Thursday 3rd July 2025
Blog Page 2040

Interview: Jennifer Pike

Harry Phillips
-
0
Interview: Jennifer Pike

Name: Jennifer Pike

Course: Music, LMH, First Year

Spare time: Professional solo violinist

I was apprehensive about our meeting. A precocious talent who, at twelve, became the youngest winner of BBC Young Musician of the Year, whose meteoric rise has seen concerts with the major British orchestras, as well as a Times Breakthrough Award, Jennifer Pike has a CV more like that of a well-heeled industry veteran than the youthful twenty-year old I was about to meet.

She seemed full of energy, having spent the weekend at home ‘just relaxing’ and, without time to dump her suitcase, had come straight to the café after a brief stop at the library for books. After tea, however, she settled down and we talked music. She talks music rather well.

The impression Jennifer gives is of someone genuinely in love with the art, but whose success was never moulded by pressure. She describes quite honestly how music ‘was always just a hobby…getting the violin out as sort of chill-out at the end of the day’. Would she say that she always wanted to be a musician? ‘I never channelled all my efforts into being a

soloist, although I always loved the idea of it for sure, and it was so natural. I always knew I wanted to become a musician, and that it would never leave me. Going in for BBC Young Musician… wasn’t like being plunged into deep water which, I think, can be the danger of those sorts of competitions.’

Pike divides her time between studying and playing in various concerts: a balancing act she describes as ‘a bit tricky’. ‘I have to be really good about writing up notes on a missed lecture. I’m really serious about Oxford.’ Yet one can’t help wondering why a person who played a solo Bach concert in the middle of the Albert Hall at fifteen has decided to come and study, rather than pursue a career that in many ways is achieving lift off.

‘I know it’s a path that not many concert musicians take. But I love university life and the learning environment…to have a grounding, a place to develop my musical boundaries whilst kind of taking more historically-informed interpretations onto the concert platform. That’s what Oxford, for me, is about: discovering all sorts of areas of music which I can’t do.’ It seems that the opportunity for exploration is paying off, having confirmed a concert in London of work by female composers, something she was inspired to do by studying such composers here.

I ask her about performing and to what extent personal interpretation comes into it. She smiles and answers intelligently. ‘The most important thing is to be a vessel for the composer’s intentions. It’s not the performer who everyone should come to see, it’s the composer’s music.’ There is a seriousness about Pike which shines through. Celebrity comes second to music. ‘The thing that’s a bit sad – or rather challenging – for women is that often people are coming just to see a brand, a performer, a dress, the whole package. It’s very difficult because, for me, the very important thing about performing should be remaining versatile, making sure that you change your style and way of playing to suit the composer.’

We talk for a while about the invasion of pop into classical music, which she calls ‘quite scary’. It turns out she was recently offered a lucrative recording contract which she rejected. I press her for details. ‘It was exciting, but it was crossover, a lot of film music – which I like – but I think they wanted Strictly Come Dancing music too; immediately the alarm bells started ringing…I’d need to go to confession afterward. That’s not what I want to be.’

Looking ahead to the future, the tour dates are already piling up, with a special BBC concert replaying her competition-winning Mendelssohn Violin Concerto, and a stint in Japan doing the same piece. (‘I do know other pieces’, she laughs.) I am struck at times by how young she still seems. For all the concerts, for all the ball gowns and garlands and recording contracts, she is still a fresher, cramming in the essays, trying to fit in.

Interview: Emily Middleton

Marta Szczerba
-
0
Interview: Emily Middleton

Name: Emily Middleton

Course: PPE, Wadham, Second Year

Spare Time: Adviser to UNICEF UK

My meeting with Emily Middleton, double winner of Foyle Young Poet of the Year Award and Youth Advisor to the board of UNICEF, started on a light note, when she enlightened me as to the benefits of reading CosmoGirl. This publication is what inspired the 14-year-old Emily to become involved with charity work. ‘I just saw a little bit about the National Children’s Bureau in CosmoGirl. It was the summer holidays and I just googled it. They have the YNCB, which is their Youth-led wing and they were looking for advisory group members so I applied and that’s where it all started, really.’

Since then, Middleton has tirelessly championed a multitude of causes through her work with National Children’s Bureau, Amnesty International UK and UNICEF. But it would be a grave mistake to treat Middleton as another enthusiastic yet ultimately naive charity worker. She does campaign and fundraise as part of student groups, but she also occupies an important position on the board of one of Britain’s leading aid organisations, fulfilling tasks as diverse as devising national strategy and scrutinising UNICEF’s accounts alongside Lord Ashdown and Sue MacGregor.

