Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Blog Page 264

Exclusive report! The fashion trends to rock 2022

0

When Madi, Iustina and I introduced ourselves on the now-rebooted Cherwell fashion Instagram (@cherwellfashion – give us a cheeky follow), we each answered the question of what we would like to see left in 2021. All three of us reached the same conclusion: death to y2k fashion. Cheap pink rhinestones, Juicy Couture, low rises and high hems, and plastic beaded jewellery – don’t get me wrong, I lived for this for a while but I am more than done now. I no longer feel like a hot character in Mean Girls when my pants stick out of my trousers and though I still love my belly button piercing, it doesn’t crave the attention it once did. Vogue may disagree with us (I heard Cherwell’s the new Vogue, no?) but we’re agreed that Y2K and its Urban Outfitters manifestations are going out the door, what will we replace them with? What has fashion got in store for us in 2022? Don’t take my word for it but these are my trend predictions for 2022.

Balaclavas

Less of a prediction and more of a comment about recent developments but I am loving the current balaclava reboot. I can’t go on Instagram anymore without having someone teach me how to knit or crochet one. I took the lazy/cheapskate approach and sewed one out of leftover fleece from other sewing projects and I have to say they are very practical – my neck is always warm and I am never in danger of losing my hat because it’s basically attached to me.

Asymmetry

One-shoulder garments are here to stay, no question, but I also want to see more asymmetry in other aspects. On the average night out I lose about 3.4 earrings so my vast collection is almost entirely pair-less. I love matching different dangly earrings (I have a big shell one that I tend to wear with almost anything).

Eighties round 2

We’ve already had an eighties reboot in the past couple years but it’s time for it to come back around in a new guise. I’m talking big bulky-shouldered blazers, skin-tight leggings, sheer dresses, sequins, and, instead of the belt-length minis Vogue’s been raving about, PUFFBALL SKIRTS! I want geeky, over-dressed, over-patterned and gaudy colours. I do not want eighties tamed down – acid wash jeans and baggy cropped sweatshirts. I want foiled metallics and original punk scene grunge. I want my frizzy mop to be fashionable and so desirable people get perms to achieve the look. I’ll even take big chunky pearls as a replacement of childhood plastic.

Layering

The aforementioned eighties style is perfectly enacted with lots of layering (not the mini skirt over jeans early 2000s kind). If a blazer feels to informal for every day, try wearing it in place of a fleece or jacket. I like wearing a hoodie under my blazers to tone it down a bit for my trips to Common Ground (aka the daily fashion show). Sheer items can be made more accessible with tops under or over them.

Uggs?

I wasn’t aware of this resurgence until I got three reels on Instagram in a row of people styling Uggs (I promise Instagram isn’t my only source of trend wisdom) but I am personally ambivalent. Comfort is a big pro with this one but they feel quite Y2K to me and I’ve made my opinions on that matter quite clear. I just hope that if they come back with a bang it comes with sustainability and ethical production.

Very Peri

Pantone’s colour of the year for 2022 is Very Peri, a beautiful purpley-periwinkle shade which I am all for. I also want to see emerald greens, sunshine yellows, and I’m disappointed by the insistence of every recent trend report that head-to-toe white looks will be all the rage. I want colour clashes and chaos.

Make-up – all things bright and beautiful

I recently purchased a wet liner palette from Glisten Cosmetics after, you guessed it, discovering them on Instagram and I am in love. I am no make-up guru but I have been loving waking up in the morning, picking a colour and scribbling all over my eyes like (not so) grown-up face paint. I also bought some luminous green and turquoise mascaras to top it all off. I’m bored of the sophisticated black smudgy liners – bring back colour!

My housemates’ predictions

I was sat in my room with my housemates while writing this article so I thought I’d share their non-fashion-editor wisdom with you all. Ben got an Oodie covered in sloths for Christmas and is sure they’ll be all the rage soon; I’m all for it, comfort and sophistication in one, and thoroughly encourage his decision to wear it on his evening walks around Oxford (see if you can spot him). I personally have been wearing my fleece lined Christmas Crocs everywhere without shame. Nick enquires when we will be returning to office wear. I mentioned that most offices nowadays don’t require a suit and tie. He wants to work somewhere that does. Luke anticipates technical wear making a big come back and I couldn’t agree more. Though his desire for hazmat suits to become a daily look might be a stretch, I wouldn’t complain if the boiler suit revival kept growing from strength to strength. If I were to buy one item right now? A Lucy and Yak boiler suit – in the brightest colour they have.

Image Credit: Sharon McCutcheon via Unsplash

The rise, fall, and ambiguous resurgence of Lin-Manuel Miranda

Even if you’ve never heard of Lin-Manuel Miranda, you’ve likely heard of at least one of his works: In the Heights, Bring it On: The Musical, Hamilton, or the soundtracks to Moana and Encanto.

Miranda is undoubtedly a talented creative force, juggling the roles of actor, singer, songwriter, and playwright all at once for certain productions. He was the recipient of several major awards, including a Pulitzer Prize, two Laurence Olivier Awards, three Tony Awards, three Grammy Awards, and two Primetime Emmy Awards, just to name a few.

Until somewhat recently—Miranda’s name seemed to carry a magnetic aura. He was even credited with reviving the interest of the historical Alexander Hamilton himself, saving the US founding father from being removed from the $10 bill. The musical quickly became a pop culture phenomenon that was nominated for a record 16 Tony Awards thanks to its energetic spirit and catchy music. One of the other reasons it became so popular was because it had a diverse cast that, in Miranda’s words, “looks like America now,” and allowed the audience to get drawn into the story and “leave whatever cultural baggage you have about the Founding Fathers at the door.”

In the summer of 2020, after the murder of George Floyd and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, the American public began to become more critical of racial issues and representation in the media. Books by Black authors or ones about racial injustice soon became bestsellers and appeared on “must-read” lists.  

Hamilton, using a mostly POC cast (with the exception of King George III)soon received some very valid criticism. Fans of Miranda questioned why a Black, Jewish man (Daveed Diggs) was playing Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong slave owner. Similar questions can be asked about the other BIPOC cast members playing—and aggrandizing—morally reprehensible, problematic historical figures who upheld systemic racism in the United States. Miranda probably had good intentions; to create a colour-conscious cast and try to diversify Broadway by employing some of the best, upcoming BIPOC actors in theatre. However, his intentions fall short because it honestly glosses over the fact many of these characters bursting into rap and song were actually slave-owners. 

Jefferson is the only character that is really criticized for owning slaves. This happens in the second song of Act II, in “Cabinet Battle #1.” The “battle” begins when George Washington explains the following issue before the cabinet: Hamilton proposed to establish a national bank. Jefferson is not a fan of this idea, to say the least, and rails off about how it’s a bad idea. Hamilton responds, in rap battle fashion, “A civics lesson from a slaver… / Your debts are paid cuz you don’t pay for labor / “We plant seeds in the South. We create.”…/ We know who’s really doing the planting.” 

Just by reading these lyrics, it does feel like a real criticism of Jefferson, but the music and performance of the actors say otherwise. As Hamilton raps them out, the other members of the cabinet respond by putting their hands over their mouths, letting out audible gasps. Hamilton’s deride ends with him telling Jefferson to “bend over” so he can show him “where his shoe fits,” then he does a little bunny hop dance. It feels more like Jefferson has been humiliated rather than criticized. Ultimately, the song is tone-deaf. 

In one of the last songs of the first act, “Yorktown,” Washington has just promoted Hamilton to a command position in the Continental Army. Hamilton meets with Lafayette, and they discuss the ongoing Battle of Yorktown, which took place in 1781. As the battle begins, Hamilton muses on the locations of his friends. He notes that John Laurens is in South Carolina, leading a company of Black troops to battle. Hamilton and Laurens suddenly interject, “We’ll never be free until we end slavery!” This along with the other reoccurring standalone quotes throughout the musical, like “immigrants, we get the job done,” fulfills a romanticized version of America—an America that overcomes systemic prejudice and promises the American Dream to all.  

Most of the historical figures in the musical owned slaves, even Hamilton himself. Near the beginning of the musical Hamilton attends the Winter Ball, where he meets the Schuyler sisters–Angelica, Eliza, and Peggy. Hamilton almost immediately falls in love with Eliza and somehow, with his miraculous charisma, Hamilton manages to marry her. Hamilton is considered “out of Eliza’s league” because she comes from an incredibly wealthy family. How did her family get so wealthy? Well, her father, Philip Schuyler, owned a large estate in Saratoga, New York, which was comprised of tens of thousands of acres. As his incredible wealth and property suggest, he did indeed own many slaves.

Historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Annette Gordon-Reed wrote that Hamilton was neither an abolitionist nor was he pro-immigration. She praised the diversity of the cast, but at the same time felt Miranda may have unintentionally “submerged” a serious discussion on slavery by doing so. She considers herself a fan of the show but criticized its glimmering portrayals of the Founding Fathers.

The criticism of Hamilton was far-reaching. In 2019, American writer Ishmael Reed released a play that critiqued Hamilton through a fictionalized version of Miranda. In a Christmas Carol fashion, the ghosts of marginalized people and historical figures visit Miranda to communicate the whitewashing of Hamilton. At the end of the play, Miranda is commissioned to write a play about Christopher Columbus, which he ultimately refuses to write. Reed is the recipient of the 1998 MacArthur Fellowship – often called the “genius grant” – as well as the 1975 Guggenheim Fellowship for Creative Arts, a two-time National Book Award nominee, and a Pulitzer Prize nominee. His works are best known for challenging literary tradition and American political culture.

Hamilton isn’t the only one of Miranda’s works to fall short. In the summer of 2021, he produced a film adaption of his musical In the Heights. For context, In the Heights is about the predominantly Dominican Washington Heights neighborhood of Upper Manhattan in New York City. A sympathetic bodega owner named Usnavi saves up to live a better life, while the supporting cast members try to nurture their own dreams. 

The musical and its subsequent film adaption tackle tough topics such as American immigration policy, the rights of undocumented immigrants, microaggressions, and the gentrification of Manhattan. While the film had a slight underperformance at the box office, it holds a generally high rating from critics. 

However, the film did receive some backlash, especially from the Afro-Latino community due to its lack of dark-skinned characters. Concepción de León, a travel writer for the New York Times, said in an interview that “at least 90 percent of Dominicans are of African descent, according to a recent population survey.” She felt that Miranda and the directors of the film should have hired more Black Latino actors to “reflect the truth of the neighborhood.”

For a movie that tries to portray this demographic, an unknowing audience member may leave the theatre thinking that the community is mostly light-skinned, even though that is not the case. The New York Times wrote that the neighbourhood is “predominantly Afro-Dominican.”

Miranda did respond to this backlash, recognizing he made a mistake. He tweeted, shortly after the film’s release, that he could “hear the hurt and frustration over colorism…In trying to paint a mosaic of this community, we fell short.” He apologized and promised to improve on this in his future projects.

Some responses accepted his apology, arguing that it was impossible to represent a whole group in a film in the first place. However, many responses to Miranda’s apology tweet were still critical, for good reason. One Twitter user commented in response: “I hope you are moving beyond listening into some soul searching.  You have literally gone to the bank profiting from Black hip-hop culture, portraying a white man who claimed abolition but bought and sold enslaved Africans on the side. This was not an accident or unfortunate omission.”

As a result of these criticisms, many have concluded the film was a product of colourism, which de León noted was a major issue within the Latino community. As a Black Latina herself, she recalled that her complexion has always been a topic of conversation, even within her own family. She concluded that it was perfectly still acceptable to enjoy the film, despite these issues, but the audience should be aware that many of the film’s cultural elements could not be “divorced” from Black Latinos.

Near the end of 2021, Disney released a 3D animated musical film called Encanto. The story is about the Madrigal family, led by a matriarch whose immediate relatives receive magical gifts and powers from “the miracle” that enable them to provide for their rural Colombian community. Mirabel Madrigal, the protagonist, is the only child who does not receive a gift. This was foretold by Bruno, the “black sheep” of the family who is practically outcasted as a result of his powers of precognition. 

The soundtrack, composed by Miranda, has received wide acclaim, to the point where it’s almost inescapable. TikTok trends have helped the soundtrack get to this place, as the social media platform is overrun by trends accompanying the music and characters. The most popular track, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno,” has set a record for becoming Billboard’s highest-charting Disney song in 26 years, surpassing Frozen’s “Let It Go,” and currently tying with “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” from The Lion King, and Vanessa Williams’ “Colors of the Wind” from Pocahontas

The film has been praised for the way it handled toxic family relationships, the inclusion of a multi-generational household, and its diverse cast of characters. As far as I know, Miranda’s only contribution to the musical was its soundtrack, and he did not have any influence on its characters or plot. Unlike Miranda’s previous works, though, Encanto features Latino characters of all different skin colours.

Miranda did note in an interview with Moviefone TV that he was involved in the movie from its conception, and that allowed him to “contribute more through the musical storytelling.” Even though Miranda probably did not have a direct influence on the choices that made the animated movie as diverse as it was, his songs did help communicate the theme of generational trauma.

The release of Encanto also seems to have slowed down the previous criticisms of Miranda’s other works. Miranda typically plays the leading roles in his plays, as he played Usnavi in stage version of In the Heights and Alexander Hamilton in Hamilton. Some see this as a form of conceit. This is the case especially in Hamilton, where every female character is attracted by Hamilton. I would argue the case is a little less weird in In the Heights, but it is important to note that Usnavi is greatly admired and loved by everyone in the Washington Heights community. 

To the surprise of many, Miranda does not play a role in Encanto. It has kind of become a bona fide meme that Miranda secretly wanted to cast himself as Bruno because he’s the only older male character who raps in the film. People have humourously imagined Miranda being held back by Disney members while the cast of Encanto records their songs. One TikTok user has even recorded several covers of Encanto songs, playing every character in his uncannily accurate Miranda impression.

The case of Lin-Manuel Miranda is a strange one. He seems to have fulfilled one of the themes in Hamilton, which is that of legacy. What exactly is Miranda’s legacy now?

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

Fifty shades of ‘meh’: Our night at Kinks and Liberty

Becoming student journalists has landed us on the blacklist for every secret rave in town and we’ve been desperate for a good night out under the radar. So when we received a message from the President of Oxford’s Hayek Society, a libertarian political club, telling us about an upcoming secret party titled ‘Kinks and Liberty’, we can’t say we weren’t genuinely excited. A few days later, however, we discovered a public Facebook event describing the night as a black tie charity fundraiser event but maintaining there would be an “afterparty at a secret location”. Not quite so secret anymore, but good enough, we thought. We decided to fork out a tenner, and put on our best formal wear for an evening of libertinism with the libertarians. All in the name of investigative journalism. 

In the queue to the event, we discover just how vague the ‘sexy black tie’ dress code really was: some are playing it safe with a shirtless tuxedo, others are spicing up their outfits with Anne Summers handcuffs that are somehow so clearly identifiable as a last-minute buy. One guy turns up in full hunting uniform and face paint. Jill shakes hands with an American gentleman who will introduce himself to her with his firm grip just about as many times as we turn to each other and utter the phrase “what the fuck”. Standing there, eyeing up our new ‘friends’ for the evening, we realise that we, in fact, have formed this so-called “queue” and that our fellow attendees might just be as clueless as us. 

The venue itself sets a somewhat sterile atmosphere that we find hard to put into words. That’s until we overhear someone telling their friend it looks “like a hospital waiting room”. That’s it – the white LED ceiling lights, the linoleum floor, the generic flower paintings on the walls – it really feels more like you’re about to be told grandpa isn’t going to make it than descend into the depths of sexual debauchery (that’s enough – Ed). The display is no less bizarre: two extra large boxes of Ferrero Rocher, plastic flutes, Prosecco and an arbitrary assortment of spirits ranging from branded vodka to some unidentifiable brown liquid that would remain unopened for the entire night.

The crowd includes some familiar faces – B-list Union hacks, at least two former OUCA presidents and the all-male committee of the Oxford Hayek Society – but we also find a large group of Worcester freshers and some rather discombobulated looking Balliol second-years. We mingle, attempting at first to conceal our motives for being there and branding ourselves as equally curious commoners, but Jill is soon outed as “someone who does something at Cherwell”. 

A common conversation starter is “so, what brought you here?”. At least half of the attendees we ask were personally invited by the President of the Society. The other half found the event through Facebook. We discover that the organisers have run paid-for Facebook ads in the week leading up to the event, which raises another question: who is paying for this? The event description mentioned a £10 entrance fee, but nobody is charged. The night was pitched to College as a charity fundraiser for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right-wing think tank which advocates positions including anti-climate regulation, and the abolition of the NHS. Thankfully, they receive funding from British American Tobacco, so the lack of funds raised tonight is unlikely to make a big dent in their accounts. 

The event description also made a big deal out of cell phones being banned from the event. Failure to comply would “result in immediate ejection from the event”. This is neither checked nor enforced. 

David walks up to a Union hack he recognises from a video shoot last week. “I think we’ve met?” “I meet a lot of people.” Fair enough. Another hack introduces himself indifferently to Jill. “She’s the Cherwell editor”, someone pipes in. “What did you say your name was?” A second handshake is offered. 

Suddenly, the lights go out. Is this where the real party starts? Is the Pontigny Room about to turn into a darkroom for everyone to live out their wildest sexual fantasies? Some attendees (admittedly, ourselves included) are hopeful – until, after a few seconds, the room is illuminated with disco lights. Some people form a circle and play limbo with a leash attached to a guy’s collar. This feels quite symbolic in relation to our impression about the night so far. Then someone starts turning the lights on for fear of the Junior Dean, and writes the name of the so-called ‘charity’ on the whiteboard in the hopes it might deflect from the fact that nobody paid anything.

We decide to mingle some more. One guy acts surprised when Jill tells him she’s Irish. A group of people tries to convince us they are committee members of the infamous Piers Gaveston (‘Piers Gav’) Society: “Yeah, I was at the last Piers Gav event and it was a chill time, just good vibes, you know.” Somehow, that’s the only thing anyone at this event could’ve done to convince us they’re not a member. 

We go outside to eavesdrop on the conversations in the smoking area. Using cigarettes as friendship bracelets, Jill is let in on the recent sexual antics of a certain fresher who “just might show up tonight” and create a “right scene”. There, a Hayek Society committee member tells us that “these drinks are just the warm up”. Of course, how could we have forgotten about the secret afterparty! The committee member boasts that the President has paid for taxis for everyone to the location of the party. We’re intrigued. Soon after, more people are led outside, but there are no taxis to be seen anywhere. So we start walking – nothing makes you feel like you’re in Oxford more than a group of mildly inebriated black tie dressed students dashing across High Street, narrowly escaping being struck down by the Brookes bus. 

We stop at the Sainsbury’s outside the train station: “no alcohol, no entry”, we’re told by the President. What happened to the Hayek Society’s earlier generosity? We buy a bottle of Gordon’s Gin, hoping that OSPL might reimburse us (they didn’t). Suddenly, the taxis arrive. But we’re told that we’re only four minutes away from the secret location, so we decide to walk it. The secret location turns out to be… the Student Castle Common Room. Was the plan to sit here, stylish and modern that this fine piece of real estate is, and just drink? There are people around us having dinner and watching a football match. It seems like it. Other attendees, whose confusion has turned into frustration, are leaving. We sit down on some bean bags and debrief one of our fellow editors, who had high hopes of plugging Cherwell’s financial holes by selling this story to the Daily Mail (I said that’s enough – Ed).

We decide that the benefits of leaving and continuing our respective nights in Plush and Bully outweigh the costs of sitting awkwardly in black tie next to a group of grad students who were even more confused by our arrival than we are by their presence.

Did the night live up to our expectations? To be honest, we don’t even know what our expectations were. Did we get a night of (mostly) free booze on the Hayek Society’s dime? For sure. Is the Institute of Economic Affairs really funded by British American Tobacco? They are. Look it up. And if you are a Piers Gav committee member, please take us off the blacklist.

Correction 23/01/2022: The journalists have very poor taste in alcoholic beverages and failed to identify the white bubbles not as Prosecco but Lanson champagne costing £38.50 per bottle.

Image Credit: DANNY G via unsplash

SU stages demonstration against Nationality and Borders Bill

0

The Oxford SU organised a protest against the proposed Nationality and Borders Bill this past Sunday.

The group gathered around the steps of the Clarendon building that afternoon. A mix of student and outside organisations attended the event, including representatives from various local unions, student societies and Oxford chapters of Amnesty International and Solidaritee. 

There were around sixty protestors in attendance, with many passers-by stopping to listen as well. 

