2013 here we come!

Next week sees the secular New Year. And with each impending arrival of the New Year comes a time for reflection. Television, radio and the newspapers will fill copy with a review of the major events of 2012. In the UK this will consist primarily of the Queen's Jubilee and the London 2012 Olympics, both rip-roaring successes. Both events lifted the mood of the nation at a time of economic austerity, and enabled the population to indulge in its own peculiar, understated form of nationalism, while celebrating Britishness and enjoying the sporting success of both the home nation and those from overseas.

My personal recollection of 2012 is, like so many other years, something of a mixed bag. The one key event which made this past year unlike any other was being diagnosed and treated for angina. While I have always known that I was not immortal, this was a stark reminder of my own mortality. Even before undergoing the angiogram and surgery in September I had made peace within myself so that had the worst happened I was entirely prepared mentally. Fortunately, nothing of the kind happened, and I have been on the road to recovery ever since. Recovering from cardiac surgery also meant that I had to review the manner in which I supported my beloved Tottenham Hotspur. It has meant learning to be less outwardly emotional, more sanguine about matches, and to accept that I am unable individually to change things on the pitch. I cannot tell you at this point in time whether or not this has contributed to me enjoying matches more or less, but hope it is the former.

I was very lucky in the past year to have made friends with two authors, who both gave me an appearance or two in their recent publications. I was more than fortunate to have become acquainted with the legendary sportswriter, the great Julie Welch, who came to interview me in the early days of 2012 for her book, Spurs: The Biography. A thirty-minute interview turned into a several hour recollection of common interests and passions, notably all Spurs-related. We have remained in contact since then, and I am glad to be able to call Julie my friend. Through Julie I was contacted by Anthony Clavane, and made an appearance in his Does Your Rabbi Know You're Here? I felt very lucky to be invited to the official launch of this book, which came at an auspicious personal time for me, and provided a tremendous boost to my recovery. I cannot recommend both books enough; they are an excellent addition to anyone's library of books about football. Julie's has interest beyond the Spurs' fan alone, while Anthony's serves as an excellent volume of social history centred on football.

2012 has also been notable for the eurocrisis, and the inevitable economic austerity measures which have taken place. While there may be an economic case to be made for tax rises and reductions in government spending, it is hard to escape the feeling that some members of the UK government take a special pleasure in watching the general population suffer. I remain hopeful that living in a democracy means that we, the general population, can enjoy a high degree of schadenfreude when they are dismissed from office at the next general election. Despite the economic gloom, the squeezed disposable incomes, the rising prices, and the unemployment, there seems to be something of an emotional climbing away from the abyss at present. The mood seems to be slowly lifting and I would not be at all surprised to find 2013 the year in which the UK economy begins a slow but steady climb away from the "great contraction", which began in 2007 with the financial (sub-prime) crisis in the USA. If the EU can come to grips with its structural issues it will help immensely, both within the eurozone, the EU and the wider global economy.

I am looking forward to 2013, and hoping that for me it is a year of improved health. I am also looking forward to being more productive in my academic output, and have already begun writing an Economics textbook for MBAs (I really must fill in the contract and send it back). I have a couple of other research projects on slow-burn in the background as well, and with a little luck and some commitment on my part my CV will continue to fill up. However, nothing is more important than family and my wife and I will celebrate 16 years of marriage on January 26th. It is hard for me to imagine what kind of madness prompted her to accept my marriage proposal in the first place, let alone put up with me for such a long time. But, whatever the cause I am decidedly grateful for the effect. It is impossible for me to imagine what life without her would have been like. Similarly for the output of the marriage, two (almost) teenage children of whom I am immensely proud! My son is a gem of a lad, with a passion for technology; my daughter is still finding her way in the world, and currently has ambition to become something of a MasterChef. But on the wedding anniversary of her parents, my daughter will become Bat Mitzvah at our local synagogue, and I feel sure my wife and I will both be glowing with immense pride that day. I can only hope that my heart does not burst with too much pride.

My other desire for 2013 is to see Spurs be more successful than in recent years. Yes, they have been improving and showing more consistency than heretofore, although coming fourth in the Premier League and yet being denied a Champions League slot still rankles as grossly unfair. My dream is to see Spurs win a trophy or two this season. While I hope we can achieve a Champions League placing (not least because of the extra cashflow it brings) history books list winners of trophies, and Spurs' history is primarily one of cup wins.

However your 2012 has been and whatever you wish for 2013, I wish you every health and happiness, and if my predictions are accurate, an improvement in your prosperity.

Have a heart

In September of this year, some three months ago. I spent some time at the London Chest Hospital in Bethnal Green. For some months I had been having chest pains, which mainly occurred when walking and also when under stress, and they had been getting more severe and more painful with each passing week. A visit to my GP in early May led to a visit to my local "rapid access chest clinic", who diagnosed me with angina. Caused by blockages to the arteries, I was then referred to the London Chest Hospital for an angiogram to check out what seemed to be a minor case of angina. I was told I might need to have a stent (a small tube) inserted, but that such an operation alongside the angiogram would probably take no more than an hour, it being a non-invasive procedure.

So, on September 11th I showed up nice and early at the London Chest Hospital, a little on the nervous side, but also hungry and with rapidly declining blood sugar levels not having eaten since 5:30am that morning. I had been given to expect to be done and on my home around lunchtime, but should have know better.

The nurse who eventually received us (there were three of us awaiting cardiac surgery that morning) 45 minutes after we had been told to arrive informed us that there was an "emergency audit" of the labs (meaning operating theatres) and that operations would start around 12:30pm. Fortunately, there was a little food (dry cream crackers) in the waiting area, which helped my still rapidly reducing blood sugar levels. But at 12:30pm I was called to walk to the lab. Fully clothed I climbed onto the operating table, and was given diazepam to relax my muscles, so that they could insert the catheter into the arteries and undertake the angiogram. Unfortunately, the arteries in my arm were a bit less-than-linear, so they opted to not go via my wrist. Next thing I knew two very attractive young nurses were whipping off my trousers so they could go in via the groin artery! The angiogram makes use of a very dark dye which is pumped through the arterial system and shows up on an X-ray screen. It was clear that several of my arteries were clogged, and would require treatment of some kind.

The surgeon came to chat with me and told me that at least FOUR stents would be needed and that I might like to consider opting for a bypass operation which they could perform there and then. However, the combination of nerves and diazepam made me feel less than suitably equipped for making such a momentous decision. I was also given the option of leaving hospital and re-booking once I had decided which way to go: stents or bypass. This seemed like the worst of all possible worlds. So, armed with the information they gave me, I opted for the stents to be inserted.

At first it seemed quite a pleasant if boring experience, lying on a table, feeling very little going on inside me, with only the surgeon, nurses and other medical staff buzzing around chatting to each other in technical terms. The first three hours passed quite easily, but by the fourth I was starting to feel some internal pain, for which I received morphine. On the table for nearly four hours was quite an experience, and the final 15-30 minutes I found quite painful indeed. But it was soon over, and I was moved upstairs to the ward.