Very articulately, she draws parallels between her engagement in student charity offshoots and the work she does on a national level. ‘I suppose it’s the scale that is the major difference. I’ve been involved in the Amnesty branches in Oxford and it’s the same organisation fighting for the same broad aims, but the main difference is that whereas you’re involved in the main student charity at Oxford, doing mainly campaigning and fundraising…At a national level, you’re looking at a much bigger picture. You’re looking at how to involve students and other groups and societies. It’s a lot more strategic, you’re looking at finances overall. It’s a totally different set of skills. But it doesn’t mean that student charities are any less important, because they’re vital.’

I’m in no way surprised to find Middleton highly eloquent in conversation, considering the impressive list of accolades her other big area of interest -poetry – has won her. She gathered media attention when, in 2006, she was awarded her second Foyle prize for writing a poem from the perspective of a suicide bomber. The poem beginning, ‘Other people live in fear of gun massacres, heart attacks, car smashes, plane crashes, horrific back street slaughters. / But me? I can tell you my future: All two hours and twenty-six minutes of it.’, earned her a slot on Radio 4 alongside Gordon Ramsay and Ronnie Corbett. She admits she is not writing ‘as much as I’d like it to be’ nowadays, but she is ‘definitely going to apply to various courses and hopefully I’ll get back into it’. Middleton also wrote a short film script based on the poem which was adapted for a Wadham cuppers entry last Michaelmas.

What is most striking about Middleton, however, is her incredible humility. Speaking about her role in UNICEF, her words are heartfelt, her sentiment genuinely selfless. ‘I’m really, really honoured to be chosen for this role, it is the first time that UNICEF UK has had young people at a higher level, so I feel under a lot of pressure to make it work,’ she says. Judging by her record so far, the young could have no better representative.

How to Cook… Chilli Chocolate Mousse

Ling Low
-
0
How to Cook… Chilli Chocolate Mousse

 

Marc Kidson shows you how to make the perfect aphrodisiac dessert for your Valentine.

Recipe re-cap:

Chilli Chocolate Mousse, makes 4 servings

200g dark chocolate (at least 70% cocoa solids)
150ml double cream
Half a red chilli
5 eggs
4tsp caster sugar
A few squares of white chocolate

1. In a bain-marie (heatproof bowl over a pan of simmering water, or equivalent) melt broken dark chocolate gently, without stirring.
2. Put the double cream in a pan and add the roughly chopped chilli to infuse, bring to the boil slowly before removing.
3. Meanwhile, separate the egg whites from the egg yolks, setting aside the yolks and adding the whites to a large mixing bowl.
4. Beat the egg whites until they are beginning to turn fluffly, then add the caster sugar and continue beating until stiff peaks form.
5. Strain the cream into a bowl to remove pieces of chilli, then add the melted chocolate and stir until combined.
6. Add a spoonful of the egg whites to the chocolate-cream mixture to lighten it, stir in well.
7. Add the chocolate-cream to the egg whites in batches, folding (not stirring) it in with a metal spoon, continue until it is all combined.
8. Dish up into ramekins, coffee cups or a single bowl (depending on preference) and chill for an hour minimum.
9. Before serving garnish with grated white chocolate.

 

Palin’s Tea Party

Nick Coxon
-
0
Palin’s Tea Party

Sarah Palin has always been something of an unquantifiable entity in US politics. Partly that’s a result of her newness: I often forget that we’ve only really known of her for 18 months, since John McCain picked her as his running mate. In a short time she’s become one of the leading figures in US politics; perhaps the most important conservative in America.

In a sense, it’s no surprise she’s achieved this status. Aside from her novelty as a young, electorally-successful Republican woman, the appeal of Sarah Palin lies in her relatively ‘pure’ version of conservatism, which, in emphasising tax cuts, limited government, and social conservatism, appeals strongly to the less moderate elements of the American right. And Palin’s main narrative — that she’s an insurgent against the ‘liberal’ mainstream media and political culture — surely resonates with many who feel disenfranchised, who honestly believe the political process does not stand for them. She is not a popular candidate for nothing; people are swayed by what she is and stands for.

