Well it is either to look after the interests of his employers - but creating this scrutiny on what is wrong with the game doesn't help that as they are! Or he is looking after the interests of the England team - but suggesting something that so clearly misses the real issues is hardly going to achieve that. In reality, the FA belongs to the big clubs so his job is pretty impossible unless he keeps his head down and stitches up all the smaller clubs quietly.
It is still a long way off, but a point could come were politicians start to get involved. Legislation to curb the Premier League's practices would be a disaster for the big clubs. What is needed is all the fans of all teh clubs bar the top 5 or 6 and getting together and pushing for changes. This sort of discussion makes that day more likely, whether it is in 5 years, 10 years or more.
If Greg Dyke is to be a grovelling lackey and apologist for the Premier league, that completely fails to address the reason for the lack of decent English players at the highest level, he is doing a perfect job.
At the close of the 1991 season, a proposal for the establishment of a new league that would bring more money into the game overall was tabled. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League.[13] The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from The Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League licence to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.[6]
The managing director of London Weekend Television (LWT), Greg Dyke, met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England in 1990. The meeting was to pave the way for a break away from The Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs decided it was a good idea and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of The Football Association and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position.
At least somebody appears to be on Greg Dyke’s side!!
You asked what Greg Dyke's role is? If you visit the FA’s website you’ll find that it says, “The FA's Management Team, working together with The FA Board, Council and staff, aims to deliver an effective and professional organisation for the greater good of English football.”
As independent Chairman of the Board, Dyke’s role is to ensure good governance and that the FA achieves this mission. It’s clearly a very challenging brief, but as Chairman we should all expect him to show leadership, vision and wisdom. Given that the world of Football is composed of a difficult mix of fiefdoms, closed shops and vested interests and a heavy sprinkling of opinionated and influential individuals who often have little experience of the world outside Football’s cocoon, Dyke’s role also calls for diplomacy and an ability to influence.
The report published last week is entitled, “The FA Chairman’s England Commission Report • May 2014. The foreword is written by Dyke himself. He is directly responsible.
Simply put, the view of most posters appears to be that Dyke is failing because the recommendations in this highly significant report make no sense. The general view is that the proposals will not address the problem the commission set out solve. Moreover, they are clearly very unpopular with Football League and Non League Clubs, despite Dyke’s comments to the contrary, while even Richard Scudamore, CEO of the Premier League, whose members Dyke would expect to benefit if his recommendations were implemented, has opposed them.
During his foreword, Dyke says;
“We want to continue to have the best foreign players playing in England and to strengthen the quality and excitement of the Premier League and the rest of English club football. But we also want to develop ways of giving more English boys the best chance of achieving their potential by enabling them to play football at the very highest level. We believe that this is not only in the best interests of the national team and the young English players themselves but also in the interests of the professional football clubs who are spending millions of pounds on youth development programmes and are currently getting only a very limited return on their investment.” My italics.
The view of most people reading this statement is that its absolute poppycock. There is simply no way that what is being proposed will “strengthen the quality and excitement of the rest of English club football.” The only “interests” served here are those of the Premier League Clubs. Clubs without Academy 1 status now have less incentive to spend money developing young players than they did previously because the big Clubs can now steal the cream of their crop. Dyke's proposals will weaken the position of these Clubs still further, placing yet more reliance on the top six Clubs in the Premier League to develop players for the national team. If they were effective in that role the commission would have been redundant
Perhaps Dyke was too anxious to be seen to be doing something. The report identified four key areas as the primary obstructions to the development of elite English players;
i) Most importantly, inadequate competitive playing opportunities for 18-21 year old elite players at top clubs
ii) The ineffectiveness of the regulation of the player market in preserving the desired balance between English, EU and non-EU players
iii) The quality and impact of coaching and coach education especially in grassroots football
iv) The quantity and quality of grassroots facilities, especially all weather pitches.
If he’d placed the emphasis on iii) and iv) (we’ll here more on these questions later) and, perhaps on ii), while being much more thoughtful and circumspect about the causes of i) and, in turn, about his ill considered B Team and SLP proposals, his report may have had a very different reception.