Because the operation had been lengthier and more complex than originally expected I was kept in overnight. Which meant I woke up on September 12th (my birthday) in the London Chest Hospital! After many chats with all manner of medical staff I was finally released in time to go home for a birthday tea with my family.

Recovery has been a long and arduous process, but I no longer feel the oppressive pain of angina. I still get odd tweaks and sensations in my chest cavity, but these might be the product of a fertile imagination. I have spent the last eight weeks undergoing cardiac rehab at home (well, mostly walking in the park and the streets) with regular calls from the cardiac nurse or physiotherapist. I had my last session with them yesterday, and was told I had made a 34% improvement over the eight weeks. I am still awaiting my final checkup with the surgeon, which should have been on 3 months, but with an ageing population I suspect calls for his services are pretty hectic. And I need to continue to learn to avoid stress, so try not to worry about such things too much.

I have received much support during this time from family and friends, including many friends whom I only know through online contact via social media. The support and encouragement of those who have also been through this experience has been invaluable to me, and helped me even when things seemed bleak. I have become much more aware of my own mortality, which does nothing to permit one to enjoy the good things in life without worry. I try to live each day as it comes in much the same way as I always did, but there remains this nagging doubt that the inevitable heart attack is just a matter of time. I have tried to take on board all of the advice I have been given with regard to diet (more fruit and veg, more oily fish) and exercise (30 minutes a day, 5 days a week minimum), and there is no doubt that this has helped my recovery. I don't know if private medical care would have been better, but I cannot fault the NHS for their care of me, for which I thank them from the bottom of my heart. The only remaining thing which would help me continue to recover all the quicker would be for Spurs to stop letting in late goals and throwing away points. A Premier League campaign which saw Spurs win the title, or a cup or two, would be just the tonic the doctor ordered!

Stop being a Herbert, Peter!

Oh dear. I see that Peter Herbert is trying to raise his profile once again. Someone should tell this self-aggrandising self-important irrelevance that he needs to stop thinking he is David Baddiel and deal with the source of the racism (BTW I have been led to believe that anti-Semitism is considered separately from racism, as being Jewish does not constitute a race).

I would refer Herbert to John Efron's learned article on the usage of the term Yids by Spurs supporters, but doubt this would fit in with his attempts to raise his profile. However, let me state once again quite simply the following:

• I am a person of the Jewish faith, a member of the 12 tribes of Israel.
• I abhor totally and unequivocally any form of racism or anti-Semitism.
• If a gentile calls me a Yid then I am very likely to be offended (at the very least), as this is a term which has a long history of being abusive when applied to Jews, and has often been followed by physical oppression and violence.
• The use of the term by Spurs supporters began in the late 1970s as a response to anti-Semitic abuse from opposing fans, who (mistakenly) believe Spurs to be a Jewish football club.
• It has since been claimed as a badge of honour by Spurs fans, for whom many (especially the younger fans) it has become synonymous with supporting Spurs. Such younger fans typically have no knowledge of its origins as an anti-Semitic epithet. The same may also be increasingly said of younger fans of opposing teams.

Mr Herbert: if you are truly serious about removing racism and anti-Semitism from football then you should start by dealing with the large sections of clubs such as Chelsea which constantly barrack Spurs on the basis of our alleged Jewish connections. When they stop calling us "dirty Yids" and making gas chamber sounds, when they stop singing "Spurs areon their way to Auschwitz" I will happily then campaign for my fellow Spurs fans to stop applying the term Yids to ourselves.

I am delighted that Spurs themselves have seen fit to point this lawyer to the terms of the law itself, with which he seems to be not entirely familiar.

Ivan "DrHotspur" Cohen

Glad to be a Yid in every sense of the word.

Style is always in fashion

During the Summer months it has long been my custom to catch up on my reading. I have just finished re-reading Alison Weir's Eleanor of Aquitaine, which has given me a new perspective on early English history, and have just commenced re-reading John Hicks' Causality in Economics.


The story of Eleanor of Aquitaine provides strong clues to the beginnings of what we might refer to as the English national character. Set in the late 1100s, England is coming to terms with the Norman invasion which took place two generations earlier, and still has a strong connection to the lands which now make up France. Her second marriage to Henry II, and the story of two of Eleanor's sons, Richard I of England ("the Lionhearted") and John of England, have strong parallels with the later tale of Henry VIII. These are pivotal moments in the history of England, defining what was to become acceptable and unacceptable, via custom and precedent, and also via national institutions. The conflicts between European monarchs and the Pope (head of the Roman Catholic church) mirrors in some small way the current to-and-fro between individual EU nations and the EU in toto. It is also interesting to note that governments a millenium ago faced similar economic problems to those of today: mounting debt, difficulties in raising taxes, international trade problems, etc. Additionally, it is intriguing how much of the contemporary documents of Eleanor's time dwell on her looks and fashionable dress, as well as those of others, both men and women, but primarily women. In this respect Eleanor can be seen as the Kate Middleton of her day, although her convoluted love-life bears greater resemblance to the late mother-in-law of the Duchess of Cambridge! Eleanor of Aquitaine was a fashion icon and a model for future strong women striving to succeed in a male-dominated world.


John Hicks can accurately be described as one of the finest Economists of the 20th century. Less well-known than personalities such as John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman, his contributions to Economics span almost the entire field of study. He was partly responsible for the measurement of national economic well-being via GDP, and has contributed to major developments in monetary economics, finance, welfare economics and capital theory. However, in addition to these phenomenal contributions, in my mind John Hicks supersedes many of his contemporaries and those who followed because of the clarity of his expositions. Put simply, Hicks writes well. His style is no longer fashionable; academic expositions today lack the charm and grace which pervades Hicks' work. Despite often being technical, his writing style comes across much more as a conversation piece, or a narrative. It is almost chatty, and in that respect it is far more engaging than the dry, dull, insipid pieces which litter the plethora of academic journals of today. To write an academic article today which betrays any sense of character is guaranteed to ensure non-publication. Hicks is a writer with style; he writes the way Eleanor of Aquitaine dressed and deported herself almost a thousand years earlier.


I have also spent the past two weeks enjoying the European football championships (EURO 2012). As with dress and writing, football enjoys cycles of fashionability. This year's EUROs have seen a revival of passing football, with the better teams tending to enjoy significant percentages of possession. Last night's quarter-final encounter between England and Italy epitomised a clash of styles. The Italians, who are traditionally renowned for a defensive style of football (catenaccio) offered a freer-flowing, more attacking fluid style which was both pleasing on the eye and successful. By comparison, the English national team offered a stoic, ultra-defensive form of catenaccio, without any real flair or pace to counter-attack. It was a clash of styles, and it is football's good fortune that the more flowing style won out. Not just in last night's game, but throughout the tournament to-date. As a long-time Spurs' supporter I am an avid believer in the philosophy out forward by the late Danny Blanchflower:


"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It’s nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It is about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."