But Palin has made — and continues to make — significant strategic errors. We know all the old ones: the Katie Couric interview, the attack on Levi Johnson, her resignation as Alaska Governor (“I am not a quitter”). The excuse for all this was always that Palin is, as a political strategist, totally inept. A lot of candidates are, which is why they hire professional strategists. Relatively recently, Palin has. But they’re doing a pretty average job. Or rather, they’re only doing a good job within very narrow bands, and failing in all other senses.

Let me explain. First, Palin’s approach seems always to go on the attack. She’s good at that, so in some sense it’s a sensible strategy. But she’s not very good at targeting her attacks tightly enough, and it tends to make her look hyper-partisan, kneejerk, and uncontemplative — she looks and sounds like an opportunist. See this week’s latest back-and-forth: Rahm Emanuel should resign for saying “retarded”, but Rush Limbaugh should not even be criticised for saying the same thing; here Palin comes off as a cheap hack. Second, she’s undermined a key part of her appeal — her outsider status — by taking the corporate buck in the shape of a Fox News contract. This makes her less credible as an independent, insurgent force, even if Fox News is the least ‘mainstream’ of the US channels. Third — and most importantly — she’s becoming too connected to the more radical right. This hurts her not just among moderate Democrats and independents, but also among most Republicans.

Palin’s latest big strategic move is to align herself with the Tea Party movement. The movement is best described as organised anger. The Tea Partiers are, at their core, anti-tax pro-small-government protesters. But their opinions also frequently extend into the bizarre memes of right-wing extremism — my personal favourite being that the economic crisis was an event precipitated by Democrats to enable them to turn the US into a socialist paradise. These are Glenn Beck’s guys. Most Americans genuinely don’t find the movement appealing, and the many that do probably already were with Palin. Moderate Republicans think of it as the black sheep of their family, and the source of many of the party’s divisions. But this week it became pretty clear that Palin is keen to become the de facto head of the movement — she headlined their convention at the weekend, and has offered support to several tea party-supported ‘conservative party’ candidates running against moderate Republicans.

This strategy is bad for Palin, because whilst she can win the Republican primary in 2012 as the Tea Party candidate, she can’t then win the general — she’s doing a good job of hardening her base (and that’s important), but she’s doing a spectacularly bad job at reaching outside her comfort zone; this is a poor electoral strategy, because you need significantly more than the base to win.

It’s bad for Republicans, because if she puts her weight behind the Tea Party, the Republican Party will be pulled to the right in the midterms by the serious threat of conservative challenges against moderate Republicans in primaries and general elections (just as in NY-22 House race last year). This will make the party less electable in the long-term, and in the short term gives the Democrats the opportunity to play merry hell (even with their current difficulties) in the face of a divided opposition.

And it’s bad for the country. A more polarized Republican Party means a more polarized Congress. American government is inefficient right now. Compromise is near impossible at the moment, even with the presence of moderate Republican elements. Try and get anything done when those moderates are gone.

Student screams "Kill the Jews" at Israeli minister

Natalya Segrove
-
0
Student screams "Kill the Jews" at Israeli minister

An Oxford student yelled “Kill the Jews” at Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, when he spoke at the Oxford Union on Monday night.

The student was removed by security after he shouted the Arabic phrase, “IdhbaH al-Yahud”, which means “Slaughter the Jews”. The incident has been reported to the Proctors’ Office. It was also mentioned in an Israeli Embassy press release on Mr Ayalon’s speech.

There was a great deal of protest during the speech, which was disrupted on many occasions by anti-Israeli protesters criticising Israel’s recent conduct in relation to the Palestinian people.

The first interruption was only a few minutes into the speech, when a woman stood up and read from the Goldstone Report, a critical UN report on Israel’s conduct during the recent Gaza war, to a mixed reaction from the crowd – many supportive, but others’ critical. One person shouted, “I didn’t come to hear you talk.”

In reaction to the interruption, Mr Ayalon criticised the protester for just reading out someone else’s work, saying “I’m not sure she even understood what she said.”

She was soon followed by a woman from southern Lebanon who heckled Mr Ayalon and stood holding pictures throughout the rest of the talk.

Other interruptions included a man holding a Palestinian flag shouting “You are a racist,” “You are a war criminal” and “You will be tried”, to applause from much of the crowd, before being ejected.