As it is, he’s succeeded in undermining the commission and, I suspect, has reduced the chances of progress.
In my view it is reasonable to have expected more from the Independent Chairman of the governing body of our national game.
No way am I in support of Greg Dyke, how did you gain that impression? I am frankly bewildered at the moment. He was chosen because of his knowledge of footballs intricacies and political machinations. He was widely expected to go head to head with Scudamore and for his combative style to bolster the crumbling effectiveness of the FA when dealing with the wealth of the PL. But on the face of it, the reverse appears to have happened which is why I am wondering what the sub plots actually are.
No way am I in support of Greg Dyke, how did you gain that impression? I am frankly bewildered at the moment. He was chosen because of his knowledge of footballs intricacies and political machinations. He was widely expected to go head to head with Scudamore and for his combative style to bolster the crumbling effectiveness of the FA when dealing with the wealth of the PL. But on the face of it, the reverse appears to have happened which is why I am wondering what the sub plots actually are.
My apologies if you've taken offence. None was intended. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a sub plot. I think Dyke has just got this plain wrong.
At the close of the 1991 season, a proposal for the establishment of a new league that would bring more money into the game overall was tabled. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League.[13] The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from The Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League licence to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.[6]
The managing director of London Weekend Television (LWT), Greg Dyke, met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England in 1990. The meeting was to pave the way for a break away from The Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs decided it was a good idea and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of The Football Association and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position.
That is a great find there Seth Plum. So basically Greg Dyke helped set the whole gravy train going. The man is clearly not to be trusted with structuring of league and non league football as it will be wholly on the terms of the Premiership top clubs. Greg Dyke is in the pocket of the Premiership top clubs. Probably sees nothing wrong with their current domination of football.
No way am I in support of Greg Dyke, how did you gain that impression? I am frankly bewildered at the moment. He was chosen because of his knowledge of footballs intricacies and political machinations. He was widely expected to go head to head with Scudamore and for his combative style to bolster the crumbling effectiveness of the FA when dealing with the wealth of the PL. But on the face of it, the reverse appears to have happened which is why I am wondering what the sub plots actually are.
My apologies if you've taken offence. None was intended. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a sub plot. I think Dyke has just got this plain wrong.
No offence at all taken. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I have been puzzled about why Greg Dyke has made such a pig's ear of this. I have his autobiography, so i have just flicked back through it, in search of some clues.
The first thing to say is that he declares himself as a Man U fan since childhood. Yet he was brought up in North London. Later of course he became a director of Man Utd.
The second thing is that there is of course a part of a chapter devoted to his negotiations on behalf of ITV with the big clubs which eventually led to the formation of the Premier League. It dwells extensively on how he did it, as well as the mistakes he made which led to Murdoch snatching the rights from ITV later. There is not a word, not a single word about the effect of his actions, on football in general. In passing he mentions that before he came along, such TV money as was paid, was spread down the leagues. You get the feeling that he considered this a bad thing, but frankly he does not even consider it worthy of discussion. What he cared about then was not football, but television.
Of course he was D-G of the BBC at the time of the suicide of Dr David Kelly and the Hutton inquiry. He wonders if he did not manage this affair well because he is "too combative", and certainly he has harsh words for Blair, Campbell and co., all of them well deserved IMHO. However he has not showed any appetite for combat regarding the Premier league. I am not sure but my conclusion is that he thinks there is nothing wrong with the big clubs getting bigger, and sod the rest. So he was never going to take them on.
Finally, there is an ironic comment towards the end of the book when he reflects that he found himself unemployed in every year of the decade ending in a 4. "I hope that by 2014, I'll be too old to be fired", he writes......
Not sure what to conclude. I have the impression of a man who likes football, but has never really experienced it at the level most of us have. He's a big club man.
At the close of the 1991 season, a proposal for the establishment of a new league that would bring more money into the game overall was tabled. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League.[13] The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from The Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League licence to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.[6]
The managing director of London Weekend Television (LWT), Greg Dyke, met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England in 1990. The meeting was to pave the way for a break away from The Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs decided it was a good idea and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of The Football Association and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position.