Style is timeless; fashion is something of its time. All human beings in their teens are subject to following the fashions of their time, whether it is in clothing, makeup, tattoos and piercings, manner of speech, hairstyle, and so on. It is therefore universal that when we look back to the way we look and acted in our teens we are so often aghast and, in some cases, ashamed. When we are young we are subject to fashion; as we grow older we find that style is much more important, and timeless. Eleanor of Aquitaine was a woman of style. The work of John Hicks possesses style. Football which is based on a fluid passing game has style. We should reject all else.

Tempus fugit: adapt or die.

There can be few places as full of interesting things to see and do as London. With its lengthy history, amazing plethora of buildings and museums, as well as a huge range of things to do—often for free—Samuel Johnson's adage ("when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life") remains even more true today as it was when he coined it.


For Father's Day (yesterday) my kids took me to see the Cutty Sark. One of the fastest tea clippers in its time, this ancient ship has seen much of "those twin imposters", Triumph and Disaster since it was built in 1869. Sailing between England and China, with stops in Australia, the Cutty Sark was widely regarded as a marvel of its time with a hull made from Muntz metal (a brass-like alloy, of 60% copper and 40% zinc). Although not the fastest of the tea clippers, the Cutty Sark was still able to sail from Shanghai to London in 110 days, with a cargo of 600,000 kilograms of tea; enough for more than 200 million cups!


In 1870 the Cutty Sark was one of 50 British sailing ships bringing tea back from China. Within seven years she was one of nine, as steamships and the opening of the Suez Canal (which was not passable by sailing ships) made the clippers less competitive. By 1883 her tea shipping voyages were over, but there was still life in the old girl as she turned to bringing wool from Australia to England until 1895, as well as other products from that far side of the world. In 1895 Cutty Sark was sold to a Lisbon-based company who rebranded her the Ferreira, playing her trade between Portugal and its African colonies and Brazil. However, by the end of World War I her days as a sea-going vessel were numbered, as the costs of maintaining her exceeded her ability to generate revenues.


A technological marvel in 1869 was essentially an anachronism within a few decades. Her competitive advantage having been eliminated by the constant flow of newer technologies.


This simple lesson was brought home to me further this past week. I watched Branagh's film version of Shakespeare's Henry V. The small band of Englishmen who defeated vastly superior numbers of French at Agincourt and Crecy were able to do so because they possessed superior technology in the form of the longbow. Yet again, within a few decades this superiority was eliminated as this technology was adopted by other nations, and ultimately by the invention of firearms.


Living in the 21st century with an almost-constant flow of technology, particularly in the form of smartphones, laptop computers and tablets such as the iPad, we ought to be more aware of the speed with which a product's competitive advantage can be eliminated. But because so much of today's technical change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary we remain more blasé and unaware. We know that next year there will be a new smartphone/laptop/tablet brought out, but there is little to distinguish it from its predecessor other than faster speed, brighter and better displays, and more applications which it can run. The wow! factor which accompanied the first personal computers has become diminished. The first iPad had a strong element of wow! as did the first iPod and iPhone, but with each successive generation that factor has been strongly reduced. It is only with some apparently entirely new product that wow! returns.


The morale of this tale is apparent: companies which do not continue to revolutionise their products will fall foul of the competition. Cutty Sark was able to continue its life beyond that of a tea clipper for several decades by shipping other products from the far side of the world back to England. Will we be able to find new uses for our older smartphones, laptops and iPads as they become obsolete with greater rapidity? Or do we lack that kind of ingenuity? Tempus fugit—time flies. Will we ever be able to keep pace with it, or must each generation fall by the wayside unable to compete with the next generation?

The euro crisis lingers on

A crisis is a noun referring to:

A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger. A time when a difficult or important decision must be made, such as "a crisis point of history".

The current situation within the eurozone is certainly an example of the first definition, but it remains to be seen whether or not it ultimately becomes an example of the second. The main problem with any kind of crisis is that it may involve the taking of a difficult and important decision. Commentators at all levels have once again been focused on the "Greek question": should Greece remain in the eurozone, or would it be better of by leaving the European single currency, and reinstating its own national currency (the "new drachma" perhaps?!)?

Consequently the Greek government has a difficult and important decision to make. Should Greece opt to remain in the euro it will be subject to all of the strictures which are required in order for the single European currency to remain a viable pan-European currency. This means what the press are fond of referring to as "austerity" measures. In fact, what is required is for governments such as those in Greece to reduce their spending and possibly increase taxation. This is largely because such governments have been profligate in the past and spent so heavily that it required them to borrow large quantities of debt which are not sustainable. Were Greece an individual or company it would long ago have had to declare bankruptcy.

What is almost amusing for us in the UK is that Greeks are being asked to raise the age of retirement to 65 from 55. Such a move is one of a number which would swiftly reduce government spending, but is being staunchly opposed by the Greek population. In the UK the age of retirement has been raised to 67, and is likely to go even higher over the next few decades. But there is a recognition here that the original age of retirement in the UK (60 for women, 65 for men) was based on a significantly reduced lifespan than is now the case. As people live longer it becomes less affordable for a Pay-As-You-Go (or intergenerational transfer) system to exist without significant change. For reasons best known to themselves, the Greeks are unwilling to recognise this fact.

But State pensions are not the only government expenditure which the Greeks need to reduce. And any reduction in State spending is bound to have detrimental effects on different sectors of the economy. In the case of Greece it can be argued that the "cuts" have been poorly handled, both in terms of the way they have been sold to the population, and also in terms of whom they hit the hardest; it seems to be the case in Greece that they have fallen with the biggest burden on those who can least afford to deal with their impact.

So what is to happen in Greece? The recent elections in Greece failed to produce a working government; none of the major parties seemed willing or able enough to compromise and form a coalition with any of the other parties. Greece no long has a working democratic government, but a caretaker government which is largely unable to make any major decisions. The next general election will be in June 2012, barely a month after those in May which proved indecisive. There remains a significantly high probability that these will yield similar results as in May, leaving the Greek decision on its position in the eurozone in limbo for the foreseeable future. At a time when many are expecting to take such an important decision for its own identity and economic and political future there is not a government in place to take such an important decision. And therein lies the real Greek tragedy.

It is my considered view that while there may be short-term gains from a Greek withdrawal from the euro, the long-term costs to Greece would be at least as significant as their currently unsustainable debt. It is all too easy seeing Greece go down the path of default previously experienced by countries such as Argentina, and the move towards a more extremist divisive politics which that often entails. With increasing trends towards coalition government in many countries there are important political lessons to be learned from the Greek experience. While I am not in favour of the straitjacket of balanced budget laws, governments need to find a way to borrow more sustainably in future. Reliance on the financial markets to provide discipline will not work if the markets themselves are not properly regulated, and lenders feel themselves to be well-insured on a "too big to fail" basis. The key problem is one of moral hazard, a form of market failure all too well-known to textbook writers but not to the regulators of financial markets and institutions. 

