before, I reached a figure of an average 52% capacity.

Which is all well and good, but surely we'll have them when it comes to ticket prices? Well, yes and no.
Here is the ranking of prices in the Swiss Super League (please note the Swiss league sells tickets through one website, which doesn't work very well):
Aarau 59.5 CHF (£39.47)
FC Zurich: 50 CHF (£33.16)
FC Sion: 49.5 CHF (£32.87)
Basel 46.4 CHF (£30.78)
Grasshopper 46 CHF (£30.51)
FC Thun: 42.2 CHF (£27.99)
Young Boys: 38 CHF (£25.21)
Luzern: unavailable
FC Lausanne: unavailable
St Gallen: unavailable

Huzzah! An average ticket in the Swiss league is a massive £31.46 (47.43 CHF), comfortably more than the Scottish average.
However, the average Swiss wage is 4,948 CHF or £3277.47.
Basically Swiss wages are 158% of the UK average, with ticket prices at 141%.

This means that the average Swiss Super League ticket is only 0.96% of the average Swiss wage, meaning in real terms Swiss tickets are still cheaper than a ticket in Scotland.

                                                                        Scotland                          Switzerland
Average attendance                                        4993                                  10,125
Average Attendance by capacity                   46%                                    52%
Average ticket price                                       £22.28                                £31.46               
Ticket price % of monthly wage                   1.19%                                0.96%
Uefa coefficient rank                                       24th                                    11th

Conclusion

In summary, not only can Scotland not compete on a technical level with the elite European leagues, the product on the park is inferior to leagues which many Scottish punters would scoff at. Yet the Danish league, the Czech league and the Swiss league are outperforming our own top division.
Not only that, but compared to all these nations, both those with lower wages and those with higher wages, Scottish football fans are paying more of their monthly wage to watch sub-standard football in half empty stadiums.

What's the solution? I don't know, but surely the governing bodies of Scottish football must do more to address the scandalous prices fans are being forced to pay. Who knows, maybe lower ticket prices would encourage more people to turn up? And maybe that would make the SPFL more attractive to  native and international talent, and allow better players to strut their stuff in Scotland and move the league up the coefficient.

Gaby's Unified Theory of Crime Novels.

Over the past year, I have noticed that most crime novels I have read follow almost the same structure. Presented below is that structure. Follow it, and you could become a best selling crime novelist.

1) Title

Crime novels should always have "The" as the first word of the title. If you have a title in mind for a crime novel and it doesn't start with "The", rethink the title. A crime novel title should also make reference to an animal or a woman (or better yet, an animal which is being used to REPRESENT a woman). Recommended, but not essential is to have a location in the title as well. This can be a place, like London, or just a setting such as a forest.

Example: The Woman In The Woods.

2) Set-up

Crime novels must always feature a protagonist who has recently gone through a TRAUMATIC LIFE EVENT (TLE). This can be anything from the breakup of a relationship, to the death of a child or a failure to catch a serial killer.
 The usual way to achieve this is to have the protagonist be a grizzled old detective, who is somewhat down on his luck. It is absolutely imperative for the protagonist to harbour some sort of guilt or complex about the TLE. This will be important later.

Example: A grizzled old detective, who since his daughter drowned in an icy lake has been unable to concentrate properly at work. He has been drinking heavily, his wife no longer speaks to him and he is now deathly afraid of swimming, reminding him as it does of plunging desperately into the aforementioned icy lake to save his poor daughter.

3) The Case

There are two set-ups which can be used with regards to the case which the novel will focus on. Either the protagonist is a detective (private or otherwise) who is assigned the case OR the protagonist stumbles onto the case through work (for example, a man goes to work in an amusement arcade, and hears about a murder which happened there many years ago, which remains unsolved.)
The case should always be about a killer or serial killer. If you make it about a paedophile people will just find it weird. The case should always pertain to somewhere familiar to the author. It could be set in your home city, a cherished childhood holiday memory location (a beach front town for example) or a place of work.
 The killer should always have some sort of DISTINGUISHING FEATURE, such as a scar or tattoo, identified by a victim or a witness.

Example: A grizzled old detective, who is somewhat down on his luck and struggling with guilt over the death of his daughter is assigned to solve a series of murders in the local nature park. The only clue is that the murderer has a large burn on his neck, identified by a woman who he attempted to kill, but who escaped.