Danny Ayalon represents Yisrael Beitenu, a nationalist party, and is a controversial figure even among supporters of Israel. Whilst his talk was frequently interrupted, he managed to convey a combination of moderate and hardline views on the subject of the Middle East in his speech, he blamed Iran for “everything bad going on in the Middle East at the moment”; and claimed that instead of meeting the Israelis halfway on the subject of peace, Israel is giving 95% and Palestine 5%.

However, he also admitted that Israel has to make some concessions to the Palestinians. Arguing that “I do feel for the Palestinians”, he said that he blames successive Palestinian leaderships for their present plight.

Meanwhile, even within the chamber the shouts of the protesters outside the Union gates could be heard. Many were shouting slogans, which ranged from “occupation no more”, to “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” in support of Palestine.

The protests were organised by PalSoc. They were joined by members of Oxford Anti-War Action group.

 

Five Minute Tute: Spotify

Professor Stuart Lee
-
0
Five Minute Tute: Spotify
1. How does Spotify work?
Spotify is a music streaming service that allows users to listen to music, and is limited (at present) to a few countries in Europe (the UK included). It works on a peer-to-peer basis (P2P). This is a network architecture which means that any ‘node’ in the network architecture (in most cases your computer) surrenders some of its resource (processor, storage, and most importantly network bandwidth) to servicing other users on the P2P network. In other words  your machine becomes a server. 
2. Why has it been banned?
This is the wrong question to ask. It should be ‘why does the University ban P2P software?’ of which Spotify is but one of many. The reasons are well-documented (see http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/oxford/rules/p2p.xml.ID=problems) but in summary the main problem with P2P software is that it may use up excessive bandwidth. So a single machine (node) running P2P software will actually be serving data to any other machine on that network (which could be anywhere in the world), and systems on networks that are perceived to have better bandwidth (e.g. like ours) are preferred in the P2P architecture. The user themselves may suddenly notice their machine begins to slow down. However, of more concern is the effect this might have on local networks, i.e. those within a college or department. Some of these are not high-capacity and uncontrolled use of P2P applications could really slow them down, to a point where academic and reasonable recreational usage suffers.
It is worthwhile noting that many students also fall foul of another issue with P2P. What they assume is that all they are doing is downloading material. What they do not realise is that they are actually also serving the material to the rest of the network. Film companies regularly watch out for this, i.e. computers serving up illegal copies of a movie, and we get a couple of letters a week which result in the users’ machines getting blocked (and usually a fine coming their way). By the way, we’re also getting letters from TV companies, software vendors, ebook providers ….
This probably isn’t an issue with Spotify though, as the material provided is legitimate, but it’s worth noting (again).
3. Why ban Spotify and not other applications with high bandwidth consumption (BBC iPlayer, 4OD)? 
Use of P2P software on the network is banned – not just Spotify. BBC iPlayer, for over a year now, has moved away from the P2P model to an http download model (which the user can control). In effect what this means is you download the programme, but you do not then serve it back out to anyone on the network. So yes, there is bandwidth consumption during the download, but it is one way. My understanding is that 4OD also works on a download model.
The exception is Skype, but we have found a way to configure that so it does not flood the network. In fact we were the first University in the UK to do this, working alongside the people at Skype.
4. Why is this ban necessary at Oxford and not other university campuses?
This is simply not true. Go to most University web sites and search under ‘P2P’ and you will see that some form of ban is in place. Warwick, for example, list 24 applications which ‘must not be used’ (though they do not mention Spotify specifically). It was also odd that your spokesperson from Newnham College in Cambridge asked ‘Why would anyone ban it?’. I suggest they read the Cambridge Computing Services guidelines illustrating the pitfalls of P2P, and maybe talk to their colleagues at Darwin College (http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/computers/conditions.shtml). 
5. What is OUCS doing to try and make it possible to use Spotify again? 
In general we are looking at P2P software to see if it can be controlled to keep traffic levels reasonable, and inhibit copyright infringement. In this specific case we hope to talk to Spotify themselves (they’ve bee

n in touch), as we did in the past with Skype (which is allowed and Oxford set the pace in devising a way to allow its use without damaging the network). If there is a way of controlling the bandwidth use by the ‘node’, or turning file sharing off, or similar, then we may get somewhere.
6. How likely is a positive outcome for Spotify users? 
Hard to tell. Most suppliers of P2P are becoming aware of the issues, and know there is a problem (especially in the domestic market where bandwidth is always tight). So they want to seek a solution as much as we do. However, the bottom line is we cannot allow the local networks to be put at risk and thus slow down the academic work of staff and students. But we recognise that the network is also for social purposes. Hopefully we can reach a solution that suits us all.