It is therefore of crucial importance that as governments try to bring their finances under control, they do so in a manner which does not jeopardise the well-being of the populations they are meant to represent; even though it may involve costs, it is important those costs fall on those who can best bear them. However, without a well-thought plan to improve the regulation of the financial system on a global basis (rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the contemporary) we will see a similar situation arise again within the next 20-25 years, when the lessons of this crisis have become history. And we know what happens to those who forget the lessons of history ...

Happy new year?

As the New Year celebrations and fireworks fade slowly into the mists of memory the year 2012 looms ahead as an empty canvas awaiting the painter's brush. "What lies ahead?" is the question which so many of us ask at this time, as if the future is already established, and we only need to wait and see if what we hope it promises will be fulfilled. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The future is something we ourselves have to write, not sit back and wait to read. It is up to us to ensure we fulfil our own destinies, to fulfil our potentials to the best of our abilities, and not to assume that the future is "written in the stars". With freedom of will comes responsibility. We may not be able to fully determine our own circumstances by our own actions, but we can surely achieve 'failure' by our own inaction.

The New Year is little more than an arbitrary break in the calendar. There is no rationale by which the change from December 31st to January 1st should indicate any major changes in our lives. It is no different from the move from (e.g.) September 15th to September 16th. However, the change of calendar year combined with the time away from work, often spent in the company of good friends and family, affords us the opportunity for self-reflection. Such an opportunity permits us to consider what we might have done differently or better in the past, and to learn how to approach things differently in future. But it is a matter of personal willpower whether or not one succeeds in becoming a "better person" this year.

This applies both in the small—at the personal level—and in the large—such as in business and politics, for example. While us ordinary mortals try to make minor adjustments to fulfil our potential we hope that our business leaders and politicians will do likewise, especially as we have just come out of a year with so many pessimistic circumstances. The holiday period has seen a respite from news reports on the euro-crisis or wars and revolutions in the Middle East and elsewhere, but these will resume as we wend our weary way back to work in the next few days. I hope that politicians can stick to their resolve and make (at least) minor improvements in the lives of those who elected them and beyond. It is my fervent hope that EU politicians can resolve their petty nationalistic differences and pull together in the interests of ALL of Europe.

However, my most fervent hope for 2102 (beyond what I hope for my family) is to see my beloved Spurs continue in the rich vein of form which has lifted them to third in the Premier League. Who knows? Perhaps we might even win the title this year!?!

Wishing you all that is best for 2012, although I know it is entirely in your own hands.

Banks, bankers and pension funds

Whenever there is a recession it is customary to seek out a scapegoat, although a modern economy is far too complex and sophisticated for it to be the fault of any single group. Currently the scapegoat appears to be "bankers", although that phrase is employed without thought for what it actually means. In one sees a banker can be almost anyone who works for a bank, including the teller who takes your deposits over the counter, and enables you to withdraw money through human interaction rather than via the more impersonal (but convenient) ATM. However, no-one is blaming bank tellers for the current state of the economy; rather it is the bankers at the top of the banking tree who are to blame. The recession, largely off the back of the financial crisis which began in the USA in 2007, is the fault of excessive risks taken by those on the Boards of Directors of banks. Now, I am not entirely sure where the line is between an "excessive" risk and an "acceptable" risk; the presumption in the rhetoric seems to be that the latter are those which succeed, while the former are those which do not, which is logically absurd.


That bankers are neither inherently good nor evil seems to me to be obvious. That some bankers have been provided with bonuses of which they are entirely undeserving is a matter of fact (the finger points squarely at Sir Fred Goodwin). That this requires change is self-evident. However, not all bankers are Sir Fred Goodwin. Investments, both financial (as made by banks and other financial institutions) and real do not always prove to be profitable. However, I would argue that there is no need for additional regulation of banking per se. Perhaps regulation of the conditions under which bonuses can be paid (superior performance comes to mind!) can be justified, but this ought to apply to all industries, not just banking. But this is largely a question of governance, not of banking itself. And good governance of any company comes via its shareholders, not solely from outside bodies. Good regulation comes from thoughtful consideration of the issues in the long-term, not from a knee-jerk reaction to current populism (of which politicians are all too fond). And who are the major shareholders of most UK listed corporations, including banks? This would be the UK pension funds, who for too long have been largely passive investors in their shareholdings.


For many years I have been arguing the case for a change in the governance of UK pension funds. As things stand, contributors to pensions and pensioners have little incentive to worry about the make-up of the trustees of their scheme. Most trusts are made of representatives of the employer and the union which represents the bulk of employees. In the USA things are more democratic: all contributors have the right to elect the trustees of their scheme, with a selection of candidates and their biographies being sent out at the time of election. The biographies include those characteristics which are likely to make a candidate seem attractive and talented to become a pension fund trustee. If such a system of electing trustees were imported into UK pension funds there would be a sea change in the governance of these mighty financial institutions.


Assuming trustees were elected to serve a number of years (rather than one, which could lead to short-termism), they would be much more directly accountable to pension contributors than is currently the case. This does not mean that such trustees would do the bidding of those who elected them; one would hope they would due able to take a more dispassionate, objective view of investment strategy! However, current trustees are largely anonymous and likely to act in the interests of the small groups from which they have come, rather than pensioners and contributors, whereas democratically-elected trustees would need to be closer to understanding and incorporating the views of those they represent. One major change this is likely to lead to is increased "shareholder activism" on the part of pension funds. If this were the case, pension funds would be taking a stronger view on how banks were being run, including the way in which bonuses were paid. Indeed, pension funds would require greater detail on bank financial strategy which would make the banks significantly more accountable to their shareholders, and hence to the general public (most of whom are pension fund contributors or pensioners.


In the mid-1970s (1976) the management guru Peter Drucker wrote an oft-overlooked book, The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America. If the governance of pension funds were altered as I have argued above (and elsewhere) it would lead to improved governance of banks (and other corporations) eliminating the kind of rhetoric which leads to all bankers being scapegoats for the current recession.

Adrift on a sea of ignorant bliss?

A large passenger cruise liner has been at sea for some weeks, the passengers enjoying the sun, sea, good food and camaraderie aboard. Then, one day, the engines cease working and a small hole is discovered in the hold. Water is trickling in, slowly at first but faster with each passing day. But the ship remains listless at sea, adrift hundreds of miles from the nearest shores.

At first no-one feels it right to inform the passengers. The captain sets crews to work on plugging the ever-increasing hole in the hold and on trying to restart the engines. Neither works, so the captain sacks the workers. If the engines are not working there is no need to employ and pay those who would normally be running the ship nor the engineers who maintain the engines. And there are nowhere near enough lifeboats to save even a small minority aboard, even assuming those lifeboats could make it the hundreds of miles to land.

