Mike O

Loz, is there any way we can ban Sexelk from music threads? He's a lovely guy but woefully out of his depth when it comes to this sort of thing. I've just tried to watch his BJ vid to see what he's on about but only lasted 24 seconds before I started gagging (fnaaar fnaar). Perhaps you could start a 'Comedy Music' section in the Lounge? He could be a moderator and everything!

Sorry Liam, but I think you're well off the mark with Ballack. He had a total stinker. He lost possession more times than I can recall and seemed to be hell bent on getting in everyone else's way. What exactly is the point of the guy?

Back in Black - AC DC

Mate, the twat is a first class c**t. I'm not sure that makes sense gynaecologicallly, but it works for me.

I think it's only half the story.... 3.10 I spot some genuine aggro in the MHL between 3 louts and a dad. Fists are going in on the dad and a whole range of choice insults are being exchanged. Looks like he's in real trouble and struggling to escape. I evaluate the situation and the size of the assailants and decide that any intervention by myself will only exacerbate the situation. I therefore let it run its course and let the ambulance boys clear up the mess afterwards. 4.15 I'm approached on the stairs by some woman who wants to report racist chanting from the 3 lads sitting behind her. She's sensitive to keeping the complaint confidential so I ask her to point out the racists by standing next to them, pointing at them and shouting 'these are the ones'. I then make an informed decision that she's being a complete girl and tell her to grow up. A quick nod and a wink at the lads from me should smooth things over.

Not if you had to submit your order of player removals to the ref in advance. This would have the added 'Ryder Cup-like' excitement of not knowing what your opponents would be up to with their changes, ie they've only got one defender left vs our 3 strikers etc... Actually, I'm loving this...

That's my fave idea as well

I think there are two points here: 1. Alex Ferguson has made the Glaziers ghosts. His equity is so enormous, his own brand so perfectly aligned with United's that they wouldn't stand a chance of stealing any of the spotlight from him. No player since Veron has been foisted on United without his express say-so, no single player is more valuable than him in the eyes of the fans and furthermore he is testament to the old mantra that it takes time to build success. He has 100% credibility as a brand, generates success with every turn and is seen as truly outstanding on the world stage. I have no doubt whatsoever that his obituary will call him the greatest football manager of all time anywhere (I still can't stand the bugger, mind...). What chance would the Yanks have against that? 2. I think Roman was singled out for a certain amount of special treatment because of the timing of his takeover at Chelsea. There was a lot of talk around 2002/3 of the football bubble being about to burst and clubs having to operate like proper businesses again. I remember a distinct feeling that there would inevitably be some high profile victims (West Ham were high on the list, Leeds were already lost) but then the world would settle into a more sensible state. RA's entrance blew all that away and for many, he crystalised a new 'uber-stupidity' in football finance. His portrayal by the media at the time was then further sullied by Kenyon's PR nonsense and by the Ashley Cole affair. Without all that, he could easily have been positively drawn as the saviour of many clubs, West Ham included Finally, I think City will prove the ultimate example of how stupid money in football has become. We all understand, and I mean 'all' as in 99% of UK football fans', that your side is nothing unless it has an indefatigable team spirit, an unassailable belief in itself, intelligence, intuition and yes, some individual talent. Unless you're in the market for a manager, money can only buy you one of those factors and it - the talent - is perhaps the most vulnerable to disappearing in a heartbeat or with a Robbie Savage tackle. Leeds United, Middlesborough and Derby County have all born testament to this. It is now only billionaire foreigners with a good track record on their Fifa07 games who don't get it and we secretly snigger at them all. For many, Roman is perhaps worthy of an even greater laugh because he got it all absolutely right and then buggered it up himself...

Barn, I'm not saying that everything is Kenyon's fault. I am saying that the Chelsea brand is in a poor position primarily because of him, witnessed by the non-Cheslea domestic market's hatred of us. I agree we shouldn't blame just him for stupid signings or tappings-up, but we can blame him for most of the negative fall-out from them in the media. For instance, the club were found to be lying through their back teeth about the Cole affair, and that (PR / media relations) is his responsibility. And didn't he just love all those surreptitious meetings on clandestine yachts, whether he was qualified to be negotiating with agents or not? He almost seemed addicted to being in the press at the time. And what was that infantile statement about Grant about last year when they gave him a new contract? Does he have any idea how downright stupid that made him, Roman and the board look? All of which impacts on the brand and its perception in the public domain...

Everton v West Bromwich 28/02/2009 12:45 GMT Arsenal v Fulham 28/02/2009 15:00 GMT Chelsea v Wigan 28/02/2009 15:00 GMT Middlesbrough v Liverpool Draw 28/02/2009 15:00 GMT Hull v Blackburn 01/03/2009 12:30 GMT West Ham v Manchester City 01/03/2009 12:30 GMT Bolton v Newcastle 01/03/2009 13:00 GMT Aston Villa v Stoke 01/03/2009 15:00 GMT

This is an answer to Dorset's query as to how exactly I felt that Kenyon had been a wholly negative influence on Chelsea over the last 4 or 5 years. Hi Dorset, Ok, here's my mantra on How to Create a Successful Brand together with a few pointers as to what this might mean in the context of football, and how PK has worked against the principles over the last few years. I'll try and make it short and snappy, but those of you who've just popped into this thread for a touch of light relief may want to move along! In a nutshell, great brands should: 1. Know what they stand for, 2. Know who their key audience is 3. Know how to use the former to activate the latter. What's your playing philosophy? To kick off with, all successful brands have to know what they should stand for in the 'hearts and minds' of their target audiences if they want to meet their objectives. The process behind getting this stance absolutely right is called 'brand positioning' and is how I make my living. Well positioned brands tick three boxes. They are compelling (relevant and attractive to their audiences); they are credible (meaning both easy to believe in what they say and how they say it), and they are distinctive - they have to stand out in their markets and be easy to identify and remember. All three of these factors have to work in harmony for the brand to succeed. If there's an imbalance, the negative fall-out can be epic. A great example of this was seen with the BA 'tail-fin' fiasco of the 90's in which a wide array of ethnic patterns replaced the red, white and blue across the fleet's tails. Here, distinctiveness out-weighed credibility massively in an attempt to move 'The World's Favourite Airline' into the realms of 'Every country's favourite airline'. No-one understood the thinking (including staff) and the whole exercise heaped ridicule and derision on the brand. The lesson? Never do anything which undermines your credibility. Who's in your back four? To help cement a decent positioning in the brand structure, we employ 'values', ideally three or four notions which help pinpoint what makes the brand special. They are informed by i) key nuts and bolts in the brand DNA (i.e. 'location', 'heritage' and 'colours' would be key footy factors), ii) personality traits, and iii) the target market's experience of the brand, both rational and emotional. To give you an idea as to what I'm on about, the old school Chelsea of the 70's-90's could have been summed up (whether they wanted to or not!) by the following values: Swagger / Bite / Nonchalance (Carefree!). These would have encapsulated the Kings Road style of the 70's, the Continental class of the 90's, the worry about facing Chopper and Dennis on the pitch and Head-hunters off it, the inconsistent performances, the incomparable humour on the terraces and the aloofness that sometimes came with playing in one of the richest places on earth (as practiced by players, fans and chairmen alike). Those values, wrapped up in the blue and white and planted in West London, certainly made us distinctive (for good and bad reasons), credible (painfully at times) and were even compelling to certain type of audiences (hello Lofty!). None of this was by design, mind... In a nutshell, values don't just tell the world where you are, what you do or what you look like - they also inform on how you behave and what you believe in. Because of this, they won't work if they're everyday words like 'performance', 'passion' or 'success' (who wouldn't want to stand for those?). They only work if they're rooted in what makes you really special. Who are you up against? Nowadays, football brands have a wide range of audiences that they need to appeal to, and these differ in order of priority dependent on the size of the brand. 1. Local fan-base 2. Local community 3. Media audiences 4. Media owners / media workers (including journos) 5. Football community (other teams / players/ league management / FA / UEFA etc) Evidently, for a team like Kingstonian the key focus is on the first 2 of these (to recruit both fans, players and investment), whilst for Chelsea it's arguably on the 3rd (to expand the fan-base to foreign climes). Regardless of whichever your main concern is, the other audiences also need much care and attention. This is particularly poignant if your brand is going through a major transition and nobody really knows what you stand for anymore. Like us in 2003, say... Kenyon's Performance So has Peter played by the brand rules and developed a real position of strength for Chelsea? Well I believe that the incredibly high levels of animosity to the Chelsea brand, from other clubs, from the media, from the football industry and even from some pockets of Chelsea fans, say a big 'No he hasn't'. And are these levels of hatred unusually high? Consider whether a pre-Heysel Liverpool were roundly hated by so many different sources in the 70's / 80's? Or whether United have ever truly been so manifestly despised since Munich (other than by Liverpool fans). Did Arsenal have no major admirers whatsoever during the 90's? You can count high-profile Chelsea supporters in the media on a small amount of hands, our relationship with UEFA is icy-cold, and perhaps only City fans balk at the notion of calling us all a bunch of JCLs. So where did it all go wrong for Pete? For a man well-vested in the world of branding and marketing from his time at United and Umbro, the following cock-ups should never have occurred 'on his watch' as CEO. 1. What's our X factor? The very first thing Kenyon should have done in taking on the brand was to define it as above - to identify what made Chelsea truly special. Aside from giving the club a framework within which to plan more coherent and impactful marketing and commercial activity, this would have had another two positive effects. Firstly, if done properly, it would have helped dampen the mass view of him being a through-and-through Man Utd fan. If he'd identified and celebrated our values as being aligned to 'London-ness', or West End style, or Wise-like 'Cheeky chappiness' or whatever - he would have generated some warmth and trust with the long-term fan-base. Secondly, the work could have post-rationalised RA's decision to buy us in the first place. As it is, we're not seen as intrinsically 'special' at all, we're just lucky bar stewards who happened to get spotted from a chopper. Result: Alienation of long-term fanbase who believe they've been forgotten by new 'Brand-man' Manc who has no credible empathy with the club. Venomous jealousy from other clubs because of our sheer luck in attracting RA (ignoring that he was attracted initially by a world-class capital city, and a fantastic quarter in it etc). Mass accusations from the football world that we are therefore a 'nouveau riche' club with no proper fans and no history. 2. Alienating the Press PK started his reign by taking each of the key football writers and pundits in the UK to one side, and giving them a candid and 'exclusive' insight into the CFC game-plan. It's reported by most of those hacks that he told them all that Claudio was safe in his job. It then became apparent to most that our benign Ranieri was anything but, and despite constant denials by PK, the sacking came. You therefore have a press corps that all felt that they'd been individually taken for a ride and since the media are one of your key audiences, this is not good news. Result: Major dive in the credibility stakes, Mass media support for Claudio, Anti-CFC articles start in earnest (and are still prevalent today) Credibility takes a further nose-dive 4 years later when the club announces a new contract for AG - The long-term future of Chelsea, about 3 months before sacking him too 3. Underhand commercial behaviour Our standing as a brand with any sort of attractive qualities was then further compromised by our behaviour both in the transfer markets and with our own employees. Examples of this included a bull-dozer purchase policy which saw us pay stupid fees for players (£24m for SWP anyone?), blatantly tapping up players, constantly lying about our activities, going to war with a wide variety of football bodies and getting through 5 managers in as many years. Although much of this may well have been driven by RA's bombast, naivety and habit of -ahem - getting whatever he wants, PK still has no excuse in not understanding the effect it would have on the brand. Within about a year of PK being on board (include into this JM and Frisk-gate), we were possibly the most hated club on the planet, and much of it was to do with our commercial behaviour. Result: Further long-term hostility in the media Our brand personality traits being cited as arrogant, bullying, underhand, duplicitous, impatient, juvenile, spoilt, vulgar, immoral etc, etc, etc... 4. The Kenyon Brand vs the CFC brand Finally, and perhaps most idiotically, amongst all of these fundamental failings, PK has still been keen to become quite the celebrity himself at the expense of focusing on Chelsea's needs. Now as a rule in marketing, marketers keep a low profile and let their brands do the talking for them. In that way, the audiences can create their own relationship with the product or service and it can take its own place in their hearts and minds. For instance, you may be a fan of Jack Daniels because you think it helps project you as a bit of a cowboy, a pioneer, say, with a new world spirit. That's great for you but imagine how you'd feel if you'd read 5 or 6 interviews with the owners of JD telling how they'd picked exactly the right music, imagery and packaging to attract people just like you and make you feel like a cowboy and a pioneer with a new world spirit. You wouldn't feel like a cowboy anymore. More like his ass. So why did Kenyon devote so much of his first few years working on his own public profile so vigorously (whilst doing much to simultaneously undermine Chelsea's - see point 2) and telling the world all about the great plan for CFC? Why on earth did he carry an Olympic torch (who exactly, was he trying to impress?). Why did he lead the team up the steps to collect the losers medals at Moscow. Why is he never out of the broadsheets? It can only be because i) he's in love with himself and ii) he has no idea as to the negative light it sheds on the brand. Results: Even more outsiders think we're a bunch of twats because he seems to be our 'leader' and he's one. Even more insiders feel disenfranchised from the brand because they don't want to be associated with him. So that's it then, Dorset. I hope that's answered your question. Kenyon's failed the brand because he failed to identify its distinction, he undermined its credibility, and he let it behave in a way that made it singularly un-compelling to all its key audiences. Furthermore, by simultaneously promoting himself and exposing brand strategy, he constantly disallows the brand latitude to be truly engaged with by target audiences. If the Blues were to employ a brand consultant today to estimate what their 3 key values were as perceived by all markets, I would hazard a guess that Spoilt / Ruthless / Desperate wouldn't be too far off the mark. The Paris Hilton of the football world, perhaps?

2. An ape / a girl with a gun (a big one!) / more apes. Clue - 'an enormous sense of well being' Right, The answer was 'Jamie Hewlett', the artist behind 'Monkey' - the chinese opera project he undertook with Damon Albarn, the creator of 'Tank Girl', and the co-owner of Gorillaz, again with Mr Albern. Next week it's going to get harder.

Yes yes yes ...keep going. You've got until 1.00pm today (27/2) before I capitulate

I know what you mean. Gooner commentators aside, I wish someone would come up with a common understanding as to what is a 'good' and 'bad' result when it comes to CL two leggers. Over the last decade or so, I swear I've heard all of the following (most of these are from the mouth, I recall, of Mr Glen Hoddle): The most important thing is to score at home The most important thing to get the away goal It's absolutely key not to ship in any goals at our place Under no circumstances should we let them score at their place We must, above all else, keep a clean sheet at their place Drawing at home isn't the end of the world The away draw is a good result The away draw is a great result if the first tie is at their place The away draw is commendable if it shuts their fans up The only way there can be penalties is if both ties end the same The only way there can be penalties is if both ties end the same including extra time There really can't be any penalties if the aggregate scores are the same, but one team has scored more than the other, by which I mean away goals. etc etc. Personally, I think - and I know I'm an amateur here - that the trick is to try and win both games and in so doing, not let the oppositiion score more goals than you, particularly of the away variety, which don't really count if you've score more than them anyway. I think :D

Keep going...

I have a whole world of new respect for you Lofty. Top man.

Right, the final attempt to get these answered: Who / what links the following? 2. An ape / a girl with a gun (a big one!) / more apes. Clue - 'an enormous sense of well being' 3. Maggie / Matt / Mary. Clue - All referenced on the same album (which I have three copies of)

I voted for Kalou for all the reasons listed above and was slightly gobsmacked when he was replaced. I fully expected a rousing chorus from the MHL of 'you don't know what you're doing' aimed at Hiddink (which may have done even more to make Claudio feel at home) but perhaps it's a little too early for that. Maybe next week? I just wish SK could stay stronger on the ball - he is the most 'lightweight' of players and perhaps only Robben has been consistently dispossessed more easily.

Give that man a pineapple! Two left

Nope. It's more to do with someone who's played with all 3 of them (1 in a movie)

Results so far: What links: 1. Annie Lennox / Ian Hunter / Paul Rogers - All played with Queen (BJD) 2. An ape / a girl with a gun (a big one!) / more apes 3. Maggie / Matt / Mary 4. The Bees / The Bee Gees - Both from UK islands (BJD) 5. A Bear / A Teardrop Vox Mk III guitar - Brian Jones (Loz) 6. Lone Justice / Love - Maria McKee (BJD) 7. Stan / Rene / John - Ogden's Nut Gone Flake (Bluebeard) 8. Brian Ferry / Stuart Goddard / Hazel O'Connor 9. Nick Simper / Rod Evans / Don Airey - All played at one time with Deep Purple (BJD's dad) 10. Rod Stewart / Pet Clark / The Stones. - All had songs with 'Downtown' in the title (Loz) So three left...come on you amateurs!

Very good on q's 5 and 10, young man (be nice to have those song titles, mind...). Way off track on 8 however

Me old mucker, You're right to point out that I should have mentioned RA in my response. It's his money and I'm still looking forward to the day when he goes and we are left with a proper business. Read into that what you will. However, he at least has the good grace to keep a low profile and not hunger for attention the way that PK does. My loathing of the latter is that, brand man as I am, I believe he has done more to drag our profile down in public perception since dear old uncle Ken. He of all people should know that for big brands to nurture a place in hearts and minds, they have to do so without the puppet-master continually showing his face every two seconds. Football is still in the entertainment business (I think?). Its 'success' is that it allows everyone an opinion. Football has proved that its absolutely nothing to do with logic whatsoever. Otherwise we'd have 4th officials, goal-mouth technology, back-dated rulings etc etc. And yes, your opinion is as valid as mine and his... just don't get uptight about illogical arguments (personally, I've given up on them). As for managers, I'm still cross about Luca being sacked! Ranieri was pants, JM was fantastic until he had Sheva and Ballack foisted on him, Steve Clarke was superb after that but not recognised as being the manager, and Scolari was one strange appointment. My own views over the summer were that we should get a younger manager as a long-term appointment. I voted for Sparky but what do I know? I am amazed, however, that with so many dubious personnel decisions, no-one on the board has been seen to be accountable for them. Finally, I think we are a long, long way from being talked about as purveyors of 'stability, sanity and good management'. That will only come when we are run as a business, not a play-thing, by a board that behaves neither as petulant children, nor Neros or Caligulas, nor as absent fathers when it comes to holding their hands up for making stupid decisions. I thank you

I knew you'd get that! Top man!

BJD - you have 4 right