My little bungies

Panorama managed to stir the football hotpot. Harry and Sam. Like two peas in a pod, now? Well, at least two Premiership managers who will go (also?) for the points in the Portsmouth-Bolton match come this Saturday.

The big question is, do they like a bung? No absolutely conclusive evidence was presented by Panorama. No receipts for secret cash transactions, no filming of a manager accepting a good old suitcase full of dosh.

After the programme ended, the show begun. Ensued shouts of outrage. Good names of Sam and Harry have been tarnished. "It is in my lawyer's hands!"

The surprise was, however that the focus was on Allardyce, a recent candidate for no less than Feik-Sheikh-prone Sven's job, and not "Dirty Harry", surrounded by numerous if unsubstantiated rumours.

The obvious question is, did the player agents including Peter Harrison and Craig Allardyce, lie when they conveyed to the undercover investigators clearly enough that Sam does not mind a bung. Did they lie motivated by greed as it could be said Panorama used entrapment in "public interest" by flouting an invented US-based multimillionaire interested in gaining business by using bungs to managers to grow his marketshare. They certainly did not express their outrage about suggesting such methods but seemed jolly enough to talk more. Was it really to find out about the undercover reporters' methods? Is this a credible defence? A key question.

What seems quite clear that the explanations by Harrison that his was only "pub banter" not to be taken seriously does sound tenuous, at the very least. He seemed to like pub banter inside football stadiums too, when quite clearly trying to ensure a 15-year-old's transfer to Chelsea from Middlesbrough withouth the north-east club's knowledge - something clearly illegal according to the rules.

This does not mean, however, that the managers in question would necessarily have taken a bung. What came clear is that Craig Allardyce seems to be a rather loose-tongued and foolish character. "Me daddy is a manager, easier to do business with me daddy, you see. Yes, me daddy knows about everything I do [ok, paraphrased heavily with editorial freedom, this bit]" Yes Craig, we saw.

Chelsea must be very happy that the main focus, at the moment at least, is on Sam and Harry. After all Frank Arnesen of Chelsea clearly seemed, unless the cutting of the film was made intentionally in a misleading way, to be keen on the idea of taking a teenager touted to him illegally. Against the background of Chelsea's massive financial muscle, this is clearly worrying.

As they say, money cannot buy you love. The worry is that youngsters and players are more easy. But not everything is legal in football (not that i think everything should be in love and war either, for that matter).

Come Saturday, one thing is for sure, though. Both Sam (Bolton) and Harry (Portsmouth) cannot win. Chelsea can.

Steve Irwin, bigger dead than alive

So the news broke. A a real Aussie larrikin was dead.

Naturalist - of the hardcore daredevil category - and television personality Steve Irwin died prematurately, at the age of 44, when he was harpooned in the heart by the serrated spine of a stingray while filming a new documentary in Australia.

A Guardian feature compared him to Princess Diana, such was the public reaction to the news of Irwin's death. The impossible had happened. The man who used to wrestle with alligators for fun was gone. In an accident very rare, having encountered a species not considered dangerous unless attacked.

A controversial person, comparison between Irwin and Michael Jackson would not be amiss, at least if exposing one's own baby to danger is anything to go by. A couple of years ago Irwin was filmed feeding a crocodile, holding his baby on one hand, and chicken in the other (the intended food), the hungry creature just a meter away from him. In his defence, his own father had apparently put Irwin himself in the same position at a tender age.

But what if an accident had happened then? Surely more likely than this strange but lethal accident. Now emotional tributes, lead by the Australian prime minister John Howard.

But why such a massive reaction? Top story in Sky News and all.

Media phenomenon

CAPTIVATING TV I had seen flicks of some of his documentaries. His showmanship certainly was unique. Handling wild animals while talking big ("Sting of this creature kills a horse") and simultaneously dangling the snake in front of his face. Diving in what appeared to be alligator-infested waters. And yes, pushing his hand into a nest of a reptile, then pulling it out covered in blood. He had been bit. He walked the talk, visually. A no-nonsense Aussie who talked big but did not talk shit.

UNIQUE Fascinating telly for the more and more urban TV audience. What is that animal? It looks dangerous? Oh, he says it is dangerous, oh he is bitten. Irwin most certainly did things not many people would risk doing. It is fascinating to see people do things you would or could not do yourself.

SURPRISE You watch the series. You see the guy escape unscathed from seemingly most dangerous-looking situations, week in, week out. He becomes something of a superman. He can take anything. And then he is gone. It is disturbing. What in this world can you trust in? Especially as he died when encountering a species that has apparently only ever killed three people in the history of Australia.

CONTRAST Even the showman could not escape the occasional randomness of life. He could not control the meeting with the stingray, and it cost him dear. Something that could have happened to anyone but now it happened to seemingly invincible person.

