Fashion. Is it solely reserved for women to talk about, or are men free to discuss the subject as well? I know very few men who will confess to having an interest in fashion, let alone actually admitting to - god forbid - enjoying shopping for clothes! It seems to be a taboo subject with us and yet, in every pub & club, and at every football game in the country, it is clearly something men DO have an active interest in.
How can I tell? Look at the way some men dress. Look at how they like to present themselves in public. Look at the labels they wear….. It seems men’s fashion is not just alive & kicking, but (*some of) the younger generation are as fascinated by it as I was growing up, and still am now.
Now, I grew up in the midst of the ‘casuals’ era, when looking the part & what you wore to the match was just as - if not more - important than the result, and how your firm got on outside the ground. The casual movement was to my generation what the rock & roll movement was to my parents’ generation. It wasn’t, as most people assume, just about the fighting. It was about the clothes we wore, the music we listened to and the attitudes those things gave us. For probably the best insight in the casual culture and all that went with it, I can heartily recommend you read the book ‘Casuals’ by Phil Thornton.
This passion has been re-ignited in us ‘originals’ thanks to somewhat of a casual revival over the past couple of years. Films such as Football Factory, The Business and the remake of The Firm, has led to a host of famous fashion labels making re-issues of all those classic clothes we wore growing up, and for which I personally, had feared dead & buried forever.
* I look at the brands young ‘uns are wearing today - Henleys, Bench, Luke, Superdry….. Really? No. Whenever I see someone wearing this tat it just makes me want to weep. I want to physically shake the wearer and ask them what the hell do they think they’re doing. To question why they feel the need to look like every bugger else who has no imagination. Do they really enjoy looking like a window display from every mainstream store in every High Street in every town & city in the country?
That skinny jeans, plimsoll & cardigan combination drives me bonkers. The “I‘m a rebel cos my arse is hanging out of my jeans” look (with said arse wrapped in a grim pair of Lonsdale boxers their mummy bought them from Sports Direct. 3 pairs for £2 I imagine…..). The Top Man/Burtons/River Island checked shirts with the buttons on the arms to make sure their sleeves don’t unroll themselves….. Those identical scruffy “look I just woke up & left my hair like this” cuts that, in reality, took them 2 hours to make like that….. AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
The ‘casual’ revival has come about for a reason - because today’s clothing & music is as crap now as it was great back in the day. Don’t believe me? Then why are more and more once-forgotten classic labels reappearing? Sergio Tacchini. Fila Vintage. Lois Cords. Lyle & Scott. Kickers. Robe di Kappa (that‘s the good stuff - not the Vicky Pollard stuff!). Farah. Classic vintage trainers from adidas and Nike. They’re all back, and are looking better than ever and are as fresh now as they were when they first appeared back in the 80‘s.
Some brands (Fila and Tacchini especially), have been victims of having to make and sell poorly made, poorly designed clothing over the years merely to survive. These mainly consisted of jogging bottoms, hoodies & sweatshirts and can still be found being staked high & sold cheaply in yes - you’ve guessed it! - Sports Direct, and are to be avoided at all costs (except for knocking around the house in!), but if they hadn’t taken this measure they would no longer be with us. I’d like to think of it as good coming from evil!
The brand I am most pleased to see revived however, is Ellesse. I used to love this stuff. It was always my favourite back then as it wasn’t as mainstream as the others. It had a certain exclusivity about it - and it does once again. The pieces being re-issued - not just by Ellesse, but by all the old brands - are just lovely, and it’s thanks to the likes of www.80scasualclassics.co.uk and www.stuartslondon.com that they are available now. Fila Tarrinda, Sir? Yes please! Lois jumbo cords to go with that? Don’t mind if I do! Adidas Munchens on your feet? Go on then! Tacchini t-shirt to complete the look? It would be rude not to!
In truth, those classic brands have never gone out of fashion with me. I have always dressed like a ‘casual’, from the day I started (with my first Lacoste t-shirt and Pringle jumper for Christmas at age 11!) right through my 20’s and now into my late 30’s. Don’t get me wrong, there have been other brands along the way. Armani, Hugo Boss, Stone Island, One True Saxon, Aquascutum and Paul & Shark have all made appearances in my wardrobe - and some of them are still there!
The long-lost label I would most love to see revived over the coming months is Cerutti. The iconic back-to-back R’s (either inside a capital C or with 1881 underneath) were attached to many a piece of quality clothing I owned. My favourite being a white towelling track top with blue piping I bought on holiday in Jersey aged 15 - it‘s probably my favourite piece of clothing ever. Another I am getting back into these days is Benetton. Back in the day, their must-have piece was the simple but iconic rugby top. The white & blue one being the most popular, with a rarer white & green version available too. But I always loved their jeans, jumpers and polo shirts, and am starting to stock up on them again before others catch on & the price rockets!
