Will Manchester or London Rule English Football?

Last weekend’s eight goal contest between Chelsea and Arsenal showed London football at its most entertaining.  But can London cash in on its position as a world city to also establish itself as the football capital of England?

Conventional wisdom sees this year's title race as a contest between the two Manchester clubs with Chelsea in the frame.   Between 2002 and 2006 Chelsea and Arsenal claimed four out of five Premier League titles between them, but once Manchester United emerged out of a period of rebuilding and transition, the picture changed.  

In their 2009 book Soccernomics Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski concluded that, after decades of domination by large provincial cities (Liverpool, Manchester, Munich, Milan, Porto, Turin) European football was about to enter a period where London emerged as the true stronghold of the English game.

Billionaires are attracted to the capital's football clubs.    Only this week American sports franchise owner and Arsenal majority shareholder Stan Kroenke said how much his family loved London.  But the power shift has not occurred, although it may do yet.

One point to be borne in mind is just how many clubs London has, five in the Premiership, a number that could go back up to six next year if West Ham are promoted or even seven if Crystal Palace go up (which would provide a club south of the river).   The energy and the resources are dissipated whereas provincial cities have at most two clubs.

Perhaps there are deeper factors at work.   In his book London Fields, Charlie Connelly writes, 'I'd set out to find whether there was a football spirit unique to the metropolis, a binding ethos that drew together fans and players from all levels and walks of life who are based in the capital.   Pretty early I concluded there isn't such a thing.'

So perhaps one can't read off football success for London clubs from the capital's economic weight.

Some Football League clubs think that they were pressurised by the Premier League into adopting a new youth and Academy scheme that will disadvantage them by reducing the value of a route for raising funds.  

The vote to adopt the Elite Player Performance Scheme was carried at a Football League meeting last month by 46 votes to 22 with four clubs not voting.  The proposals see the abolition of the transfer tribunal which has fixed fees for Academy players joining a bigger club.    League clubs will be paid £3,000 for every year they developed a transferred player between the age of nine and 11 and a maximum of £40,000 per year for nurturing a young player's career between ages 12 and 16.

This means that clubs will no longer secure a windfall from potential star players such as the £2m Everton spent on 15-year old Bradford midfielder George Green.    Leeds made £5m when teenagers Michael Woods and Tom Taiwo joined Chelsea in 2006.

The justification for the changes is that they will increase contact time between young players and coaches leading to the production of more quality players for the national team.   Critics say that it is a way for the Premier League to accumulate talent on the cheap.

Club academies will be divided into four categories and it will be difficult for a club like Crewe which has relied on developing young talent in the past to find the funding needed for the higher categories.  In Category 1 a club's academy must have an annual budget of £2.3m, at least 18 full-time employees and excellent facilities.   Both Categories 1 and 2 (which has less stringent education requirements) would be allowed to train boys from the age of four and sign them at nine.

Category 3 academies would not be allowed to get hold of young players until 11 when the best ones had already been snapped up.   Category 4 would be a safety net picking up released players or late developers.

The rule that Academy players had to live within a 90-minute drive of their club has been abolished for Categories 1 and 2, meaning that Premier League clubs will have a wider geographical area to sign players from.

Swindon Town's head of youth Paul Bodin thinks that they could receive a third of their former income under the new arrangements.   They are not as dependent on some clubs on this income stream which he thinks could be killed off by the scheme.

Chelsea have run into some problems with their plans to relocate from Stamford Bridge. They think that there is no way that the current ground can be reconfigured to give them the capacity and facilities they need to compete financially with Arsenal and Manchester United.

However, the freehold of the ground is owned by a company known as Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) made up of fans who came to the financial aid of the club when it hit problems in the Ken Bates era.   The club offered to buy them out by refunding their original investment (which meant a significant real loss given inflation in the meantime) and offering them various incentives at the new ground such as their names on an honor roll.

The fans felt that there had been insufficient consultation and transparency by the club and the necessary 75 per cent majority was not achieved at an extraordinary meeting of CPO, only 61.6 per cent voting in favor.   However, only a 50 per cent majority will be needed at the annual general meeting in December so probably Roman Abramovich will get his way then.

Quite where the club might go is uncertain.   Nearby Earls Court would be the ideal site, not far away from the Bridge and with good transportation links.   However, the site is earmarked for housing.   There would be plenty of room at the White City site the BBC is vacating for the planned 60,000- seat stadium but newly rich Queens Park Rangers have their eye on that, funded in part by a ground share with rugby club Wasps.   The Nine Elms site looks like the favorite for Chelsea, but it would take them south of the river to Battersea.

As a Londoner by birth, this north and south of the river divide means something in London. Although there are prosperous areas south of the river, the wealthiest areas (e.g, Kensington and Chelsea, Hampstead) are to the north.

Finally, some good news for League 2 club Plymouth Argyle.   They are out of administration, having been acquired by the Akkeron group headed by locally based businessman James Brent.   They are by no means out of the financial wood, still having large debts which will take five years to pay off.   The Football League praised James Brent but said it was a leap of faith by the new board and they would be monitoring the club’s financial situation closely.

Plymouth City Council helped out by buying the club’s ground for £1.6m and leasing it back to them at a rent of £135,000 a year with an option to buy back every five years.   The club are rooted at the bottom of League 2 and their first challenge is to avoid relegation to the non-league Conference, a difficult competition to get out of with only one automatic promotion place.

There have been a lot of great stories this month and you can find more at www.footballeconomy.com     You can also hear me on the Radio Scilly sports show broadcast each Saturday morning from the Porthmellon studio on the Isles of Scilly at 10 a.m. GMT.   Podcasts available at www.radioscilly.com