4) Solving The Case

This is the most important part of any crime novel. The first thing which has to happen is for your protagonist to get to the location of the case. The first friendly person they meet when they get there is the murderer. This person is the GUY YOU WOULD NEVER SUSPECT (GYWNS). The GYWNS has a quirk. They should also come into contact with a DECIDEDLY SINISTER INDIVIDUAL (DSI) at this location. Casually toss in that the DSI is wearing something which is not appropriate for the weather, which could conceal the DISTINGUISHING FEATURE. This will make the reader suspicious, but they will also think themselves clever for noticing this detail. Because they could be a detective if they weren't an insurance salesman (or woman. Free your minds, yeah?).

Example: The grizzled old detective makes his way to the nature park. He is greated by a tall thin man, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. He shakes the hand of this man, and the two share a coffee, where the man tells the detective about the journal he keeps every day. The grizzled old detective looks out of the window, and he notices the man chopping up the trees is wearing a scarf, despite the hot weather.

Some time passes. The protagonist observes the DSI. The DSI is generally chippy and unpleasant. In contrast, the GYWNS is always on hand to say something reassuring like "oh don't mind that fellow". The DSI does many things which cause the protagonist to believe them to be the murderer. The reader thinks "ah, I knew it" and pats themselves on the back. Eventually, the protagonist confonts the DSI only to find... THEY DO NOT HAVE THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE!

Example: The grizzled old detective tears the scarf from the throat of the park worker... and sees no scar!

Oh, you've got them intrigued now! At this point, the protagonist should either give up, or be taken off the case. They should confide in a significant other. This does not necessarily have to be a wife or husband. It could be a retarded kid, or a colleague.
Having confided in a significant other, the protagonist should now start thinking about the case. This is when they realise... it was the GYWNS! All the protagonist needs is one last little bit of evidence...

Example: The grizzled old detective realises... the tall, thin man must be the killer! He's been covering his scars with makeup! Now, if only he could get a hold of the journal the man writes in, he could solve the case!

Sadly, at the same time as the protagonist has figured out that GYWNS is the killer, GYWNS has taken the significant other hostage. GYWNS tells the protagonist to meet him at a location, or he will kill the significant other. This place should be related to the TLE.

Example: The tall, thin man calls the grizzled old detective. "Meet me at the frozen lake in the park," he says "Or I will kill this retarded kid."

The protagonist has to overcome their complex to save the significant other.
Alternate ending: The protagonist is taken hostage, and the significant other solves the case independently and rescues the protagonist at the last minute.

The killer (GYWNS) dies. They always die. That's very important. Tack on a happy ending.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, that's basically it. Feel free to add some names into this plot and publish The Woman In The Woods. Remember to put something in about a woman in the woods. Should be pretty easy, just make the victim female and in the woods.

Here is a list of the Top 100 Crime Novels Of All Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_100_Crime_Novels_of_All_Time.
 Have a read of the plot synopses. Observe the titles. The theory works.

EDIT: This also works for Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone.

5 May 2002 - A football related trip down memory lane.

11 years ago today. I feel old. That's the day that Juventus overtook Inter on the last day of the season, to win the league. They used to show the full match at something like 1am, on Channel 4, and my parents wouldn't let me stay up to watch it (and I didn't know the score, because the internet hadn't been invented. Or if it had, it hadn't reached Scotland). So I had to get the late-night repeat of the match recorded, to watch the following morning. In this case there were extended highlights of Lazio v Inter, Udinese v Juventus and Torino v Roma, as all three were in the title picture.

 That was the final season that Italian football was on Channel 4, and it now seems that day was the end of an era. Ask any of my friends about Channel 4 Football Italia and they'll smile, and recall watching the highlights of a previous weekend on a Sunday morning. The cry of "Golazo!" (great goal) in the title credits mistaken by almost everyone for "Go Lazio!" They had already dispensed with live matches on a Sunday afternoon, hence the match being shown at some stupid time in the morning.

Now kids, a video is a kind of big square DVD. Except it had some foil inside it, which the video was written on to. Or something. So I had to ask my dad to put one of these big square boxes of foil into the video player, and record the match that night.

Anyway, I got up at about 6am, without knowing what had happened. I'm not sure why, given it was a Monday (Italy's football day is Sunday, not Saturday like in this country) but I wasn't at school that day.