Some groups came to the protest with broader aims than just the bill in question, calling for a united, working-class response to all of the current government’s potentially harmful policies, but the core grievance remained the immigration bill in question. According to the SU’s website, this act, if passed, could endanger asylum seekers, revoke British citizenship without notifying the affected parties and, through the creation of a temporary protection status, “restrict the refugee students’ access to higher education”. 

Anvee Bhutani, president of the SU, highlights this last consequence as one of the catalysts for starting the demonstration. She underscores that education is key to integrating and advancing in society and students’ rights are often overlooked.

Multiple speakers spoke about their personal experiences moving to the country or as children of immigrants. One student who had become a naturalised British citizen said that he has always been wary of his status in the UK, but now genuinely fears that his citizenship may be revoked. 

There was a heavy focus on hearing from such students and emphasising that countless more cannot speak in public out of fear of this very bill. 

Even so, Kemi Agunbiade, VP Women, insists that “it shouldn’t have to be about us for us to care”. Students and groups with no immediate connection to immigration and refugee rights insisted on the negative outcomes of this bill and how it affects society at large. 

Philip Hutchinson, a member of the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, spoke of an impending mass migration due to climate catastrophe and stressed the United Kingdom’s obligation to welcome and support refugees during this time of particularly high need for refugees. He urged students to resist the bill, which contradicts international law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, and to “not let the government tarnish the reputation of our nation”.

With the Nationality and Borders Bill at a late stage in the legislative process, there were mixed emotions present at the demonstration. Some believed it to be a done deal, with little resistance possible besides disregarding the law once in place and future action against the Tory government. Others, especially the SU organisers, kept up a general display of optimism, urging everyone to “keep fighting” and reiterating their support for immigrants, refugees and all people of colour in Britain.

Moving forward, the SU encourages students with concerns about the bill to come forward in order to allow the organisation to better represent their issues. In the meantime, they have compiled a list of online resources that will be available on their website, including letter-writing templates to send to their representatives in the House of Lords.

Image: Meghana Geetha

Highly prized Austen collection donated to the Bodleian

0

A highly-prized collection of manuscripts including some written by Jane Austen has been donated to the Bodleian Library and Jane Austen’s House following a UK-wide campaign to purchase it.

The Honresfield Library includes valuable first editions of Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. Friends of the National Library, a literary charity which aims to preserve “the nation’s written and printed heritage” led the campaign to purchase the collection in partnership with a group of research libraries and authors’ estates. 

The collection includes two significant personal letters written to Austen’s sister Cassandra which “offer fascinating glimpses into Austen’s personal and creative life.” In the first letter, she tells Cassandra that she will “flirt her last” with a young Irish lawyer. The second, written almost 20 years later, details her pride at the reception of Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility.

It also includes manuscripts by the Brontës, Rabbie Burns, and Sir Walter Scott. Richard Ovenden, the head of the Bodleian Libraries said: “I am delighted to have been able to play a role in such an important literary acquisition – one that will secure literary treasures by some of the greatest writers from these islands for future generations.”

He continued: “We offer huge thanks to Friends of the National Libraries for the donation. Jane Austen is a literary marvel, beloved by her devoted readers all over the world and we are honoured to have prized items of such a unique, personal nature, to add to our wonderful Austen holdings at the Bodleian Libraries.”

The consortium, which included the Bodleian and Jane Austen’s house, ran a public campaign to generate funding to preserve the collection from being scattered through private auction sales. It raised over £15m, with donors including Sir Leonard Blavatnik, who contributed £7.5m. The collection will be known as the Blavatnik Honresfield Library.

Other donations included £4m from the National Heritage Memorial Fund. This represents the largest sum the Fund has contributed towards an acquisition of literary manuscripts since its foundation in 1980. The TS Eliot Foundation and the British Libraries Collections Trust also contributed.

The director of Jane Austen’s House Lizzie Dunford said: “It has been a privilege for Jane Austen’s House to be a part of this truly ground-breaking campaign, spearheaded by inspirational individuals, to save these extraordinary literary treasures for the nation.”

I’m a student… get me out of here!

0

It is a thought that fills me with me with apprehension. A feeling so confusing that even my stomach does not understand whether to activate a gruelling, sickening feeling or to launch forth a flock of intestinal butterflies. No – it is not the thought of giving a presentation for my tutor (which I should be writing now) that instils this sense of interminable dread. Rather, it is the thought of leaving the educational establishment which I have been a member of for so long.  Many students have been part of structural education systems so long that we have become part of its foundations. Without a gap year, my peers and I were similarly forklifted from school to university where we transformed from forming part of faceless school buildings to Oxford’s hard, stone walls.