At this point an SOS radio message is sent out requesting help. But the response is slow. After all, the messages from shore come back, if you got yourself into this mess you should get yourself out of it. But food is running low, and with no engines the tropical heat is becoming unbearable without air conditioning. The passengers start to become restless and want to know what is happening. When they find out that this situation has been going on for some time they become hostile and aggravated. Food is on low rations (except for the captain and his immediate crew, of course). So further SOS calls are made.

Eventually the captain is informed that a small emergency flotilla has been established, and will be leaving shortly to help make emergency repairs to the cruise liner, and bring food and fuel and other supplies for the crew and passengers.All seems to be improving on board the ship, although water continues to flood into the hold at an ever-increasing rate. The ship is already listing heavily to one side.

The captain responds to the call from shore, telling them to not yet send the emergency aid. He first needs to organise a vote and see if the flotilla is acceptable to the passengers and crew. The captain advises the rescue team he will send them the result of the vote in a week or so.

Obviously, the scenario above is patently absurd, yet it mirrors the tragedy unfurling daily with the Greek economy. The Greek government is barely able to pay its debts; it has permitted its citizens to enjoy the luxury of their sunbeds in ignorance of the truth for too long. After a great deal of faffing around, eventually the other countries of the eurozone, led by France and Germany, organise a rescue package. Just when things are starting to look better, the Greek PM insists on putting the rescue package to his Parliament and also to a referendum of the people. Absurd! When political and economic leadership is called for in Greece, there is the cowardice of the pretence of democracy. All the while the problems of the Greek economy are having ripple effects felt, first in neighbouring European countries, and also in the rest of the world. While Athens sinks in the mire, Papandreou continues with his fiddling about, failing to take the important decisions for which leaders are usually elected.

The natural reaction to all this is to put out of joint the noses of those who had laboured long and hard to agree a rescue package. This may also have taken too long, but for Greece to run round and bite that hand that would enable it to continue to feeds its citizens smacks too much of cutting off one's one nose to spite one's face. If it is a matter of pride, the Papandreou needs to be reminded that pride comes before a fall. Rarely before in the field of human conduct has there been so much foolishness from those who ought to know better in such a short space of time.

At the time of writing it is hard to predict whether or not Greece will continue to remain a member country of the eurozone (the European single currency). The odds seem stacked against. But with or without Greece the euro will plod on a Europe's single currency. Should Greece decide to exit the eurozone its ability to raise funds on the world's capital markets will become severely compromised, leading to likely default on many Greek borrowings around the world. The near future of the world, and its possible medium-term destiny has been compromised by the inadequate leadership of one man: Papandreou. He will join the pantheon of ancient Greeks, known not for their heroism, but for their tragic qualities.

New year, new start

When I was a young child I thought it a bit peculiar that the school year started in September, while the calendar year—which I considered to be the year proper—began on January 1st. Surely the school year should coincide with the calendar year?


This confusion was originally made all the worse when I was told by my teachers at cheder (Jewish studies classes held after-school in another place) that there were four new years: the Jewish calendar new year of Rosh Hashana (typically in September of October), a Jewish "new year" for trees (Tu b'Shvat, around February or so), the birthday of the Universe (1st Nissan, sometime in Spring), and the secular or calendar new year. But with a year or so of thought it made sense that the school year coincided with the Jewish new year.


This year the Jewish new year is quite late on the secular calendar, the last week in September. Yet next week my University starts back, and my youngest daughter begins are her new secondary school. My son, who is a little older, starts back the following Monday. And so, as this week ends a new school year is about to start, some two weeks after the start of the English Premier League! Summer—which has never really made much of an appearance in London—is now officially over: the new year is starting with a vengeance.


Under normal circumstances going back to work or school after Summer is something of a two-edged sword. On the downside there is the prospect of obligations being enforced, while the upside is a chance to renew friendships and start over with something approaching a clean slate. As a schoolboy, I used to pledge not to deface my textbooks each new school year, a pledge that I was never able to keep (I still possess most of my school books!). As an adult who is a University lecturer, I usually approach each new year with renewed vigour and energy. I am usually excited and energised at the prospect of meeting a new group of students and, in some cases, becoming reacquainted with students with whom I already have an established relationship. However, for personal reasons this has been a dire Summer, full of traumas and disappointments—the least of these being the poor weather—so I am less motivated than is normally the case as we rush headlong towards September.


It would be an exaggeration to say that I am indifferent to the start of the new academic year, and I remain hopeful that reconnecting with colleagues and students will invigorate me. I hope that Spurs' early season performances will have a similar impact (although the 3-0 loss to ManU had the reverse effect). And despite my personal circumstances the world itself has given us plenty to talk about this Summer: as well as the "Arab Spring" and the continuing battles for democracy in the Arab world, there is the ongoing financial "crisis" and the continued prospect of a double dip recession. And with today's news that Steve Jobs no longer feels his health permits his continued full-time efforts at Apple, the world continues to astound and amaze, surprise and delight, and confound and confuse, all in equal measure.


Whatever, your role, your job, your circumstances, I hope we all enjoy the new start that comes with a new year, and the end of Summer is always a new year!

American angst

The debt problems currently plaguing the US government are showing that country's politicians at their angst-ridden and undignified worst. The world's largest democracy, and one which holds itself up as a model for other countries, is proving to be less than worthy. Were it possible it would be an invitation to bring many high-profile US politicians to account for bringing democracy into disrepute.


The cause of this undignified mess is, of course, the debt problems facing the Federal government. Unseemly arguments between the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives are doing little to deal with this financial time-bomb, likely to go off before the week is out. If ever there was a time to put partisan politics to one side and do right by the ordinary people the politicians are supposed to represent, this is it. However, US politics is not driven by rights and wrongs, but by fierce brand loyalty down the generations to one party or another. On that score we could perhaps blame the electorate: in a democracy you get the politicians you deserve! However, one would hope that politicians would show some evidence of leadership, to go beyond simple representation of the citizenship. A forlorn hope indeed.


So what is the cause of this political in-fighting? In simple terms the US Federal government has borrowed beyond its means. For ordinary people, firms, and smaller countries, borrowing beyond one's ability to repay can be fatal, both financially and otherwise. However, as the late J Paul Getty once noted, "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." The US Federal government debt is of the order of $14 trillion. Whether or not that is a large amount is entirely dependent on the ability of the borrower to repay.


It is often the case that the amounts borrowed during "good" times are apparently easily serviceable. However, the problem arises when the times are no longer "good", and it becomes more difficult to repay the interest, let alone any capital repayments. This is something which has affected almost every government on the planet, most noticeably Greece and Eire. Now it is the turn of the US to deal with what is seemingly a no-longer serviceable debt. And the politicians are unable to agree on the details of how best to deal with the situation. The simple solutions amount to a few elements: (1) reduce government spending making more funds available to reduce the burden of debt over the next few years; (2) increase the taxation levels to help fund the debt; (3) some combination of both. The Republicans favour 1, the Democrats 2, and the President is arguing for 3. The closeness of the deadline suggest that only 3 will serve, yet the two main parties continue to quibble over the details. It is the modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome (in this case Washington DC) burns.


