Sponsored by
HAY: Boo-boys are not always wrong
Though they seemed to be singing from the same hymn-sheet last weekend, the complaints made by Martin O'Neill and Gareth Southgate about dissent in their own ranks of supporters did not hold identical merit.
O'Neill was angered by jeering towards an individual player, Gabriel Agbonlahor, during Aston Villa's loss to Tottenham, understandably asking whether a 22-year-old with 11 goals to his name this season might deserve better support and a touch more patience.
Southgate's gripe was over chants from Middlesbrough's supporters claiming "we've only got one player", a show of support for Boro striker Tuncay and, by insinuation, a swipe at the rest of the club's squad.
"It's hurtful for a lot of the other players," Southgate said. "We survive as a club and as a town by everyone pulling together."
Southgate's is a well-trodden mantra, favoured by clubs who are treading water and in danger of sinking.
Support, he might argue, is a more positive force than negativity and infighting, and of course he is right. But when a team toil as badly as Middlesbrough have this season, it is a little rich to say that the supporters have a responsibility for improving their performance.
O'Neill's comments should therefore carry more weight than Southgate's. The position Agbonlahor finds himself in is easy to sympathise with – that of a talented player, short of form, who has been singled out from a collective failure – and reactive criticism which lacks rationale is bound to dismay a manager with O'Neill's reputation.
His squads are hardly renowned for a carefree, disinterested attitude.
My feeling was much the same when Carl Dickinson was berated by one of Leeds United's fans as he applauded the crowd after his last appearance for the club, at Hereford United last month.
Dickinson's performances for Leeds were rugged and reliable, and above all honest.
The applause he received from the majority at Edgar Street reflected that, but although individual criticism of the left-back was excessive and ill-judged, the same could not be said about the scathing reaction to United's performance and defeat at Hereford.
Leeds were woeful at Edgar Street, and Simon Grayson did not need to hear the chant of "we're s**t and we're sick of it" from the club's own supporters to know that.
He warned afterwards that his players should not feel comfortable about their continuing involvement at Leeds – a comment that is often banal but which Grayson clearly meant – and it has been telling to hear Hereford spoken of openly and repeatedly since.
Glynn Snodin, Grayson's coach, argued that "home truths" were necessary in United's dressing room that night, and Richard Naylor and Jonathan Howson have said likewise.
It seems inevitable that the irate mood of the supporters heightened the honesty and frankness of that discussion, and it could be argued that the sudden breakdown of relations between the terraces and the field of play at Edgar Street was precisely what Grayson's squad needed.
With hindsight, it seems like a watershed moment. United's form since Hereford – four wins and two draws from six matches – is what Grayson knew he required as he digested the defeat and the criticism, and it would be disingenuous to describe their impressive improvement as a coincidence.
It has been altogether deliberate and driven by the professionalism of players who were patently disappointed with themselves.
Criticism of footballers is not always an unconstructive force.
It simply depends on context. United's supporters in the main are not prone to needless negativity – the patience shown to Gary McAllister when fate and fortune were against him was proof of that – and it says much about Grayson's squad that when that patience snapped, his players were willing to listen.
What dissatisfaction existed then has rightly faded in the face of seven straight home victories and six games without defeat.
That is the way to answer back. Disputing the right of supporters to voice a fair opinion – however harsh or however impatient – will only become a worthwhile argument when entry to England's professional clubs becomes free.
****
Asked how he and his club planned to spend the millions of pounds promised to them by West Ham United, Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe said "sensibly".
For the time being, "not at all" might be the most sensible policy.
A series of instalments totalling between 15m and 20m will compensate the Blades for their relegation from the Premier League in 2007, but their victory in the dispute over Carlos Tevez has stirred the interest of numerous other clubs.
Exactly how much of the money will be Sheffield United's to keep is difficult to say.
As Leeds revealed on Tuesday, they are one club who claim to have been negatively affected by the events of 2007, foregoing more than 500,000 in clause-related payments which depended on the Blades remaining in the Premier League.
Leeds are seeking legal advice with the hope of submitting a compensation claim of their own, and the club will not waste time proceeding if they believe they have a credible case.
Should papers arrive at Bramall Lane from Elland Road, claims from West Bromwich Albion and Preston North End may not be far behind.
In preparation for the 2006-07 season, Sheffield United signed Geoff Horsfield from West Brom and Claude Davis and Chris Lucketti from Preston.
As an example, the deal for Davis, costing an initial 2.5m, contained clauses potentially worth a further 500,000, and the small print of numerous contracts will be finely examined now that West Ham have agreed to pay up.
Their agreement with Sheffield United was long overdue and two years in the making.
But with Neil Warnock and a number of the Sheffield United players involved in the 2006-07 season still seeking reimbursement for lost earnings and a joint investigation into the matter by the Football Association and Premier League ongoing, there is not a single person in England who would consider the case closed.
****
One of KPMG's responsibilities in the aftermath of the sale of Leeds United to a Ken Bates-led consortium in 2007 was to manage the liquidation of Leeds United Association Football Club Limited, the company which ran up debts of more than 35m.
It may surprise many to know that, almost two years later, that process is far from complete.
One football-related creditor who spoke to the YEP last week said he was in the dark about 50,000 owed to him when Leeds United entered administration in May 2007 and was still to receive a reduced settlement under the terms of the takeover by Leeds United 2007 Ltd. He is not alone.
The amount promised to unsecured creditors after that sale was around 11 pence in the pound, and the necessary funds were put forward by Bates' consortium for KPMG to distribute.
When asked about the delay in processing payments, KPMG stated that "some creditor claims are yet to be agreed and the liquidation is ongoing".
The administrators did confirm that, in October of last year, an "interim dividend" of two pence in the pound was paid to creditors whose claims had been agreed.
"Further dividends may be declared," KPMG said in response to a query about the timescale of the liquidation, "but the timing and amount is currently unknown."
Ends
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds United: Whites ponder next move in hunt for new manager LATEST
- Web poll: Who is to blame for Leeds United’s league position? VOTE HERE
- Leeds United: Time for Ken Bates and Co to listen up
- Leeds man remanded on sister murder charge UPDATED
- Leeds United: Aston Villa boss drops hint on Fabian Delph
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Leeds
Sunday 12 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: 0 C to 5 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: North west
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 4 C to 8 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: North west