Anyway, it's 6am. Inter only have to beat Lazio to win the title. Juventus are a point behind, and playing away to Udinese. Roma are a point behind Juventus and playing away to Torino. So anyone could win it. I'm sitting in my bedroom, volume turned down to almost inaudible levels, so I don't wake the house up. Posters of Del Piero, Nedved, Trezeguet and Buffon, taken from the Football Italia magazine are on my wall. I'm wearing my replica kit - that season's one, with FASTWEB written across it. I didn't know what FASTWEB was. I still don't. Nor did I know what Roma's INA Assitalia was. It all seemed hopelessly exotic, depsite the fact I'm sure these were web providers or banks or something. I refuse to look it up. It will ruin the mystique.

Lazio's fans hate the thought of handing Juventus or Roma the title, so they're actually supporting against their own team.

Juve go up 2-0 within 25 mins. Meanwhile, in Rome, Inter take a lead through Luigi Di Biagio. Karel Poborsky, Manchester United legend (probably), equalises. But surely they'll be ok when Christian Vieri puts Inter back in front? Lazio have other ideas. Poborsky equalises again. Then, to the disgust of everyone in the stadium, they then score a further two in the second half to win 4-2. Simone Inzaghi and Diego Simeone putting the nail in Inter's coffin. Roma win 1-0 at Torino with a lovely Cassano chip. So Inter go from 1st to 3rd within 90 minutes and Juventus take the title, on the bench for Inter, Ronaldo cries.

So why the blog post?
Nostalgia basically. Nostalgia for the days when you couldn't just check the scores from the Belgian league on your phone. Taping a match from Serie A to watch in the morning is something that won't happen to anyone growing up these days. You can get it all on the internet. Nostalgia for sight of James Richardson holding the Gazzetta Dello Sport on Channel 4 on a Sunday morning. Nostalgia because most of the players involved in those games have retired or moved on. Nedved, Ronaldo, Peruzzi, Vieri, Thuram. All players I grew up watching. All retired. Del Piero is in Sydney. Trezeguet is in Argentina. Only Buffon and Totti are still with their clubs.
Antonio Conte who played that day is now Juventus manager, and can win his second title today. A player I grew up watching is now the Juventus manager.

Maybe it's the lack of sleep. Maybe it's because I think of my life in football seasons. Maybe it's that your football team (or teams, as I am hopelessly devoted to Kilmarnock and Juventus) is pretty much the only constant in your life (You can change pretty much anything: job, car, haircut, spouse, gender... but you can never change your football team). But this morning I'm very aware of the unstoppable movement of time. 11 years. 11 years from now I'll be 32. Yet I still remember this like it was yesterday. You think I had to look up the names of the goalscorers from that day? Ha!

They say time waits for no man. I think they're right.

I'm sorry Scotland, I wash my hands of you.

There's little that beats the roar of a full-to-capacity Hampden Park on a Scotland match day. The flaccid dirge 'Flower Of Scotland', when roared by 50,000 Tartan Army footsoldiers becomes an anthem which would make the Gods tremble in the heavens. I've seen victories over France and Holland. I've seen agonising and glorious defeat against World Champions Spain and Italy. I've seen crushing defeats to Belarus. One of my earliest memories, is of - as an uninterested-in-football 6 year old - celebrating with my dad in the living room as Scotland scored a penalty against Brazil. But tonight, I'm done. I'm going AWOL from the Tartan Army. I'm going homeward to think again. I'm washing my hands of the Scottish National Football Team.

This isn't something I say lightly, or happily. I certainly don't consider myself a fair-weather supporter. But tonight something happened, that I never dreamed possible. As I stood in the freezing snow. As the brain donors around me screaming abuse at the peaceful and up-for-a-laugh Welsh fans who huddled just metres away. As yet another Welsh passing move evaded the Scottish defence. I wanted us to lose. Not because it would vindicate my pessimistic pre-game predictions, but simply because Scotland were so bad. I couldn't bear the thought of those spit-flecked lips around me turning into smug grins as our team snatched a totally undeserved win. I'm not saying I was happy when Wales scored. I wasn't. I simply had a feeling of justice being done. I wanted us to lose.