How well do you know your Big Issue seller?

Katherine Tolentino
-
0
How well do you know your Big Issue seller?

An in-depth look at who the homeless are, how they live, shelters in the city, and what you can do to help.

Review: The Wolfman

Poppy Hodgson
-
0
Review: The Wolfman

The Wolfman is yet another entry into the werewolf/sci-fi sub-genre that appears to be in vogue right now. But rather than overtly trying to attract a teenage audience in the same manner as the Twilight series, the makers of this film were looking to make a ‘classic’ horror movie. Although its plot and direction owes much to the 1941 movie of the same name, star and producer Benicio Del Toro wanted to update the original rather than simply create a frame-by-frame remake.

The story is relatively straightforward; upon hearing of his brother’s mysterious death, Laurence (Del Toro), returns to the derelict family home inhabited by his estranged father (Hopkins) and his brother’s fiancée (Blunt). Merely adding in the words, ‘werewolf’ and ‘love’ will give you the rest of the plot.
The main downfall here is Del Toro whose woodenness (I think he was trying to portray tension) fails to endear the audience to his character, and leaves you wanting the villagers to lynch him just so he might perhaps show some emotion. He is totally unconvincing as a human, especially his attempt at falling in love; it is only when he transforms that he comes into his own, these scenes, enhanced by the special effects, being one of the highlights of the film.

The supporting cast are commendable – Hopkin’s acting as ever added gravitas to the affair but still failed to add more than a little bit of interest, nonetheless his ability to work convincingly with dubious lines is impressive. Blunt, tackling a more heavyweight role than she is used to (think Devil Wears Prada) played her part well – although she seemed unconcerned about the death of her fiancé and more than happy to fall in love with his brother.

Although this is a horror film there were moments of comedy – the police inspector’s exchange with the barwomen is one of particular note and intentional unlike many of the others. Blunt’s impassioned ‘Laurence, you know me, look at me’ was particularly banal and exemplary of some of the questionable scripting, while Hopkins removing his top as a werewolf to reveal an incredibly hairy chest elicited laughter from much of the cinema.

The sets, scenery, costumes and make up were the highlight of this otherwise predictable piece of drama. Chatsworth House, used so often in films, was given a fresh lease of life through its stages of regeneration throughout the film and the admirable attempt to recreate Victorian London should be lauded. Special credit should go to Rick Baker, the creature effects designer, who managed to pull off an incredibly hard job in making the transformation credible and the attention to detail, such as the intricacy of the feet and hands, was superb.

The problem is that this is a remake of a classic, so it’s nothing we haven’t seen before. Although new special effects have been utilized beautifully in the transformation scenes, at the end of the day the Wolfman still looks like an oversized Yeti. It fulfills all the clichés: misty moors, stately homes, ‘backward’ villagers, estranged sons, family secrets, copious amounts of blood and lots of howling. Yet it feels tired and even sparkling performances from Hopkins and Blunt and the remarkable scenery fail to light up an incredibly average film.

2 stars

Online review: Invictus

Benjamin Kirby
-
0
Online review: Invictus

When asked which actor he would have portray him in a film of his life, Nelson Mandela didn’t hesitate to nominate Morgan Freeman, who, in turn, has been struggling for years to bring the former South African President to the silver screen. With Invictus, based on John Carlin’s book Playing the Enemy, Freeman’s role of a lifetime has finally arrived, and he gives it his all. Although it occasionally feels like an amalgamation of his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Deep Impact as a prisoner and president respectively, Freeman is by no means weak – on the contrary, his subsequent Oscar nod is well earned, with an admirably nuanced performance that skilfully captures the great man onscreen. As such, it’s a great shame to see Freeman so badly let down by a mawkishly sentimental and reductive slice of thinly concealed Oscar bait.