If Greece defaulted on its debt then it would find it more difficult to borrow in future. It would be regarded as a risky proposition. Its bond ratings would plummet, leading to higher interest rates on any future loans it might be able to organise. Modern history has shown this with Mexico and Argentina. However, the USA is on a different scale. Any default could be seen as possibly temporary—the result of the immaturity of bickering US politicians—or it could be seen as much more dangerous. A default by the US Federal government could lead to an implosion of the world's financial markets. The collapse which was narrowly avoided when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt could once again become a reality, a reality which no rational person wishes to contemplate. Financial economists refer to this as systemic risk: the possibility of the collapse of the financial system. For ordinary people it means the end of the world as we know it. No credit, a failed banking system, markets which seize up, etc etc.


All we can do is hope the US politicians will come to their sense before the eleventh hour. Only time will tell if sense will prevail, or if we really do stand on the edge of a financial precipice.

Summertime blues?

Summer in England is inconstant. One day the weather will be warm and sunny, the next cool and rainy. In fact, replace "one day" with "one hour" and the same applies. The predictable thing about the weather in England is its unpredictability. For some this is a cause for complaint; for others, myself included, it is one of the key attractions of living in a temperate climate on one of a series of islands off the north-east coast of continental Europe.

Now matter how unpredictable the weather in England, it is virtually guaranteed to remain within given limits. The possibility of snow is zero, although there can be the occasional day or two of tropical heat. It is this limited range of possibilities which makes the unpredictability attractive.

The same can also be said for English politics. In many ways it is even more predictable than the weather. I would argue that this is characteristic of a modern, stable democracy. There is no chance of an English version of the Arab Spring. The same is true of most of England's national neighbours. The main source of volatility is from second-generation migrants who are torn between their cultural roots and the culture of their adopted homeland. Experience shows that by the third generation most incoming families have become assimilated, even when they maintain connections to their roots. After all, isn't the stability why such migrant families moved in the first place?

Even where finance and the economy is concerned, there is a limited range of unpredictable volatility. For the individual or individual family the volatility may seem much more of a concern, although even then it is typically a relatively short time before they return to a more acceptable state of affairs than exist during an economic downturn (I speak from experience).

For those living in less developed countries the situation is much more parlous. The Horn of Africa is one location where unpredictability is also within a limited range, but the norm within that range is less than attractive. Famine due to severe weather conditions is much more commonplace than anyone with a conscience would regard as acceptable. When accompanied by war, or internal conflict, the situation on the ground is exacerbated for ordinary families. Warlords and others will accumulate whatever produce exists, making the famine all the worse by excluding most people from access to it.

Such a situation is now current in eastern Africa. Twice we have seen Bob Geldof and others run global charity concerts (Live Aid in 1985 and Live 8 in 2005) to raise funds to stem the tide of poverty in Africa and elsewhere. Despite these huge and laudable efforts, the problems remain. They would appear to be inevitable. Despite the fund-raising and the intellectual efforts of Development Economists, and the goodwill of well-meaning politicians, people continue to die from starvation in Africa. This does not mean that the world should shrug its shoulders and do nothing, or turn a blind eye; rather we need to look at this problem from a different, more radical perspective. That requires some other things which are also afflicted by famine: (i) the will to succeed, (ii) the acceptance of radical, entrepreneurial ideas.

However, the world is a cautious, conservative place, with people everywhere afraid to embrace new ideas and suggestions. Some people, as we have seen, are so fundamental in their beliefs that they would prefer to main and kill rather than even hear new ideas which might possibly come into conflict with their own. To bow to these pressures—the inertia of the status quoⓒ—is to accept what currently is; a form of surrender, which is inimical to human progress. New ideas need to be granted a full hearing, especially where problems exist which have seemed to be intractable for a ling time. Those who decry such inventiveness are themselves modern Luddites who would be happy to see us return to a contemporary dark age. Such people are easy to spot: their favourite word is no; their inability to listen to  or make persuasive argument is their obvious characteristic. Such people give me the blues.

Avoiding death and needing taxis

In the wee small hours of Friday night/Saturday morning we had a fire at our home. Already asleep, we were alerted to the fire by the fire detectors. My wife's presence of mind enabled her to grab our foam fire extinguisher and put out the fire while I got the kids out of their bedrooms to safety. As luck would have it, we got away lightly, with the only major damage being to to hot water and heating system. There is soot all over the upstairs floor of our house, smoke in the walls and carpets, and some flooding in the living room below, but compared to what might have been without smoke detectors doesn't bear too much thinking about.

So now we await the clean-up and repairs. The loss adjuster from the insurance company has been very helpful and reassuring. Currently we are getting quotes to pass on to the insurance company for approval. Having never had to deal with an incident like this before has made it all the more traumatic, and in a sense a leap into the unknown. Rationally, the worst of it for the time being is being unable to have a hot bath or shower, but who faces these things rationally? In our house there has been a return to the 1950s, with kettles of water being boiled for hair washes. A cold shower is unpleasant and not something to be undertaken lightly, if at all. Even James Bond only runs the water cold for the last 30 seconds of a normal shower.

The timing of the fire was not optimal, if such a thing was even possible. But to be without hot water in Summer is better than in Winter. However, my son's bar mitzvah is on the horizon, together with all of the final arrangements which need to be made to ensure a memorable occasion for him. As such we are juggling too many demands on our time. And this in the knowledge that it will be several weeks before we can even think about a return to a normal life. We have guests coming in from overseas for this occasion, as well as a home-based reception. This fire will make the bar mitzvah memorable, but not for the best of reasons. The need to deal with builders, plumbers and the quotes and estimates, means that I will probably be unable to get to the airport and collect my guests next week. I will have to call on the services of taxis (Darren: are you reading this?) to ferry people from Heathrow.

As if that was not enough there is also the need to work and earn a living, and do the "school run" twice each day. There is an American saying that "when life throws you lemons, make lemonade", but everyone knows you need more than lemons to do so. We have been thrown an overload of lemons, but without water and sugar all we can do is drown under them, experiencing their sour, bitter taste. I am sure that in the fullness of time I will look back on this experience with a wry smile, but for now all I can manage is a somewhat-forced sense of perspective: at least no-one was hurt. It could have been so very much worse.

As someone who spends his professional hours lecturing on the risk-return tradeoff (in financial and economic contexts), and thinking about financial risk management I have naturally tended to apply my knowledge to this incident. Consequently I cannot speak highly enough of the importance of smoke detectors and foam fire extinguishers for managing personal risk at home. My family and I owe our lives to these appliances.

Demography and other impostors

I like to think of myself as a family man. I like to spend time with my kids. I try hard to listen to what they have to tell me about their lives, despite having a personal tendency to talk rather than listen. I like my kids; they are nice people. And they are growing up quickly. Despite a two-year age gap between them, they are both on the cusp between being children and being adolescents. I suspect that too many of us adults have forgotten what a difficult time adolescence can be, and end up being quite unsympathetic to this natural transition from childhood towards adulthood, which is the root cause of what was once renowned as "the generation gap".

Much as I love to spend time with my children, I also enjoy the quiet time at home when they are in school. This routine will be shattered on Thursday this week, when both of my kids will be at home. This is because teachers at both of their schools will be on strike, hence the schools will be closed on "health and safety" grounds. At first I was irritated by this break into my sacred time alone, but then I considered the issue much more closely, and understood that this strike has been called because of what can only described as an attack on the pension rights of the teachers. I use the term "attack" not as hyperbole, but because that is what is the government's policy truly is.

A pension is a long-term contract between employee and employer, by which a portion of the employee's wages are deferred in order to provide an income after retirement. The deferred wages (int he form of so-called employee and employer contributions) are placed into a pension fund, which invests the monies in the various financial (and other) markets, hopefully generating returns which will provide a decent level of retirement income (pension). Any changes to a contract must surely be negotiated to an agreed conclusion by both parties; anything else must surely constitute a breach of contract. And, although there may be a logical rationale behind the government's decision to change pensions (raise the retirement age, increase the level of contributions, move from defined benefit to defined contributions), to do so unilaterally seems to me to be both legally questionable and ethically wrong.

My interest in pensions began back in the late 1970s. Between doing my Master's degree and my PhD I spent time as a filing clerk for Sotheby's London office. At that time a number of pension funds were engaged in the purchase of fine art. Despite having little but a layman's knowledge of pensions or pension funds at that time I was bemused by this strategy. One consequence of this was finding myself undertaking a PhD thesis on the investment behaviour of UK pension funds. Back in 1980 I recall vividly reading the report produced by the committee chaired by former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, on the functioning of the financial system. It was then that my attentions were drawn to what has since become known as the "demographic time bomb", whereby society is ageing. We have seen increasing numbers of pensioners and reduced numbers of people of working age. This is one of the rationales underlying the current government's position on pensions. However, more than thirty years have elapsed since I first learned of this demographic time bomb.

Some would argue that it is unfair to the current (coalition) government to blame them for the current attack on pensions, when so many governments have previously failed to grasp the mettle. However, it is not the issue of pensions reform which I am criticising; rather it is the way in which this has been approached in a dictatorial fashion by the government. In a democracy the government is elected to represent the people, including teachers. When democratic government tries to dictate to the people it is in breach of its mandate, and cannot be surprised when people react strongly in opposition. If the government believes its actions to be correct and appropriate it needs to make the case and convince those who will be affected. There needs to be an attempt at consensus. There has been no such attempt. Thus, although I agree that pension reform is increasingly crucial and that the current system is rapidly approaching a tipping point, I remain firmly in the camp of the striking teachers. I shall look forward to spending Thursday with my offspring, and hope that the strike forces the government to rethink how best to go about reforming pensions, not how to impose it on others.

Young Lions on morphine?

Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said that the only things in life which were certain are death and taxes. The truth is that the only thing in life which is certain is uncertainty itself. Nowhere can this truth be more self-evident than with the English weather! As I write, in the middle of "flaming June", the weather in London has been increasingly uncertain. A fortnight ago we were being warned of drought conditions. No sooner had that been reported on the news than the skies opened up and we were treated to a downpour of seemingly Biblical proportions. Even on a single day the weather in London has been so changeable that it is impossible to know how to dress on a given morning.

Life is full of uncertainties. None of us know in advance when we shall pass on, nor when we shall be fit and well or ill and infirm. Parents want the best for their children, for them to exceed their own accomplishments, but this too is uncertain. Some people will make provisions for dealing with life's uncertainties, while others will acknowledge the fact of life's uncertainties and try to live for the moment; enjoying where possible what life has to throw at them.

Of course, for most of us there is a balance to be struck. We want to protect against those of life's uncertainties for which such provision is possible, while also trying to enjoy the moment and not anaesthetise the joy out of living. When it is possible to insure against uncertainties, it is because institutions have arisen which can calculate the probability of a given event (such as insurance companies), without being able to guarantee to whom such an event will impact. Economists refer to such situations as being of risk rather than uncertainty. Investing in the stock market is a situation of risk; life expectancy in general is one of risk, but of uncertainty for any given individual.

When it comes to football the distinctions between risk and uncertainty can be equally blurred. The result of any given match is one of uncertainty, while the winners of a football competition over the course of a season is one of risk. Nowhere has this blurred distinction been more evident than in the EURO under-21 competition, hosted in Denmark.

Last night the England U21 team were dismissed from the competition after failing to win any of their three group stage matches. At the start of the competition they had been hailed as one of the favourites, along with Spain. But England's failure to progress mirrored the failings of the senior team in last year's World Cup in South Africa. Given the players at the manager's disposal, their track record playing for their individual clubs in the English Premier League (EPL) and the facilities available, it remains one of life's unanswered questions as to why English sport is so conspicuously unsuccessful in international sports, especially football?

Watching England U21s over the past week or so, the notion that a team is built in the image of its manager seems questionable. As a player, Stuart Pearce was renowned for his lion-hearted spirit, his passion and commitment. His young players this past week failed to manifest such characteristics. While able to defend stoutly, there was a distinct lack of creative flair, with too few goal-scoring chances being carved out. If I had to had to pay to watch these England performances I might have been inclined to ask for my money back! Something appears to happen when good EPL players turn out for the English national team. The usual excuses of a long hard season are trotted out, but somehow these do not apply to foreign players who ply their trade in the EPL. The fault, therefore, must lie with the management team. After all, as the old Russian saying goes: a fish rots from the head. Time to go fishing for something fresh?!

Football and the sacrifice of managers

Karren Brady is well-known as a TV personality via her appearances on "The Apprentice", but is also a renowned businesswoman in the world of football. In March 1993, at the tender age of 23 she became the managing director of Birmingham City Football Club. She managed the company flotation in 1997, and is often seen as being responsible in her off-field capacity for the club's promotion to the Premier League in 2002. In 2009, following the takeover of Birmingham City by Carson Leung, she left and was appointed vice-chairman at West Ham United, when it was taken over by the men who had brought her to Birmingham City: David Sullivan and David Gold. With one week remaining in the Premier League season it was Karren Brady who pointed her finger at manager, Avram Grant, and told him "you're fired!"


Karren Brady grew up immersed in the world of football, as her father, Terry, had been chairman of Swindon Town and a director at Portsmouth. Her success at Birmingham City is renowned. The current short-term failure of West Ham to remain in English top-flight football ranks alongside the failure of England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. In August 2009 she had been appointed Chairman of the 2018 World Cup bid Advisory Board. However, no-one can be successful in every single one of their endeavours, and men and women who prove to be long-term successes will often point to their failures as a stimulus and a learning experience which helps them gain later success. It may well be that West Ham will prove to be a long-term success under Brady's leadership, but for the present her actions in sacking Avram Grant leave a bitter taste in the mouth.


Success in football, as in other areas of business and life, is a matter of performing at or above the level of expectations. If expectations are set too high then failure will undoubtedly ensue; if set too low then success will be achieved, but it will remain a pyrrhic victory. Avram Grant had been appointed at West Ham to manage the team and prevent relegation, a task in which he clearly failed (for whatever reasons). However, to sack a manager with one final game remaining, a game which would not prevent relegation, seems to be almost pointless. It is not ruthless management, but an exercise in passing the buck with a degree of spinelessness. Surely if Avram Grant had the qualities desired to achieve West Ham's goal ex ante, then those same qualities would be desirable in achieving promotion from the Championship to the Premier League in 2011–2012? If that is not the case then surely Brady got it wrong in appointing Grant in the first instance, and perhaps it is she who should resign? After all, he was appointed manager at West Ham having just managed Portsmouth to relegation from the Premier League!


But football is not like that. Supporters will always require a scapegoat for failure to achieve the expected. Sometimes they will accuse the Board of being responsible for failure, but more often than not it is the manager who will be sacrificed. Avram Grant had previously been sacrificed as manager of Chelsea, when his team there failed to achieve success in the Champions League (they lost the final),  the League Cup (they lost the final), and came second in the Premier League (on the last day of the season). Chelsea had the decency to terminate his contract at the end of the season. However, it should be remembered that he only became manager in September 2007 following the ignominious sacking of José Mourinho. Prior to that Grant had been Chelsea's Director of Football.


Grant's track record suggests that he is a knowledgable and talented football manager, but not necessarily a lucky manager. In their excellent book The 90-Minute Manager: Business Lessons from the Dugout (2002), David Bolchover and Chris Brady list several desirable qualities in a top-flight manager: integrity, passion, ability to relax, analytical skills, hunger to learn, attention to detail, ability to get things done, insatiable appetite for accomplishment and results, self-belief, enthusiasm, people skills, ruthlessness, presence, and luck. As they note, "Great managers need to be lucky." Grant is serially unlucky. Against this we may cite the example of Sir Alex Ferguson, a man who took several seasons in the hot-seat at Manchester United to achieve any form of success. Had the Board listened to the supporters in the early years of his tenancy, Ferguson would have been sacked and never had the opportunity to become the most successful manager in English football, achieving 19 top-flight League titles to-date. Ferguson was lucky to have had the confidence of the Board, who must have felt he would ultimately bring success despite the failures of the early years. Should Sir Alex ever retire his successor will be handed a poisoned chalice, weighed down by the weight of expectation of success of a Manchester United manager.


There are, of course, many, many other examples of how important it is to manage expectations, especially of the supporters, select a manager with the appropriate qualities (as listed above) and stick with him through thick and thin. Boards of Directors need to put in place and maintain a long-term strategic perspective that the team manager is not always in a position to do, with a focus on trying to win the next game! The problem with the sacrifice of managers is that Boards of Directors fail to heed the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not within our stars, but within ourselves." A lesson that surely extends beyond football to every line of business and individual life!

Football, antisemitism and the Baddiels

In recent weeks the Baddiel brothers have commenced a campaign which aims to rid antisemitism among supporters of football. The campaign has been designed to run parallel to the more general "Kick Racism Out of Football" campaign, which has run with some (albeit limited) success over the past few years. The main thrust of the Baddiel-sponsored campaign has been a short film focusing on the use of the term "Yids" by supporters of Tottenham Hotspur, which they regard as being antisemitic per se, and also as an encouragement of antisemitism. Both of these are arguments which I would refute in the strongest possible terms, my view being based on having been a Spurs' supporter for a little more than a half-century!


Quite naturally, the unveiling of the Baddiel campaign received significant coverage in the foremost Jewish newspaper in the United Kingdom, the Jewish Chronicle (www.theJC.com). Equally naturally points of view have been espoused in the Letters to the Editor section. Recently, the view espoused by the Baddiels was taken up by a supporter from Arsenal, although his awkward attempt at humour based on the age-old Spurs-Arsenal rivalry treated the subject with less gravitas than it deserved. It does not happen frequently, but on this occasion I was moved to respond, and sent my own perspective on the debate to the Jewish Chronicle, which they duly printed in Friday's edition. Unfortunately, the online edition does not include letters, so for those interested yet unable to obtain the Jewish Chronicle, I reproduce my letter below:

The rambling hyperbole of Stephen Ryde (JC, April 29), lack of intellectual rigour and its reactionary conclusion do little to treat the subject of antisemitism with the seriousness it deserves. His argument is all too similar to that which argues that women who wear short skirts are asking to be raped: wrong on every possible level. As for the outlawing of the use of particular words, this has no place in a modern, democratic society where freedom of speech is valued.

I would like to refer Mr Ryde to the learned article "When is a Yid not a Jew?", by John Efron, Koret Professor of Social History at Berkeley University (http://bit.ly/luikAu). The use of the term "Yids" and, more frequently, "Yiddos" began in the late 1970s as a reaction against the antisemitic chanting of other teams, most notably Chelsea, Arsenal and West Ham. It can be seen in exactly the same vein as the use of the term "nigger" by sections of the African-American community. It is a classic case of turning a term of derogation into s badge of honour. This has taken place for so many years, that the term "Yid" has now become commensurate with "Spurs supporter" in football grounds around the country, with many younger supporters having little or no idea of the original defamatory use of the word.

Any campaign to reduce antisemitism is laudable, although as with anything the battles need to be chosen with care. In selecting Spurs supporters and their chanting of "Yids", the Baddiels are on shaky ground. They need to begin their campaign by cleaning up the mess in their own back-yards first: Chelsea continue to sing "Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz" and make gas chamber noises. When Jewish support at Stamford Bridge deals with this issue (instead of joining in, as sometimes happens) then the campaign will be able to claim a degree of progress.

Stephen Ryde is wrong. As a Jewish supporter of Spurs for nigh on a half-century, I shall continue to join in with my fellow supporters chating of "Yids" and "Yiddos" in the full knowledge that this is a reaction against antisemitism, not an encouragement of it.

As a postscript, I support any attempt to diminish hatred of any description, be it racism, antisemitism, gender bias or ageism, but believe that football supporters are not necessarily the right focus, as they mirror the views of society in general. Ultimately, antisemitism is the oldest hatred in the world, a hatred which has been fostered by 2,000 years of propaganda by the Church and, more recently by elements of the Muslim world, often under the thinly-veiled guise of anti-Zionism or anti-Israel. But hatred is hatred, and we can only hope that those who perpetrate it will end up hoist by their own petards. The Baddiels may have the very best of intentions, but those are the paving stones on the road to hell.