What makes this different from any other Scotland defeat? Truthfully, I don't know. I think it's that this Scotland team is not just useless. They're hopeless, in the purest sense of the word. There isn't, as far as I can see, any prospect of us - them - reaching a major tournament in the next decade. There are no exciting young talents waiting to burst into the team. Six or seven years ago, the prospects for Scotland looked bright. There was a genuinely talented group of players emerging. What has become of those players? Craig Gordon, Darren Fletcher and John Kennedy have suffered with illness and injury. They probably won't play for their country again. James McFadden and Kevin Thomson have had 3 years on the sidelines. Kris Boyd, Garry O'Connor and Derek Riordan have squandered their considerable talents. The team today is made up of average Premiership footballers, seemingly included because of who they play for rather than how they play. Several of them are English. I'm not anti-English. I was born in London. But what connection does Liam Bridcutt have to Scotland? And we to him? I'm not saying they don't care or aren't trying, of course they are and of course they do. I'm just trying to rationalise the detachment I feel from the Scotland team today.

Scotland are bottom of Group A with 2 points from 4 games. 3 of those games were at home. It's entirely conceivable, that with two games with Croatia and trips to Serbia and Macedonia to come, Scotland will not accrue any more points in the campaign. Attendances at Hampden will dwindle, and I can't blame those who stay away - Christ, I'll be one of them. And if Scotland miraculously improve? The incorrigibles who have suffered through this campaign will be shunted out, to make room for anyone who has paid for the privilege of joining the Scotland Supporter's Club. And that's what I kept coming back to, as I stood shivering on the terrace, the March snow stinging my face - I'd rather have been anywhere else. The cinema, the pub... even at work. I couldn't even bring myself to be angry with the team, I felt only a deep sense of embarrassment that a team - MY team - could be so fundamentally AWFUL as they were in the first half hour.

So that's it. I withdraw my support. I simply do not care about the Scottish National Football team anymore. I think, as it so often does, The Simpsons captured the feeling perfectly:

Lisa: Why do you hate the team so much, Dad? 
Homer: Because I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you, sweetie. Never love anything.

Musings on America and gun control.

I write this blog less than a week after the Sandy Hook massacre, in which a gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in an American elementary school : 20 children and 6 teachers.

In the wake of this horrific event, many people on the American left (and to a lesser extent the right) have called for stricter gun regulations, while most (but not all) on the right have accused Democrats and Liberals of politicising a tragedy. As a British/Scottish/European I find many of the arguments against gun control in America staggering. But I'm not going to attack the NRA. Instead, let me list the ways I agree with the National Rifle Association, and then give reasons why I believe stricter gun control in the USA is necessary.

1) The Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States of America gives civilians the right to keep and bear arms.

True. The second amendment of the US constitution states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Some contend that this means that some sort of governmental agency or security force has the right to bear arms, rather than the average American. From what I can understand, the text states that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say that the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the first point on which I agree with the NRA. The US constitution clearly does give civilians the right to own guns.

Where I disagree, is that the NRA seems to believe that this means that there should be no restriction on what type of weapons civilians should be allowed to own. Should a civilian be allowed to own a nuclear bomb? An F15? It's hard to imagine any reasonable person would say yes to those questions. Is that in itself not a form of gun control? Why then should it be that the average American can own a Bushmaster M4, a semi-automatic rifle which Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children? A weapon such as this has one purpose: to kill people. Especially when equipped with (legally purchased) bullets which fragment upon impact to make removal or treatment more difficult. What possible reason could there be for allowing civilians to possess such a weapon? To hunt? Only if you want to be spitting lead out of your venison as you eat it. The only thing such a weapon is designed for is to kill people.

2) If the teachers at Sandy Hook had guns, less people would have died.

Again, this is probably true. A teacher with a gun may have been able to take out the shooter.

That being said, would arming teachers really be a good thing? All it takes is one psychopathic teacher (as in the Dunblane massacre), or even a careless one for something tragic to happen. The USA has a population of 300 million. Are we to believe that not even one teacher, in one school would be capable of murdering the children in their classroom? Or that one teacher in one school would be careless enough to leave their firearm lying around, to be picked up by a young child who, in play, could accidentally fire it on a classmate? In addition, Columbine High School had armed guards, but that didn't stop Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold from murdering 13 of their peers before turning the guns on themselves. Nor did having guns help Lanza's mother, who he shot with her own guns before embarking upon his terrible killing spree.

Furthermore, what is the logical conclusion to this argument? Give toddlers a gun?

3) You can't stop bad people doing bad things.

Certainly true.

However, you can limit the impact of the bad things that bad people do. On the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a man with a knife wounded 22 children in a Chinese school. There are bad people in the world. They will do bad things. The difference is that the man in China did not have a gun as Adam Lanza did. No-one died in China. 26 people died in the USA.


It seems to boil down to two Utopian ideals. The NRA and its supporters want everyone in America to own a gun. This, they contend, would mean that criminals would think twice about acting outside of the law knowing they could be shot and killed for doing so by ordinary civilians.

The other is that no-one would own a gun.

Clearly, both these ideas are impossible. But shouldn't America work towards one, however impossible? Shouldn't we, as human beings, strive for perfection even if we know it's unattainable?

So which one?

I'd put it this way: if the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook had firearms available to them, the deathtoll would have still been at least 1: Adam Lanza.

If no-one in the building, including Lanza, had access to guns then the death-toll would probably have been zero.

Euro 2012 - Guaranteed money making tips (not guaranteed)

With Euro 2012 around the corner, and me being some sort of demi-God of football knowledge, here are some top tips to make money from the bookies.

Winner: Germany look a good bet to win the tournament, but at 3/1 there isn't much point backing them. If you feel like it though, a cheeky tenner will get you a night out if they win. Spain are 11/4 which is ridiculously short and they won't win anyway. I'll be sticking a couple of quid on Russia. They're at 20/1, unbeaten in 14 games and have the easiest group. Expect them to come out on top against Poland, Greece and the Czech Republic. Following that they'll have a tough match against the runner up in the Group of Death, but a strong defence with Igor Akinfeev being protected by Berezutskiy and Ignashevic means they should be tough to break down and they have quality up front in Dzagoev, Arshavin, Pavlyuchenko and Kerzhakov. Although you wouldn't make them favourites, Advocaat's side would only have to win 3 matches once they get out of the group stage. As Greece showed in 2004, being solid in defence and lethal on the break can take you all the way. France at 10/1 and Italy at 14/1 could also be worth a punt.

Top Scorer: Cristiano Ronaldo has had a phenomenal goalscoring season, and is decent value at 12/1, but question marks remain over whether he can score enough goals in a poor Portugal side in a very tough group. Miroslav Klose always seems to score goals in international tournaments and might be worth a shot at 14/1, and you can get 20/1 on Germany winning it with him as top scorer. However, I have put a mighty £1 on Zlatan Ibrahimovic. 40/1 is an incredible value for a man who scored 35 goals in 44 games this season - one more than Wayne Rooney who is at 33/1 and suspended for the first two games! The long odds are likely due to his presence in an average Swedish team, but England and Ukraine have shaky defences, and Ibra's skill and power could seriously expose the likes of Jagielka and Lescott.

Finalists: A Germany v Russia final comes in at 28/1, which could tie in nicely with previous bets. However, if you'd rather not put all your eggs in one basket, Italy v France at 40/1 looks good value. Both sides breezed through qualifying, and should get out of their groups, and while you wouldn't make either side favourites to beat Spain, Germany or Holland, France are somewhat of an unknown quantity and it's never wise to write off Italy.

Group Winners/Runners up:
Group A: Hard to see past Russia for group winners (8/5), but 6/4 for a solid but unspectacular Czech Republic side to come in behind them is decent.

Group B: Germany should get top spot here. While 18/1 is tempting for Denmark, there's a reason their odds are so long. Holland at 4/7 to just sneak it from Denmark and Portugal.

Group C: Much dependent on how good Italy are when they arrive. Spain, much like Brazil, do not like facing Italy. Indeed, Italy were the last side to stop Spain from scoring, back at Euro 2008 as the Spanish won on penalties. That was a great Spanish team and a poor Italian one and Italy look in better shape now. An opening day win for Italy could see them finish top at 7/2. I can't see Croatia or Ireland being worth a punt to qualify, so it's Spain to follow them at (1/7)

Group D: A very interesting one, and hard to predict. France SHOULD have enough to top the group (7/4) but from there it's hard to predict. Home advantage could spur Ukraine on, Roy Hodgson's England look decently set up to grind out results and Sweden look solid and will be dangerous if Ibrahimovic is firing. Tentatively I'd back Sweden at 2-1.

Oddities: Italy to be knocked out in the semi final is 5/1 which looks a good bet if they manage to win Group C. Shane Long for Ireland's top scorer is at 12/1, which looks decent given they probably won't score many goals - one goal may realistically be enough. An outside bet of Spain not to qualify at 6/1 might be worth a shot for the more adventurous. If they lose to Italy in the first game and are frustrated by Ireland in the second it's certainly possible.

So concludes this blog. Drop me a comment with your tips if you so desire, and be sure and come back here and abuse my predictions when they all go horribly wrong. Good luck everyone!

