Who'd be a Wimbledon fan?

Supporting a football team can be one of the most depressing and soul-destroying experiences life can throw at you. To illustrate this author Nick Hornby once said, 

"The natural state of a football fan is bitter disappointment, no matter what the score." 

Well, he is an Arsenal fan! In all seriousness, the occasional euphoria gained after a 96th winner is put into perspective by too many heavy defeats at home to a team at the bottom of the league.

As an AFC Wimbledon fan sucks at this precise moment! Today we drew away at Harrogate. Normally you'd be happy with such a result. A long away trip against a team who are no better or worse than you, a draw is arguably a fair result. The trouble is that having been 2-0 up today with 86 minutes gone only to draw having conceded two late goals, it feels like a loss.

Unless you're a Premier League team owned by a conglomerate with deep pockets and an insatiable appetite for success, your team has to expect the odd, "Oh FFS!" result. It is part of the price for devoting all that time and money to follow your team. After all, if you won four or five nil every single week, the thrill and excitement would soon disappear. The real reason we do it is that we enjoy the misery of not always winning. It gives us a reason to moan and cry into our beer with our friends.

Of course, there are limits. We Wimbledon fans know all about limits. The hiatus of the club's move to (cough) Milton Keynes in 2002 is precisely why we exist as AFC Wimbledon today. It is also why that football team in Buckinghamshire is despised by the football fraternity well beyond London SW19.

We're near one of those limits this season. Some fans think we've already gone well past it. What limit is that? Throwing away games from winning positions. We've dropped more points from winning positions than any other side in the EFL. Just how many points is that?

71!

Yes, that's right. 71 points would normally be enough to reach a playoff place at the season's end. It's also head and shoulders more points that we've lost than any of the other contenders. It beggars belief.

We fans are struggling to explain why the team seems so incapable of winning a game after leading by two goals. What is especially galling is that more than a few of the recent capitulations have happened in the last five or ten minutes. Is it poor game management, tactics, or inexperience?

Whatever it is, can it please stop? It's boring now.

Gary Lineker: mixing sport with politics

The Government’s spat with Gary Lineker has the BBC playing piggy in the middle. Who’s side should they take? The one that bankrolls their very existence and who has people in high places with the ear of the boss, or their highly paid and high profile star who is inclined to make off-piste comments? It’s the classic battle of power and influence, but who has the most?

What we tend to forget with the plethora of media coverage is why this spat started in the first place; the government’s strategy to deal with migrants coming to the U.K. Gary Lineker’s strong response made a valid point using language that was bound to upset some. The fact that it allowed the government to hit back and attempt to take the moral high ground meant the discussion was on the right or wrongs of voicing an opinion but not on the government’s strategy itself.

Was it the government’s strategy to whip up a storm? Probably not, but Gary’s intervention gave them the opportunity to do so. They found themselves in the glorious position of being able to get on the front foot after announcing a policy they knew would be unpopular. It’s called the dark art of public relations.

At the heart of this tussle is an organisation that in the past has been shown to take action against its employees after high level interventions from the government. Such influence is something that exists in every organisation. The difference is that the BBC is a highly respected media outlet that tries hard to be impartial.

So what does impartial mean? It should mean not taking sides and being able to ask difficult questions no matter who they’re directed to. A classic example is the BBC’s Russia correspondent Steve Rosenberg. He regularly asks President Putin questions that ordinary Russians would be arrested for asking. Gary’s case is complicated by him being a contractor rather than an employee. Should that matter?

If Hew Edwards or Fiona Bruce had made the comments, would we feel the same way? I’m not sure we would, as it would make it more difficult for them to interview government officials in future. So is it OK for a sports presenter to criticise the government? Well yes, I think it is, which is why I find the manoeuvring by the government so troublesome.

What is clear is that the BBC’s decision to suspend Gary has been a PR disaster, and the government must be loving it. So far there is no solution to the issue with both sides digging in on principle. It is clear from those that follow Gary Lineker online that he has strong backing. The solidarity of fellow pundits also demonstrates just what they think.

Where will this all end? No one person is bigger than the organisation that employs them. If no one backs down, it is likely that Gary Lineker will be sacked. Will he care? Probably not. His contract is small beer compared with his other business interests, but if others jump on his bandwagon what then?

Presenting Match of the Day this weekend is a poisoned chalice. The BBC announced that tomorrow’s show won’t feature any presenter or pundit. They had little choice after nearly all of them stood in solidarity with Lineker. If they continue this approach the programme may just survive, but how does this all sit with an organisation seen by millennials as out of touch? What’s more, will it alienate their core audience? Time will tell, but the omens aren’t good.