That is a great find there Seth Plum. So basically Greg Dyke helped set the whole gravy train going. The man is clearly not to be trusted with structuring of league and non league football as it will be wholly on the terms of the Premiership top clubs. Greg Dyke is in the pocket of the Premiership top clubs. Probably sees nothing wrong with their current domination of football.
As Brian Conley reminded viewers ( re Larry the Loafer) " It's (He's) a puppet !"
I think people find it all too easy to forget that the FAPL deal is one of the three biggest TV deals in world sport along with grand prix and NFL. To establish a credible alternative view one simply has to acknowledge the expertise which drove it there and understand what keeps it there. I would contend that a more competitive FAPL with clubs arriving from the championship having a chance is part of the mix. Note that only Cardiff have come straight back down. If English players are good enough they are old enough and they clearly aren't right now. Dyke is accused of a lack of academic rigour - I hope supporters direct and CASTrust don't fall into that trap.
Dyke knows his 'unwritten' job is to get England winning again and to promote home grown talent. He, like most of us, suspect that we are going to be leaving Brazil quite early. He will then have the spotlight shone on this sensitive political area and he is preparing the ground. I wonder if he will then have quite so many opponents as the PL boys and girls will then include the World Cup TV audiences, ably led by the Daily Mail bemoaning the shameful decline of all things English. Cameron will be looking for opportunities as well, and given Dyke's hatred of New Labour, I suspect that our voices may well be drowned out. A bit of tinkering here and there, promotion of the other quite laudable plans, and Dyke may yet win the day. Big money backs him and 'England' prepares to hoist the flag in a resurgence of patriotic fervour. Set against this possible background, what plans do we have?
Bring back a competitive reserve league, instead of this nonsense and make the FA/UEFA coaching courses fees cheaper so we can encourage more adults to teach the youth how to play correctly.
Have not read all the posts; however, would any talented youngster want to be signed up by a PL team and shunted out to the fifth division. They might take the view that they could be playing at a much higher level in a couple of years. On another note, what happens to the players who would be playing at B level when the next bunch of youngsters come through.
Bring back a competitive reserve league, instead of this nonsense and make the FA/UEFA coaching courses fees cheaper so we can encourage more adults to teach the youth how to play correctly.
Or, how about creating a scholarship scheme which will pay the costs for harder up applicants? ( Ryan Giggs need not apply!)
Part of the problem is the lack of coaches of high quality - our coaches by-and-large are simply ex-players with little commitment to furthering their knowledge and mostly about staying in the "in" crowd they've spent their whole lives in (which is fair-enough given the propensity toward depression for ex-footballers). Compare the number of English managers with degrees to foreign ones. Were we to have a culture of offering these 18-21 year olds alternatives - university scholarships on a part-time basis - we'd improve the quality of our coaching and do infinitely more than giving Manchester reserves a chance to relegate Luton Town.
Seriously, pitches really aren't a problem compared to the rest of the world (Professional teams in the Trinidad and Tobago Pro League can't even get the stadiums to respect their booking dates in the National Stadium!), the problem more coaching imho.
Part of the problem is the lack of coaches of high quality - our coaches by-and-large are simply ex-players with little commitment to furthering their knowledge and mostly about staying in the "in" crowd they've spent their whole lives in (which is fair-enough given the propensity toward depression for ex-footballers). Compare the number of English managers with degrees to foreign ones. Were we to have a culture of offering these 18-21 year olds alternatives - university scholarships on a part-time basis - we'd improve the quality of our coaching and do infinitely more than giving Manchester reserves a chance to relegate Luton Town.
Seriously, pitches really aren't a problem compared to the rest of the world (Professional teams in the Trinidad and Tobago Pro League can't even get the stadiums to respect their booking dates in the National Stadium!), the problem more coaching imho.
I actually think football coaching degrees should be offered is a great idea.