(odds from Ladbrokes, bet 365 and oddschecker.com)

Kony 2012 - A few thoughts

Ok. Allow me to begin by stating how evil Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army are.

The Lord's Resistance Army is a millitant rebel group. They were initially funded and armed by the Sudanese government, as a way to attempt to punish Uganda for supporting an uprising in Southern Sudan. You may have heard of this. What you may not have heard of, is the fact that the United States and French governments armed both the governments of Chad and Sudan, as they saw this as a way of stopping the progress of Col. Gaddafi. This is really a whole other debate, but I'll give you the wiki of the former Chadian president Hissene Habre as it makes for interesting reading: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiss%C3%A8ne_Habr%C3%A9). The whole history of the US, the UK, the former USSR and France in Africa is terrible. Most of these horrible groups such as the LRA, the Janjaweed, Gaddafi and more were armed during the Cold War. The United States armed Sudan and Chad because the Soviet Union had armed Gaddafi and so on and so forth.

So, Kony. It is estimated that he has abducted over 65,000 children to fight in his LRA. He and his army stand accused of murder, abduction, forcing women into the sex trade and even cannibalism. (http://www.royalafricansociety.org/articles-by-richard-dowden/261.html)

This is where Invisible Children and their Kony 2012 campaign come in. The group uploaded an undeniably affecting video on March 5th, highlighting the atrocities commited by Kony. Invisible Children has been involved in many important and worthy projects in Uganda, such as the building of schools and the Protection Plan, a service designed to provide rehabilitation and family reunification for victims of Kony and the LRA. However, it is when it comes to the apprehension of Kony that I think Invisible Children should be put under more scrutiny. Is the video which is currently being shared all over Facebook and Twitter really to be taken at face value?

Last year, Invisible Children spent $8.8 million. I know this because as a not-for-profit organisation, IC's accounts can easily be found online (Google it. If you can't find it, I'll send you the pdf). Of this, only $2.8 million went to direct services, such as the ones I mentioned previously. $2.2 million was spent on travel costs and film making. Each of the 3 co-founders took home $90,000 in pay. Admittedly, this is only 3% of the total costs of the charity but it seems to me like disproportionate amount of money is being spent on films and awareness rather than directly helping in Uganda. Of course awareness is important, but aren't they over-spending on this? Just my opinion. In addition, the website Charity Navigator.org only gives Invisible Children 2 stars out of 4 for "transparency and accountability", as the accounts it provides have not been independently audited.

This brings me onto my next problem with IC. Their relationship with the Ugandan government. If not financially (I am willing to give IC the benefit of the doubt despite their lack of transparency), Invisible Children publically lends its support the Ugandan government army the UPDF. Given that (as IC admits in the previous link) Kony left Uganda in 2006, this seems odd. Odder still, the fact that the UPDF has itself been accused of atrocities, such as rape and looting.
Can is really be justified, supporting an army like that, just to capture an even worse man? Is THIS what we want from our charities? Even more shockingly, the Ugandan government has actually granted amnesty to thousands of LRA soldiers for the crimes they commited while the group was operational in Uganda. And it's not me saying this - ask Amnesty International. Remember, this is the Ugandan government whose army Invisible Children supports.

You may have noticed this blog is rather link-heavy. This is because I think it's important to show where you are getting your information from. This is my third problem with IC. Some of the information contained in the Kony 2012 video is just not true. After 14 minutes they state that everyone they spoke to in Washington said that there was "no way" the US government would get involved. "The government said it was impossible". Well, that's simply not true. US Africa Command has been trying to take out Kony for years. The reason you probably haven't heard about this is they haven't been very good at it. Nicknamed Operation Lightning Thunder, an attempt to destroy the LRA once and for all was made, with US troops commanding an alliance of Ugandan, Sudanese and Congolese forces. Sadly, Kony had in fact left Garamba National Park prior to the offensive, and the LRA massacred over 900 people in reprisal attacks. I'm not defending the US government, but are IC unaware of this, and other similar operations? Or are they lying? After all, Invisible Children supports millitary intervention. However, when Kony surrounds himself with women and children, and such action will result in the loss of many of those women and children, as we have seen.

Joseph Kony is an evil man. He should be brought to justice and put on trial in the Hague for his crimes. But supporting the apprehension of Kony, shouldn't mean putting blind faith in the Kony 2012 campaign.