***

In Finland, we had a TV presenter who was in his early 70s and had a gameshow for celebrities that included games such as string-jumping. He would challenge the celebrity who won the other celebs and usually won. He was seemingly fit, muscular, with lean body. Then, out of the blue, the news was out. He was playing a round of golf, got a heart attack, and died. With no apparent history of ill-health.

News like this hits your comfort zone. They are some of the few that come out of the blue, are not comparable to any other events in the mind of the person who receives the news.

Unique.

Like Daily Express and Princess Di. Still going strong.

How Communism took over Chelsea

A bit different theme tonight, worryingly serious even. The title is a bit catchy, ok, but in the perspective of 20 years there is a logical sequence that I feel entitles this bold-ish statement.

A sign that I am not quite a teen, perhaps, anymore but I still remember when the Soviet Union collapsed (no, not in 1970s, but early 1990s;). It should not be considered an excessive claim to say that those in power "adapted" to the new circumstances after the collapse pretty well. Not that they were doing so badly compared to the "normal" Homo Soviticuses.

This Wikipedia entry seems pretty much reliable description of - well - oh those were the days, comrade

• "Membership in the party ultimately became a privilege, with Communist Party members becoming an elite class or nomenklatura in Soviet society. Party members enjoyed many perquisites denied to the average Soviet citizen. Among those perks were shopping at well-stocked stores, access to foreign merchandise, preference in obtaining housing, access to dachas and holiday resorts, being allowed to travel abroad, send their children to the best universities, and obtain prestigious jobs"

Anyway, came the revolution and the much-awaited dawn of capitalism. Russia had what. Ladas (a sort of a car) were luxury in those days. But natural resources. Siberia is vast and the snow and ice act as a blanket to vast quantities of black gold. And there was some infrastructure to extract those. Who got there first?

Not Vladimir or Katjusha who had toiled the past thirty years for the common good ... no shares for them in the the collectives that turned to businesses, were sold at ridiculously low prices or simply grabbed in the ensuing chaos.

And you know what is the irony? Thanks to the Communism we have Chelsea. The exclusive authority in the Premiership football, approaching the apex of the World football. If you are a player, belong there, or do not want to succeed.

Roman Abramovich, the governor of the Chukotka region who owns Britain's Chelsea football club, rose to No. 11 with a net worth of $18.2 billion, up from $14.7 billion last year.


And Roman can enjoy the applause. Not quite like greeting the march of the world's greatest army (in the numbers the Soviet was, now China is bigger) at the Red Square. But Blue is the colour, eh, Roman - or Governator? At least Arnie lives where he rules!

Here you are, thanks to the Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), those others in the Forbes top 100.

***

Twelve of Russia's super-rich made it into the top 100 this year.

Vagit Alekperov, the chief executive of oil giant Lukoil, ranked No. 37 with $11 billion.

Steel tycoon Vladimir Lisin was No. 41 with $10.7 billion.

Viktor Vekselberg, who co-owns the Russian-British joint venture TNK-BP and the aluminum major SUAL, placed 44th with $10 billion.

Mikhail Fridman, the chairman of investment giant Alfa Group, ranked No. 50 with $9.7 billion.

Aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska was at No. 62 with $7.8 billion, and steel magnate Alexei Mordashov No. 64 with $7.6 billion.

Suleiman Kerimov, owner of Nafta Moskva investment group, debuted at No. 72 with $7.1 billion. Kerimov, whose company has bought a $2 billion stake in Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom, is one of this year's four Russian newcomers on Forbes' "super-rich list."

Norilsk Nickel key shareholders Vladimir Potanin and Mikhail Prokhorov tied for 89th, with $6.4 billion each.

Vladimir Yevtushenkov, whose holdings range from microchip companies to toy retailers, arrived at No. 93 with $6.3 billion, followed by TNK-BP CEO German Khan, with a net worth of $6.1 billion.

The only Russian woman to appear on this year's list is Yelena Baturina, the owner of a booming construction business and wife of Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov. She ranked 335th with $2.3 billion.

***

It is getting late so I will end the piece with the following anecdote from the Guardian, about Abramovich. A kind of disclaimer if he decided to sue me ... I am not sure he has been a communist at any point of time. This piece can be treated as a sort of histotainment (like edutainment) the author of which has taken some literary freedoms. But let us give the final word to the Guardian, Saturday May 8, 2004.

... "In fact, little of substance is known about Abramovich's wealth other than that he is one of 23 Russian entrepreneurs who took advantage of the privatisation of Russia's state assets in the mid-1990s. This exclusive group now controls 60% of the Russian economy, and their combined wealth amounts to £44.6bn."

Ok, sorry, could not resist ...

Source: http://www.chelsea.no/grfx/terry_trofe.jpg