I do think that its good these proposed changes have come about, its sparked debate. I think it will all end up going through much like the EPPP is now part of the furniture.
It's on the agenda for Monday night's meeting. We have a guest from Supporters Direct attending, by coincidence. They are seething that they were not even consulted. We will see what is discussed, but a national approach from a body like that is bound to be the most effective.
Have not read all the posts; however, would any talented youngster want to be signed up by a PL team and shunted out to the fifth division. They might take the view that they could be playing at a much higher level in a couple of years.
I agree that should be the case, but at the moment the prevailing trend is to go for the money and sod the game. Look at how many contributors to this site say "you would do the same", "it's a short career" etc every time a "loyalty vs cash" debate rears it's head...
Be funny if we go and get to the world cup semis or final with a young squad next month. Timing is a bit odd weeks before the finals stating our young players aren't good enough. They could not have got any of this more wrong…the decision makers….the conclusion….the fans reaction….the timing of announcement. They really are incompetent. To me it's all about more coaches at grassroots level. Also whose fault is it (apart from themselves) that Jack Rodwell, Scott Sinclair etc do not play?….The clubs that they wish to help.
Roland rats dad seems to have become a headline whore, looking for the easy route to national coverage, from his ill thought out B team proposal, back to his target for winning the Dubai world cup and his throat slitting motion when this world cups group stage was announced. This goes with his nimbies defence of his plans, he is not acting in the best interests of the game which he represents. You can understand premier league chairman and owners not being interested in anything outside their clubs and their league its not their job to worry about others ... It is Dykes!
Comments
It is still a long way off, but a point could come were politicians start to get involved. Legislation to curb the Premier League's practices would be a disaster for the big clubs. What is needed is all the fans of all teh clubs bar the top 5 or 6 and getting together and pushing for changes. This sort of discussion makes that day more likely, whether it is in 5 years, 10 years or more.
At the close of the 1991 season, a proposal for the establishment of a new league that would bring more money into the game overall was tabled. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League.[13] The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from The Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League licence to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.[6]
The managing director of London Weekend Television (LWT), Greg Dyke, met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England in 1990. The meeting was to pave the way for a break away from The Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs decided it was a good idea and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of The Football Association and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position.
At least somebody appears to be on Greg Dyke’s side!!
You asked what Greg Dyke's role is? If you visit the FA’s website you’ll find that it says, “The FA's Management Team, working together with The FA Board, Council and staff, aims to deliver an effective and professional organisation for the greater good of English football.”
As independent Chairman of the Board, Dyke’s role is to ensure good governance and that the FA achieves this mission. It’s clearly a very challenging brief, but as Chairman we should all expect him to show leadership, vision and wisdom. Given that the world of Football is composed of a difficult mix of fiefdoms, closed shops and vested interests and a heavy sprinkling of opinionated and influential individuals who often have little experience of the world outside Football’s cocoon, Dyke’s role also calls for diplomacy and an ability to influence.
The report published last week is entitled, “The FA Chairman’s England Commission Report • May 2014. The foreword is written by Dyke himself. He is directly responsible.
Simply put, the view of most posters appears to be that Dyke is failing because the recommendations in this highly significant report make no sense. The general view is that the proposals will not address the problem the commission set out solve. Moreover, they are clearly very unpopular with Football League and Non League Clubs, despite Dyke’s comments to the contrary, while even Richard Scudamore, CEO of the Premier League, whose members Dyke would expect to benefit if his recommendations were implemented, has opposed them.
During his foreword, Dyke says;
“We want to continue to have the best foreign players playing in England and to strengthen the quality and excitement of the Premier League and the rest of English club football. But we also want to develop ways of giving more English boys the best chance of achieving their potential by enabling them to play football at the very highest level. We believe that this is not only in the best interests of the national team and the young English players themselves but also in the interests of the professional football clubs who are spending millions of pounds on youth development programmes and are currently getting only a very limited return on their investment.” My italics.