So, are we in our late 30’s and above just reliving our misspent youths - back to a time when life was so much simpler, so much more fun and so carefree? - or is there really a place for the 80‘s casual look in the current day and age? I’d like to think it’s a bit of both, and that’s just fine by me. Long may it continue!
Thursday 25 November 2010
Monday 22 November 2010
Trial by TV.....
So, as the dust settles on yet another poor display from Newcastle United, with it comes yet another charge of Violent Conduct for one of our best performers this season, courtesy of those faceless farts at FA-HQ - aided, abetted & dare I even say encouraged by the scourge of NUFC, those happy chappies at Sky Sports News.
Now, before I continue, I am not going to blow smoke up Mike Williamson's arse. Nor will I try to defend Joey Barton. Lets face it, if these guys STILL haven't twigged that each & every game - televised or not - is filmed by 20 or so cameras, and every move scrutinised by the media, then they never will, and as such, they should never be allowed to play the game again.
However, it is the FA's consistency - or lack thereof - that really gets the fans backs up. The downright thuggery of the likes of Man City's Nigel de Jong, Karl Henry of Wolves, 5under1and's Lee Cattermole and Tom Huddlestone of Spurs to name just 4, has been downright disgusting, and yet, the FA see fit to take no action against players who, it seems, will not be satisfied until a fellow Pro has their career ended. (As an afterthought, why has Williamson been charged with Violent Conduct for the shoulder charge on Elmander, yet Nicholas Bendtner wasn't charged for his blatant shoulder charge - ironically on Williamson himself - in the recent NUFC v Arsenal Carling Cup game at St. James' Park? - The FA - as consistently inconstant as NUFC.....).
I have looked extensively at the FA's rules and procedures on this subject, and have even spoken to a good friend of mine who actually referees up to Football League standard (he even ran the line at Millwall v Sheff Utd a couple of weeks ago!), and it is as follows: If an incident is brought to the FA's attention, they speak to the referee of that game and ask him a series of yes or no questions, the first two being: Did you see the incident at the time? Did any of your assistants see the incident and bring it to your attention at the time? If the answer to either of these questions is YES, then the incident is deemed as having been dealt with, and the matter is closed.
So, if a referee advises the FA that he saw the incident at the time, RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN NOT BE USED, and hence why no action was taken against Tom Huddlestone for his blatant stamp on Bolton's Johan Elmander, nor was any taken against Man City's Nigel de Jong for breaking Newcastle's Hatem Ben Arfa's leg - a tackle, remember, which disgusted his national manger so much that he dropped NdJ from his squad.....
If the answer is NO to those questions, then they are asked to study the footage (purely of the one incident in question, ignoring the rest of the game), and are asked one final yes or no question: If this incident had been brought to your attention during the game, would you have shown a [insert colour here] card? (The FA actually ask the referee "a yellow card" or "a red card" as part of the question depending on the incident in question - for example: "if you had seen this incident, would you have shown a yellow card?" The colour of the card is not the referee's choice). If the answer is YES, then RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE USED, and charges are brought by the FA against the player involved.
Just one quick thought here: if the referee states that he didn't see the incident, and his assistants state they didn't see the incident, and the 4th official states he didn't see the incident, would it not be worthwhile the FA asking them all just what the hell they were doing at the time to miss it? I mean come on, at least one of the assistants must be able to see what is going on off the ball.....
As if that was not enough, the player involved is NOT allowed any representation at the hearing, which is conducted behind closed doors by an anonymous panel. The panel sits to merely decide on the punishment, guidelines for which are given by the FA. The only appeal that the player has is to the severity of the punishment, and not the crime itself. This makes the FA judge, jury & executioner all at the same time, and players are not so much CHARGED with an incident, but found GUILTY of it without being able to defend themselves (which, the way NUFC have defended over the last couple of weeks, is no bad thing.....)
I feel that there is too much secrecy in the game these days. How many transfers are for an "undisclosed fee"? If the governing bodies want to whip the game into shape, lets start with all transfer fees being made public. I also don't think it would the worst idea to have all weekly wages made public either. But worst of all, there should be public panels - preferably of ex-Professionals who have played at the highest level (but not the Sky Sports Soccer Saturday shits.....) who rule on these incidents. They more than most would be able to relate these matters, and the rulings and thoughts would be there for all to see.
