The One Hundred Club

Football's administrators love to tinker. Leaving well alone and not fixing things that aren't broken are not part of their mindset. And while I am not that much of a traditionalist that I cannot accept change, I sometimes wonder exactly how much thought goes into the ideas that emanate from the FA, or the Premier League or anyone else involved in running the sport in this country.

Two years ago FA chairman Greg Dyke proposed a new division for the Football League to comprise a mixture of ten teams from Step One of non-League football (the National League) and ten Premier League B teams. The idea met with immediate and almost universal condemnation and was quickly dropped. The B team spectre was raised again when it was suggested that Premier League teams could enter second string teams in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy (JPT) and the latest proposals to re-organise the Football League raise the possibility that the introduction of B teams into the English league structure could soon be back on the agenda.

Greg Dyke

The new proposals are to increase the number of Football League clubs from 72 to 80, formed into four divisions of twenty teams each instead of the current three divisions of twenty-four clubs, giving a grand total of one hundred clubs when the Premier League sides are added. That means a reduction in games for each club from 46 to 38 league matches per season and puts the Holy Grail of the Premier League one step further away for a number of clubs.

A few Football League club spokesmen oppose these ideas, like Bradford City's joint-chairman Mark Lawn who says, "Losing four home games means we lose four incomes," and the loss of income from four home games is in no way offset by the reduction in expenses from the loss of four away games. Other chairmen are, if not exactly supportive, prepared to at least consider the idea, like Brentford chief executive Mark Devlin. "These proposals are a really good start for how we can tackle some of the problems Football League clubs are facing," he said.

Bradford City joint-chairman Mark Lawn. Picture: Daily Mail

The Football League's proposals have four objectives:

- To maximise the number of weekend/Bank Holiday league fixtures. The last time I looked, every Saturday during the season had a full set of fixtures, as did most Bank Holidays (Christmas Day excepted, and not all clubs play on Good Friday), so this objective is met under the current structure anyway. But if they mean "reducing the number of games moved from their original Saturday afternoon kick-offs at the whim of the TV companies," then good for them.

- To remove where practical fixture congestion and scheduling conflicts. Laudable, and a reduction in league fixtures means more free midweek dates for re-arranged games and generally provides more flexibility, so no argument from me on that one. Except, of course that to achieve it, clubs have to give up four home games and the associated income.

- To protect/improve financial distributions/income generation for Football League clubs. The devil is in the detail. The big question has to be how? As Brian Lawn says, four fewer home games means considerably reduced income; how do the Football League propose compensating clubs (even indirectly)? We'll have to wait and see how they put flesh on the bones for this proposal.

- To maintain the Football League Play-Off Finals as the last event of the domestic season. So maintain the status quo then. Not a radical proposal and one I'm sure few club chairmen would even deem worth commenting on, particularly since it would be difficult to have the play-off before the end of the regular season!

The list of perceived benefits that the Football League has come up with are questionable.

- The importance of each individual fixture will increase. How precisely? Games are important or they are not, that won't change. The number of apparently meaningless matches won't reduce as there will still be clubs in mid-table limbo neither threatened by relegation nor with a chance of promotion.

- Reduced travel costs to four games which are often at a distance. True, except that these cost reductions are scant compensation for the loss of income from four home games.

- Midweek travel for fans vastly reduced. Somewhat disingenuous this: it isn't often that the football authorities pay much consideration to fans, and they will continue to disregard them when it suits them to schedule games for the benefit of television rather than the supporters.

- Potential to reduce squad size.  Some club chairmen have already pooh-poohed this and it is difficult to see how clubs will be able to reduce squads by more than one or two players.

  

- Enhanced recovery time/match preparation.  Cannot argue with this one. Fewer games means longer to recover between games and could mean clubs can get by with smaller squads, but any gains will be marginal.

- Increased importance of reserve team football.  Again, how precisely? Are clubs going to play more reserve games as a result of this? And if they do, they will either need bigger squads, or players will play more often (being required for both first and reserve team fixtures) rather negating either of the previous two supposed benefits.

- Increase in sale of season tickets due to reduction in midweek games. With fewer games, season ticket prices ought to fall, which may result in increased sales. But, since clubs will already see a reduction in income due to having fewer home games they may be reluctant to reduce season ticket prices. If they don't that is effectively an increase in price per game and may actually cause sales to fall.

- Increased profile on League One, Two & Three at different stages of the season. How this is supposed to happen -and why it doesn't happen already - is not explained. Perhaps at some stage the Football League will clarify this.

There is provision in the proposals to revise the format of the Johnstone's Paint Trophy to include a group stage, so on the one hand the Football League propose reducing the number of league games and on the other increasing the number of games in the less meaningful JPT. But, of course doing so also allows for the inclusion of Premier League B teams in the JPT, which potentially opens the door to these sides in the league itself.

Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey has dismissed the idea of B teams in the Football League, saying that in addition to the two clubs promoted from the National League (Step One of non-League football) the next logical place for the extra clubs to come from would be promoting the next six teams from the National League." That, however is not set in stone and the idea of the Glasgow clubs Celtic and Rangers entering the Football League has again been floated, an idea which Shaun Harvey accepts might be difficult to accomplish, but which he does not dismiss out of hand.

Celtic play Rangers: could these two Scottish clubs every play in the Football League? Picture: Sky Sports

Taking eight clubs out of the National League (Step One) in one fell swoop will send ripples through Steps Two, Three, Four and Five of non-League football. Clubs will have to be promoted to fill vacancies or leagues will have to reduce the number of clubs in their constitutions, and while that is something some leagues may not be averse to,  there has been no consultation with the National League and below, and apparently no consideration given to this by the Football League in making their announcement.

Sixty-five of the Football League's seventy-two clubs need to vote in favour of these proposals when they come up for consideration at the Football League's AGM, and from comments made by a number of club chairmen, I would think that considerably fewer than that number will do so. However, this is merely the start. If the Football League are knocked back with these ideas, I've no doubt they will formulate an alternative plan - watered down a bit perhaps, but with similar long term objectives.

Shaun Harvey, Football League CEO. Picture: The Football League.

Even club chairmen who oppose the current proposals will accept that some changes to the League's structure may be inevitable and could be beneficial, but like me, I'm sure that most of them are looking at these and wondering who would benefit from them as they stand. Shaun Harvey says "There are clear benefits for everyone," and I don't have a problem with either the objectives or the perceived benefits - although I would question how clear they are and  achievable they are - just with the route the Football League wants to take to achieve them.

The Football League clubs will vote on the matter at next month's AGM and I think I can predict the outcome. After all, given the choice, turkeys would not vote for Christmas.

How Often Is Regularly?

Regularly is a word which, like its cousins often and frequently, is ambiguous in meaning. A regular churchgoer may attend every Sunday; a regular moviegoer probably goes to the cinema once a month, twice at a pinch; going to the dentist regularly means twice a year normally. What qualifies as regularly is nigh on impossible to pin down as a definite number, so when the Education Act says that the parent of a child who fails to attend school regularly is guilty of an offence, how many days must a child be absent before they are deemed not to be attending regularly? Failing to ensure that their child attends school regularly is the basis on which many parents find themselves being fined when they take their children on holiday during term time and the recent case involving Jon Platt, his six-year old daughter and a family holiday to Florida has brought the whole rigmarole back into the public eye.

Picture: Daily Mail

Mr Platt was fined £60 by Isle of Wight Council for taking his child on holiday without permission from the school. This fine was doubled when he refused to pay but last October, magistrates at Isle of Wight Magistrates Court found in his favour, deciding that he had no case to answer as no evidence had been produced to prove that his daughter had failed to attend school "regularly." The council appealed, but this was dismissed at the High Court in London when Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mrs Justice Thirlwall ruled that the magistrates had not "erred in law" when finding for Mr Platt. We can only assume that Mr Platt's daughter's attendance record of 92.3% was deemed by the High Court to amount to her attending school "regularly" and at first sight, an attendance record of over ninety percent seems regular.

Except that over a 38 week school year that amounts to fifteen days absence, or three whole weeks, or over two days ever month, whichever you prefer. Imagine an employer being faced with such absenteeism; would they accept that level of attendance at work was regular enough? Mr Platt runs a PPI claims company and as an employer I wonder how sympathetically he would view the claim of one of his workers who took unauthorised leave that he should find this acceptable because that employee had otherwise attended work regularly...say, 92.3% of the time?

Actually it is not the dispute over what constitutes regular attendance at school that concerns me here; after all any clause in a statute that is as ill defined as this - saying that children must attend school regularly, without defining what regularly is - deserves to have a coach and horses driven through it, no, what concerns me is the fact that Mr Platt felt it appropriate to remove his child from school to take a holiday without seeking permission. Presumably he felt that if he sought permission it would be refused, so he went ahead and did it anyway - which is not the sort of message one would want to give a child, that if you think you will be told No if you ask, don't ask and do it anyway.

Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said that he "did not consider it is open to an authority to criminalise every unauthorised holiday by the simple device of alleging that there has been no regular attendance in a period limited to the absence on holiday" thereby completely missing the point of the legislation, and the offense, that is to say that the child was taken out of school without permission and regardless of the reason, the child's attendance fell below what the local authority considered regular.

There is an argument put forward by the Local Government Association that families should have the option to spend time together  "when they choose to, rather than tying families to set holiday periods," which on the face of it may seem reasonable, particularly when one considers that holidays cost a lot less during term time than during formal holidays, and some parents may find it difficult to match their holiday entitlement with the school holidays. Except for the many counter arguments. If the education authorities and individual schools give in on this then there comes with it the possibility that any parent could take their child out of school to go on holiday at any time, which would affect not just that child, who has to catch up with the learning they missed while on holiday, but also their teachers and classmates who have to cater for that child's -or children's - remedial learning. And how much term time absence would be reasonable: one week a year? Or two? Or three? Where would it end?

It may well be that Mr Platt took his child out of school to take advantage of the holiday company charging a lower price during term time, after all it is a common complaint that holiday prices rocket during school holidays (although the tour operators no doubt would argue that in fact they actually heavily discount prices during term time, rather than hike them during the school holidays).  

Holiday prices undoubtedly differ between term time and school holidays. Graphic: Daily Mail.

If parents are able to book holidays at any time rather than during the fourteen weeks a year that school is out, prices may even out over the year, and if prices even out that means that at times they will be higher than they are now. Those people who take their holidays during term time precisely because the resorts are not full of families with young children and because the prices are more affordable will be jeering, rather than cheering this verdict. And parents; will they welcome this decision, which on one hand gives them carte blanche to take their children on holiday exactly when they choose, without fear of prosecution? Or will they find legislative changes put through to make term time holidays without permission punishable, regardless of the child's attendance record at other times?

The Department for Education are understandably disappointed with the ruling and say they are planning to close the loophole by changing the law. After the ruling Mr Platt's said the decision was "a victory" and that parents "should decide what's best for their children." But do parents really know what is best for their children? In terms of their education, I'd say not necessarily. But it isn't solely Mr Platt who is at fault here, it is also whoever framed the law in such a wishy-washy, ambiguous manner and thereby allowed this situation - which is by no means unusual - to occur.

Given that Mr Platt's court appearances racked up costs of over £14,000 - which he would have been liable for had he lost, but which must now be paid by Isle of Wight Council - all for the sake of a £60 fine over which he could have shrugged his shoulders and simply paid - we could be charitable and say that he took the stance he did as a matter of principle. Except that his victory may be a pyrrhic one if the law is changed to give schools no discretion in allowing term time absences and  making any unauthorised absence punishable, and his principles may ultimately inconvenience parents rather than liberating them.

A Fragile Drama

Frequent exposure to Close To The Edge while I was in the Sixth Form at Forest Lodge School converted me into a prog rock fan[1], yet prior to this week I had seen Yes play live only once. That was in October 1978 when they played in the round, on a revolving stage, at Wembley during their Tormatour. That night there was a distinct smell in the arena, the sort of aroma that only comes from the sort of cigarette not stocked by your corner tobacconist. This week at the Royal Albert Hall the drugs of choice for the audience - many of whom, like me, had probably been at Wembley 38 years ago - was more likely statins or anti-inflammatory's.

Inexplicably I didn't try for tickets when Yes toured a couple of years back playing Close To The Edge (which has been a constant favourite of mine since I learned to love it in 1976) however when I learned that they were touring again, playing both Fragile and Drama in their entirety, I bought a ticket. That was last June, and less than a fortnight later Yes bass guitarist and founder member Chris Squire sadly died. There are now no longer any founder members of Yes in the current line up; Steve Howe, who joined the band in 1970, two years after Squire and Jon Anderson had formed the group, remains the longest serving member.

This begs the question, are they still Yes? The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that asks if an object has had all of its components replaced, does it remain the same object? The original question was, does a ship which has been restored by replacing each and every one of its wooden parts remain the same ship? Latterly, the paradox cropped up in an episode of Only Fools and Horses in which Trigger wins an award for having owned the same broom for 20 years, but which he says has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles during that time. So, if all the original members of a band have been replaced, are they still the same band? Given that Yes have evolved, that the line up has altered fluidly over the last 48 years rather than changing explosively in a much shorter space of time, I think we can say, yes, they are the same band.

Tuesday's show opened with a lone bass guitar standing in the spotlight on stage as a recording of Onward was played to an accompaniment of images of Chris Squire on the screen behind before the band took to the stage and launched into Machine Messiah, the opening track from their 1980 album, Drama -which they proceeded to play in full. My memory of the release of Drama was that is was a somewhat controversial album, as following the departure of keyboard virtuoso Rick Wakeman and vocalist Jon Anderson, the remaining members were joined by Trevor Horn and Geoff Downes formerly of The Buggles. Some Yes fans were, I am sure, horrified that the partnership that recorded Video Killed The Radio Star had joined the band - think Harry Styles and Niall Horan from One Direction replacing Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in the Rolling Stones - but Drama was a better album than some had expected, and having heard it live on Tuesday, I can say that it has clearly stood the test of time. And being played live brought out the album's aggression and drive that was especially showcased by Squire's bass playing on record and which Billy Sherwood captured perfectly on stage.

Chris Squire. Photo: yesworld.com

In fact, Sherwood was probably star of the show. Despite having big shoes to fill in place of Squire, he was superb - but then he isn't a Yes novice, he first played with the band in 1994 and has filled several different roles in the years since. The bass on Starship Trooper, the song from The Yes Album that was performed as the encore, reverberated round the Royal Albert Hall. The depth of sound, and that auditorium has probably the best acoustics of any venue I have visited, was such that it had a very real physical presence.

Trevor Horn's guest appearance to sing on Tempus Fugit (the worst kept secret of the year) concluded the first portion of the show, and then it was on to Fragile (via a few "greatest hits"). Of the so-called greatest hits only Owner of A Lonely Heart can really be called a "hit" in the hit single sense, but the song I enjoyed the most from this part of the set was Siberian Khatru, making me rue even more my decision not to get tickets when Yes played Close To The Edge.

Fragile, although considered more of a classic Yes album than Drama, has always seemed a bit of a Curate's egg to me. Roundabout, South Side Of The Sky, Mood For A Day and Heart of The Sunrise stand comparison with anything Yes have ever produced, but I have always thought that I could live without We Have Heaven and The Fish (Schindleria Praematurus), while Five Per Cent For Nothing is frankly a waste of space - fortunately it is a short waste of space as it lasts only 35 seconds. However, The Fish was Chris Squire's solo contribution to the album, and that makes it worthy of reconsideration. Having played Fragile again recently, I realise that my previous disregard for The Fish was unworthy, and yet again on stage Billy Sherwood more than did justice to Squire's memory. Live -and on record  - the high spots from Fragile eclipse those from Drama, but remarkably the latter album proved that when played live it is no lightweight. It seemed as much pop as prog, a sort of Yes Lite, when first released, but this performance of it was quite superb.

The idea of bands playing the whole of classic albums in one show has become increasingly popular in recent years; cynics might call it milking the last drop of revenue out of old material because bands are unable to come up with anything new. On the other hand, there's obviously plenty of demand for these shows and the chance to see classic albums performed in their entirety usually means seeing some tracks played live for the first time. Mind you, I understand that Tales from Topographic Oceans may be the next Yes album to get the live treatment and that one is going to divide opinion (I'll be giving it a miss).

Coming away from the Royal Albert Hall, which one would be hard pressed to better as a venue for live music (although I still think that the Hammersmith Odeon, or whatever it calls itself these days, remains my favourite), something occurred to me. Apart from the obvious, that audiences at concerts by bands of such longevity as Yes tend to be comprised mainly of people of what can only be called late middle age (assuming we all live to be 110), it is a rare prog rock show that does  not feature an extended drum solo.

And then I realised that the date was exactly three years since I saw Steve Hackett's Genesis Revisited show at the Hammersmith Odeon - 10th May is patently prog rock day - I wonder who's live in London on that day next year?

---

[1] See You Want Noodles With That?

Click Here For Virtual Reality

I recently attended a recording of Click, BBC Radio's technology show: the subject was virtual reality. If virtual reality on the radio sounds a little odd, remember that the BBC once broadcast a radio programme called Educating Archie, which featured a ventriloquist act, and in that tradition, this episode of Click included shadow puppetry to accompany a somewhat surreal song about Gravity and Virtual Reality going on a date to the zoo. It worked for the audience in the Radio Theatre (well sort of), but may have been lost on the listeners at home. But, as presenter Gareth Mitchell said, radio is a form of virtual reality, (as is reading, I would argue). Both reading and listening allow the listener or reader to imagine for themselves visually what is being presented to them, during and after the event. The vividness of the imagining leads us to sometimes find fault with TV or film adaptations of our favourite books. You may, as I have, sometimes been disappointed by a film version when the actors or locations do not match the images you created in your own mind while reading the book.

Peter Brough and dummy, Archie. Click HERE to experience Educating Archie in VR!

Visual reality (VR) technology seems to be the coming thing - be it Google Cardboard, Oculus Rift or Samsung Gear - the tech giants are aiming to have us all watching films or playing games in VR; but is it going to be worth buying? That, I suppose is the $64,000 question. As Sandy Smolan, an award winning director of features, documentaries, television, and commercials, and who was interviewed for Click, said, content is key. VR has practical applications in education (particularly medicine), science and engineering, but how successful it may be in the entertainment industry is moot. After all, 3D television was the coming thing six years ago, but has disappeared almost without trace. Sky TV launched their 3D channels in 2010 but - on demand content apart - abandoned it last year, two years after the BBC, who dropped their 3D output in 2013. The BBC cited viewers' dislike of the 3D glasses necessary to watch the extra dimension, together with the expense of producing shows in that format, specifically the specialised cameras. Potentially, VR could go the same way: it may be an immersive experience, but even more so than wearing a pair of 3D glasses, wearing a VR headset will make watching films a somewhat solitary one. And as many people watch TV with a drink in one hand, a sandwich in the other, and all the while making sure that their children and pets are not getting up to mischief, how are they going to do so with a VR headset on? For gamers, I can see the attraction; for the average (or even most technophile) TV viewer, less so.

Is this the future for our work, rest and play?

3D was the selling point when I last bought a TV, but it is not something I have used other than to see what it was all about; it certainly did not enhance my viewing experience, and a bad programme is still a bad programme whether it is in 2D, 3D or VR. As Sandy Smolan said, the quality of the content has to be right, as it has struck me  on more than one occasion over the years that film makers have exploited new technology, be it  surround sound, CGI, 3D or whatever, simply because it exists and they can use it, with little or no consideration given to plot, dialogue or characters. Given that I have a pretty good track record at being wrong about this sort of thing, I won't bet against VR becoming very popular indeed, but I'm not going to rush out and buy a VR headset.

Google Cardboard. Why does everyone using VR have their mouth open?

Whether or not the BBC embrace VR for shows like Strictly Come Dancing - "View the show from your favourite dancer's perspective" perhaps? - remains to be seen, but reports suggest that programmes like Strictly may have to be rescheduled by the corporation to avoid clashes with high profile shows such as The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent that are being broadcast in prime time on ITV. The Mail on Sunday quoted a government source as saying that " when ITV had a flagship programme they were hoping to get high ratings for ... it would be unfair for the BBC to take it on head-to-head." While these reports have been denied, Media and Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has previously expressed concerns about the BBC's 10 o'clock news bulletin being broadcast at the same time as ITV’s. The cynic in me thinks that the Government is flying a kite here; sufficient opposition will allow them to deny that it was ever on their agenda, public apathy will enable them to press ahead with the idea, but also that up to a point government officials may feel that the BBC need putting in their place (wherever they feel that might be, it probably is not where the Beeb feel they should be).

John Whittingdale.

Even if it came to pass, and I sincerely hope it will not (I'm with Shadow Culture Secretary Maria Eagles on this one, because as she says, it would be " completely unacceptable interference in the independence of the BBC") it would presumably have little, if any impact on viewers, because in case anyone in Government hasn't noticed, viewers have been recording programmes to watch at more convenient times, or where they clashed, for over thirty years. First came video recorders and now we have digital TV recorders, plus we have the +1 channels, and on demand services like the BBC iPlayer, All 4, ITV Hub and Sky On Demand.  Recording TV programmes for later consumption is something that certainly has stood the test of time. I cannot be alone when I say that quite often I do not watch a TV programme at the time it is being broadcast.

It is difficult to see what purpose any such interference on the part of government would serve other that as an exercise in petty vindictiveness. Politicians from all parties regularly accuse the BBC of bias; on occasion left and right wing politicians accuse the Beeb of bias in favour of their opponents over the same story, which to my mind suggests that they are quite good at striking a balance.

Balance is something the BBC are attempting to strike in their recruitment policy, as having been criticised in a 2014 report by the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which found that senior BBC staff were “disproportionately from a narrow range of backgrounds” the corporation is apparently aiming to ensure that the make up of its on-screen and back office employees reflect the same share of disabled and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people as the general populace. This is at least in part because of pressure from government and comes at a time when the corporation's charter is up for renewal, a somewhat disquieting note as far as I am concerned; government interference in the BBC's TV scheduling we may laugh off as an outlandish joke, impinging on its recruitment policy at a time of charter renewal seems somewhat more sinister. Inevitably, such stories instantly remind me of the wonderful W1A in which the newsroom boss Neil Reid (played by David Westhead), realising that in terms of black, Asian and ethnic minority (BAEM) personnel, he has actually exceeded his target, therefore does he need to get rid of some?

David Westhead as fictional Controller of News and Current Affairs Neil Reid, in BBC's mockumentary, WIA

Quite how we got from Virtual Reality to the BBC's policy on recruiting staff from the LGBT community I am not entirely sure, but if nothing else this serves to prove that far from just reporting on news, it is difficult to keep the BBC out of it. Which one of those stories we will continue to hear about in a year or two's time remains to be seen.