The view of most people reading this statement is that its absolute poppycock. There is simply no way that what is being proposed will “strengthen the quality and excitement of the rest of English club football.” The only “interests” served here are those of the Premier League Clubs. Clubs without Academy 1 status now have less incentive to spend money developing young players than they did previously because the big Clubs can now steal the cream of their crop. Dyke's proposals will weaken the position of these Clubs still further, placing yet more reliance on the top six Clubs in the Premier League to develop players for the national team. If they were effective in that role the commission would have been redundant
Perhaps Dyke was too anxious to be seen to be doing something. The report identified four key areas as the primary obstructions to the development of elite English players;
i) Most importantly, inadequate competitive playing opportunities for 18-21 year old elite players at top clubs
ii) The ineffectiveness of the regulation of the player market in preserving the desired balance between English, EU and non-EU players
iii) The quality and impact of coaching and coach education especially in grassroots football
iv) The quantity and quality of grassroots facilities, especially all weather pitches.
If he’d placed the emphasis on iii) and iv) (we’ll here more on these questions later) and, perhaps on ii), while being much more thoughtful and circumspect about the causes of i) and, in turn, about his ill considered B Team and SLP proposals, his report may have had a very different reception.
As it is, he’s succeeded in undermining the commission and, I suspect, has reduced the chances of progress.
In my view it is reasonable to have expected more from the Independent Chairman of the governing body of our national game.
The first thing to say is that he declares himself as a Man U fan since childhood. Yet he was brought up in North London. Later of course he became a director of Man Utd.
The second thing is that there is of course a part of a chapter devoted to his negotiations on behalf of ITV with the big clubs which eventually led to the formation of the Premier League. It dwells extensively on how he did it, as well as the mistakes he made which led to Murdoch snatching the rights from ITV later. There is not a word, not a single word about the effect of his actions, on football in general. In passing he mentions that before he came along, such TV money as was paid, was spread down the leagues. You get the feeling that he considered this a bad thing, but frankly he does not even consider it worthy of discussion. What he cared about then was not football, but television.
Of course he was D-G of the BBC at the time of the suicide of Dr David Kelly and the Hutton inquiry. He wonders if he did not manage this affair well because he is "too combative", and certainly he has harsh words for Blair, Campbell and co., all of them well deserved IMHO. However he has not showed any appetite for combat regarding the Premier league. I am not sure but my conclusion is that he thinks there is nothing wrong with the big clubs getting bigger, and sod the rest. So he was never going to take them on.
Finally, there is an ironic comment towards the end of the book when he reflects that he found himself unemployed in every year of the decade ending in a 4. "I hope that by 2014, I'll be too old to be fired", he writes......
Not sure what to conclude. I have the impression of a man who likes football, but has never really experienced it at the level most of us have. He's a big club man.
I would contend that a more competitive FAPL with clubs arriving from the championship having a chance is part of the mix. Note that only Cardiff have come straight back down.
If English players are good enough they are old enough and they clearly aren't right now.
Dyke is accused of a lack of academic rigour - I hope supporters direct and CASTrust don't fall into that trap.
Cameron will be looking for opportunities as well, and given Dyke's hatred of New Labour, I suspect that our voices may well be drowned out.
A bit of tinkering here and there, promotion of the other quite laudable plans, and Dyke may yet win the day. Big money backs him and 'England' prepares to hoist the flag in a resurgence of patriotic fervour.
Set against this possible background, what plans do we have?
On another note, what happens to the players who would be playing at B level when the next bunch of youngsters come through.
Seriously, pitches really aren't a problem compared to the rest of the world (Professional teams in the Trinidad and Tobago Pro League can't even get the stadiums to respect their booking dates in the National Stadium!), the problem more coaching imho.
I do think that its good these proposed changes have come about, its sparked debate. I think it will all end up going through much like the EPPP is now part of the furniture.
I already mentioned this to cafcfan, above:
It's on the agenda for Monday night's meeting. We have a guest from Supporters Direct attending, by coincidence. They are seething that they were not even consulted. We will see what is discussed, but a national approach from a body like that is bound to be the most effective.
But apparently there's a question about whether either party possesses sufficient "academic rigour" :-)