The FA have gone beyond the point of being a laughing stock, as have all the other bodies (UEFA & FIFA more than most) who currently govern the game. No, you CAN'T use video technology to rule if the ball has crossed the line, but yes, you CAN use it to sit in a Kangaroo Court and ban players at will, anonymously. It's about time someone took a leaf out of Will Carling's book and took these 'old farts' (many of whom make the rules yet have NEVER played the game) to task for their actions. The English game, and the people who run it, needs root & branch surgery if they are to get the fans back onside.
But then hey, what does our opinion count for, so long as we keep showing up and filling their coffers with money.....
Now, before I continue, I am not going to blow smoke up Mike Williamson's arse. Nor will I try to defend Joey Barton. Lets face it, if these guys STILL haven't twigged that each & every game - televised or not - is filmed by 20 or so cameras, and every move scrutinised by the media, then they never will, and as such, they should never be allowed to play the game again.
However, it is the FA's consistency - or lack thereof - that really gets the fans backs up. The downright thuggery of the likes of Man City's Nigel de Jong, Karl Henry of Wolves, 5under1and's Lee Cattermole and Tom Huddlestone of Spurs to name just 4, has been downright disgusting, and yet, the FA see fit to take no action against players who, it seems, will not be satisfied until a fellow Pro has their career ended. (As an afterthought, why has Williamson been charged with Violent Conduct for the shoulder charge on Elmander, yet Nicholas Bendtner wasn't charged for his blatant shoulder charge - ironically on Williamson himself - in the recent NUFC v Arsenal Carling Cup game at St. James' Park? - The FA - as consistently inconstant as NUFC.....).
I have looked extensively at the FA's rules and procedures on this subject, and have even spoken to a good friend of mine who actually referees up to Football League standard (he even ran the line at Millwall v Sheff Utd a couple of weeks ago!), and it is as follows: If an incident is brought to the FA's attention, they speak to the referee of that game and ask him a series of yes or no questions, the first two being: Did you see the incident at the time? Did any of your assistants see the incident and bring it to your attention at the time? If the answer to either of these questions is YES, then the incident is deemed as having been dealt with, and the matter is closed.
So, if a referee advises the FA that he saw the incident at the time, RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN NOT BE USED, and hence why no action was taken against Tom Huddlestone for his blatant stamp on Bolton's Johan Elmander, nor was any taken against Man City's Nigel de Jong for breaking Newcastle's Hatem Ben Arfa's leg - a tackle, remember, which disgusted his national manger so much that he dropped NdJ from his squad.....
If the answer is NO to those questions, then they are asked to study the footage (purely of the one incident in question, ignoring the rest of the game), and are asked one final yes or no question: If this incident had been brought to your attention during the game, would you have shown a [insert colour here] card? (The FA actually ask the referee "a yellow card" or "a red card" as part of the question depending on the incident in question - for example: "if you had seen this incident, would you have shown a yellow card?" The colour of the card is not the referee's choice). If the answer is YES, then RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE USED, and charges are brought by the FA against the player involved.
Just one quick thought here: if the referee states that he didn't see the incident, and his assistants state they didn't see the incident, and the 4th official states he didn't see the incident, would it not be worthwhile the FA asking them all just what the hell they were doing at the time to miss it? I mean come on, at least one of the assistants must be able to see what is going on off the ball.....
As if that was not enough, the player involved is NOT allowed any representation at the hearing, which is conducted behind closed doors by an anonymous panel. The panel sits to merely decide on the punishment, guidelines for which are given by the FA. The only appeal that the player has is to the severity of the punishment, and not the crime itself. This makes the FA judge, jury & executioner all at the same time, and players are not so much CHARGED with an incident, but found GUILTY of it without being able to defend themselves (which, the way NUFC have defended over the last couple of weeks, is no bad thing.....)
I feel that there is too much secrecy in the game these days. How many transfers are for an "undisclosed fee"? If the governing bodies want to whip the game into shape, lets start with all transfer fees being made public. I also don't think it would the worst idea to have all weekly wages made public either. But worst of all, there should be public panels - preferably of ex-Professionals who have played at the highest level (but not the Sky Sports Soccer Saturday shits.....) who rule on these incidents. They more than most would be able to relate these matters, and the rulings and thoughts would be there for all to see.
The FA have gone beyond the point of being a laughing stock, as have all the other bodies (UEFA & FIFA more than most) who currently govern the game. No, you CAN'T use video technology to rule if the ball has crossed the line, but yes, you CAN use it to sit in a Kangaroo Court and ban players at will, anonymously. It's about time someone took a leaf out of Will Carling's book and took these 'old farts' (many of whom make the rules yet have NEVER played the game) to task for their actions. The English game, and the people who run it, needs root & branch surgery if they are to get the fans back onside.
But then hey, what does our opinion count for, so long as we keep showing up and filling their coffers with money.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)