It starts promisingly enough: reconstructed news footage shows Mandela/Freeman being freed from prison and soon being elected as President, while his assistant (a convincing Adjoa Andoh) warns him of the urgent problems facing South Africa, including a crippled economy, poor healthcare and seething racial tensions. A more political filmmaker such as Oliver Stone may have leapt at the chance to draw out contemporary parallels with Obama, but instead the filmmakers chose a simpler and supposedly inoffensive route by concentrating on the 1995 South Africa Rugby World Cup. However, in doing so the film might manage to sidestep political controversy, but it is also resoundingly successful in offending the intelligence of its audience. Mandela effectively abandons all other presidential commitments in order to oversee victory for the Springboks – a team representative of apartheid – with the hope of easing the racial tensions threatening to engulf the country. Even without knowing the outcome of the World Cup, one can quite easily map out the film’s narrative trajectory – if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the film.

The execution of the film is not at fault here. Clint Eastwood has evolved into one of the most consistent and hardworking directors in Hollywood, and at 79 he shows no signs of slowing down. His direction here is confident and at times impressive, no more so than in the climactic Springbok/All Blacks showdown. Alongside this, Matt Damon provides quietly effective support as the Springbok captain, François Pienaar, as he neatly sidesteps the trap previously fallen into by Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond by producing a surprisingly convincing South African accent. Perhaps more importantly, Damon’s in fully-fledged beefcake mode here, bouncing back from his gut-heavy performance in Soderbergh’s The Informant! to show off a newly acquired rugby player physique. Unfortunately, his less impressive stature provides the film with some unintentional laughs, as, at 5’ 10’’, Damon is constantly dwarfed by his more authentic onscreen teammates.

However, despite the convincing performances and Eastwood’s sure-handed direction, the film’s painfully inept plot greatly overshadows the brief flashes of excellence. Within half an hour, its central message – rugby cures racism – is made clear, and the script then proceeds to crudely beat the audience over the head with this simplistic and sentimental mantra for a further hour and a half – most noticeable in the painful employment of a song entitled “Colourblind” prior to the climactic match. The moral complexities and sheer narrative subtlety that defined Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood’s previous collaborations (Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven – still Eastwood’s unsurpassed masterpiece) are entirely absent here, replaced instead with a clumsy feel-good conclusion courtesy of Anthony Peckham’s otherwise unremarkable script. The film casually concludes that racism was ended in South Africa on 24 June 1995, and offers no hint of the country’s future political and racial difficulties, let alone any criticism of Mandela himself. The skill with which this film was made and the talent of those who made it only serve to make its shortcomings all the more noticeable and frustrating. The quality of Freeman’s performance is wasted on a poor script, while Eastwood has shown elsewhere that he is a far more able and intelligent director than Invictus would have you believe.

 

2 stars

Chelsea’s other scandal

Ralph Turner
-
0
Chelsea’s other scandal

The press attention given to the John Terry affair over the last week has buried another story involving Chelsea which could potentially have much more damaging implications than unrest in the England dressing room. On Thursday the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) lifted the transfer ban imposed on the Blues following their signing of French teenager Gael Kakuta from FC Lens. The sensational ban, barring Chelsea from buying players until 2011 and imposing hefty financial burdens, was handed down by FIFA in September last year after it was claimed that Kakuta was induced to break his contract with the French club.

The CAS decision stated that “the two clubs and the player have recognised the contract between the player and Lens was not valid.” It is noticeable that the decision does not state whether Chelsea were in the wrong, just that the two clubs came to an agreement and the case was dropped. The case remains suspicious when you compare the difference in the statements made by the clubs during the crisis. Lens President Gervais Martel said when the ban was given, “the player was under contract with us and they came and stole him away from us. Chelsea didn’t follow the rules.” The official club statement after Thursday’s decision was that Lens were “financially and technically” happy with the agreement. This represents a significant change of heart. If, as is claimed, Lens now agree the contract was not valid why did they appeal in the first place? And why did FIFA impose the original ban?

A transfer ban is a very effective way of punishing wealthy clubs which can easily cover the cost of fines. Chelsea were previously fined £300,000 for illegally ‘tapping up’ Ashley Cole in 2005, but the fine made little significant impact on billionaire owner Roman Abramovich. This transfer ban potentially represented a precedent for football’s governing bodies standing up to the abuses of the rules by wealthy clubs. The dropping of the case with no explanation of why Lens and FIFA initially felt it was valid is worrying. The £130,000 paid in compensation to Lens as “an act of good faith”, according to Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck, suggests that money has definitely talked. If this is the case then it is disturbing for the poorer clubs, and will surely have greater consequences for the game than the break down of John Terry and Wayne Bridge’s friendship.  

1...2,0392,0402,041...2,515Page 2,040 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley