The fact is, though, that the SFA has shown itself, time and again, to be not fit for purpose. It's been around for 141 years now and what, exactly, has it achieved? Bugger all, as far as I can see, apart from providing sinecures for a few old fogeys. Football development? They're still in the Dark Ages.
I remember when I was at primary school we would all be invited to what were laughingly called 'football trials.' We would be split into two teams of about thirty-a-side and a game would be started. Most of us didn't know what the hell we were doing and even if you managed to get the ball it was soon taken off you by somebody else, probably from your own team. Tackling was out of the question, as some big ned would come charging down the field, telling anyone that got in his way to 'Fuck off'. If you knew what was good for you, you followed his advice. Unsurprisingly, that ned was picked for the school team along with some others, while the rest of us were unceremoniously told to piss off.
That was the thing back then in the 70s; nobody ever actually taught you to play at football. Unless you had a dad, an older brother or some other close relative who had the time and the inclination to teach you, you were on your own. Just think of all that talent that was missed out on because nobody could be bothered to actually take young lads at school at teach them how to kick a ball!
When I was a teacher in the 90s and into the new century, I discovered that things hadn't really changed very much. I was running football training at my primary school and was determined to make it an inclusive affair; everybody was welcome, boys, girls, those that knew how to play at football and those that did not. I had to pay for my training at the SFA, where they emphasised Sport, Fun and Athleticism. It looked like I was doing the right thing in encouraging all the children to take part.
And then I had a visit, during football training one week, from the SFA's Regional Youth Development Officer. Rather than give me some tips or help me to better teach the children how to play, he had a look at them all, said, 'He looks a good wee player,' and signed up one boy to come to training for the regional team. This 'good wee player' was actually a bit of a thug and I had to eventually ban him from my football training for threatening the rest of the children. (Oh, and he never made the regional team.)
Contrast this with how the SRU approached things. A trained coach was sent into every primary school to teach, during PE time, a new game called Non-Contact Rugby. Everything was started from scratch; the pupils were taught how to throw the ball, how to carry the ball, how to play as part of a team and the rules of the game. All the pupils enjoyed it and some went on to join local clubs, maintaining an interest in rugby even after they had left secondary school. All I could do was look on in despair.
The SFA did nothing to bring association football to schools. If they had implemented a programme like that of the SRU they would have found many kids eager to take part and learn as much as they could. All that was offered was for teachers and wee men in puffy jackets to pay to do courses. Some of these courses cost a fortune too! Meanwhile inter-schools competitions were organised by teachers, unlike the Non-Contact Rugby tournaments, which were organised by the SRU and overseen by their coaches. The teacher that ran the football in our area turned out to be a paedophile and was probably just doing it to see kids running around in shorts!
The SFA hasn't shown itself to be any better when it comes to being involved in the professional game. Referees are forbidden to speak to the press, which means that they can't explain controversial decisions. This can work to the detriment of match officials but also to their advantage, since they can essentially do whatever they like without having to explain themselves. New technology is anathema to the SFA and they'll fight tooth and nail against any innovation, usually without explanation.
There is also the little matter of perceived bias. For years this was put down to paranoia but who can forget the Jorge Cadete/Jim Farry affair? Who can forget either the so-called 'shame game' where Rangers players acted like thugs and neds, even pushing police officers about and Sooperally whispered something in Neil Lennon's ear to try to start a fight. Who was punished? Only Neil Lennon!
It's interesting to note that it's the Bisto FC supporters and cheerleaders that are against this supposed takeover. Of course, they want rid of Stewart Regan, who they blame for a lot of their misfortunes but that's it. No doubt the thought of losing Campbell Ogilvie EBT, the last bastion of bluenosedness in our football authorities, fills them with mortal dread. So, of course, they're going to see it as another conspiracy, just like the ones that led to them being put into Division 3.
But why stop at just one conspiracy when you can have two? Thus works the mind of McMurdo! His second conspiracy is all about the referendum for Scottish independence. Apparently the incompetence of the Better Together campaign is all down to the fact that they weren't actually trying! According to McMurdo, deals have already been done to implement independence with
Better Together just going through the motions of a 'ghost campaign.'
As McMurdo points out, the Tories would benefit enourmously from Scottish independence, probably being elected to run what's left of the UK indefinitely. He's also right that it would be to UKIP's advantage, although they're not involved in Better Together. But what would Labour have to gain? Why would they commit political suicide like this? And yet, Labour has been probably the most visible aspect of Better Together; and a complete arse of it they've made too!
The real truth is that McMurdo and his ilk are getting frightened by the polls showing that YES and NO are virtually neck-and-neck. I don't trust polls myself but many folk do and the latest must make terrifying reading for those working on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. Make no mistake, this is where the NO campaign in Scotland has its roots.
Like all right-wingers the world over, the Unionists KNOW that they are always the good guys and have God on their side. When things aren't going their way, they're willing to go to any lengths necessary to win, including cheating. Look at the cheating that went on to get George W Bush elected in 2000. On the other hand, if they do lose, they always conduct a smear campaign, accusing the other side of cheating. Desperate Republicans in America have accused Obama of everything under the sun, including not even being an American. The same situation applies over here.
They're using the same logic, if you can call it that, that they used to blame everybody else for Rangers' demise; only this time they're getting the excuses in early. It looks entirely possible that the YES vote might clinch it, so they have to be ready with all the pathetic accusations of cheating. If anything, though, it makes the YES campaign stronger and shows that the Unionists are running scared.
Of course, those in Westminster might be planning some kind of master stroke. Remember last year some folk were arrested, supposedly dissident Irish Republican terrorists? What happened to that story? We've heard no more about it. Just a couple of days ago, however, a cache of terrorist equipment was removed from a flat in Edinburgh. Those that have read 'Torrent' will see where I'm going with this. Maybe the tide will turn for the Unionists yet; after all, we already know that they'll stop at nothing and are capable of anything.
"What? D'yez think Ah need tae kid-oan Ah'm an arsehole? Listen, it wiz aw sincere. Ah'm a real arsehole an' proud-y it!"
No comments:
Post a Comment