From infancy, we have been whisked into institutionalised education and channelled through curriculums often so dull I surprise myself that I made it to key-stage one million. With our creativity quashed, unless expressed in regimented (yet chaotic) primary school art lessons, and independence extinguished, we are the product of the establishment after up to 14 years of gradual moulding. E.M. Forster said “Spoon feeding in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon”, an apt comment on educational rigmarole which advocates for standardised testing which evaluates students based on their academic ability in ignorance of their other assets. Whilst this system may work for some, for others such academic structure is fundamentally flawed.

So, with such an unhappy account of the structures which form us, why am I still trapped in the four walls of my university bedroom, rather than training as a yoga instructor in Northern India? There can only be one reason: the structures I detest so much are in fact my lifeblood. Though these four walls bring academic rigour and a strong sense to conform they give us security, unity, a place of community. This is the crux of it – however much I complain, I rarely acknowledge the extreme privilege I have been granted even accessing such educational structures. It may be a case of Stockholm syndrome, having been passed between institutions throughout our childhoods, but I believe it is the inner workings of establishments which make me love them dearly. My friends are in the room downstairs, rather than spread across vast swathes of cities. We can eat pre-made food whenever we please at a small fee, rather than trek to Tesco in a desperate attempt to renourish ourselves. We can seek support from ready advisors whether that peers or the  institution itself, rather than struggle in vain against the unknown alone. 

Educational institutions have their flaws. They do not support everyone who seeks their help – demonstrated by student suicides and overwhelmed welfare services at British universities. It is imperative that institutions (looking at you, Oxford University) increase their capacity to support their students through high pressure environments. It seems structures are not marmite – I feel neither love nor hatred towards these institutions. Sentimental though it is, I do feel a peculiar sense of attachment to the routine and security they bring.

Image credit: DariuszSankowski//Pixabay

Discovery or Rediscovery?

0

One of the films expected to win big during the approaching awards season is The Lost Daughter, the first film from actor-turned-director Maggie Gyllenhaal. Greeting Netflix on the final day of 2021, it seems aptly placed at the beginning of the new year, considering how central the fact of this being Gyllenhaal’s directorial debut has been to the critical discussion around it. A profile in The Observer by Wendy Ide specifically explored her transition from ‘difficult’ acting roles to ‘lauded Hollywood director’. Critics are suckers for feature debuts, perhaps attracted to the energy that is created when a new voice seems to shake up the status-quo. In fact, the BAFTA, Grammy and Forward Poetry awards all award artistic debuts in isolation. There is a euphoric wonder spun when artists like Billie Eillish and Dua Lipa emerge with albums so assured and confident that they immediately dominate over experienced, veteran creatives, or when debut works with less than universal acclaim are celebrated by the niche who wish to state, ‘I liked them before they became cool’. The artistic debut has always acted as a magnet, in the sense that critics seem to take pleasure from attempting to be the first to celebrate new voices in the field.

In the literary world, one of the most assured debuts of recent years has to be Sally Rooney’s Conversations with Friends. This is perhaps partly due to the fact that it didn’t read like a debut at all. Yes, her voice seemed refreshingly new in perspective and tone, exploring the life of a generation only beginning to be written about. But Rooney’s style is so assured and confident, her characters so audaciously complex, varying on the brink of being unlikeable, that it seems you are reading a much more experienced novelist. As Zadie Smith reflects, “I love debuts where you just can’t believe that it was a debut,” – a fitting statement from an author whose own arrival with White Teeth in 2000 grappled with 150 years of history, whilst exploring themes of family, cultural alienation and religious isolation, a set up that would scare even the most accomplished writer.  Both these authors have since become such a part of the cultural landscape so that it seems odd to think they haven’t always been with us. Rooney’s second book, Normal People, seemed to look in the face of that ‘difficult second album’ mantra and ask the publisher to hold its beer.

Yet, whilst magnets attract, they also repel. Debuts often create an uncomfortable alienation in audiences, where arriving to break down the status quo causes more enemies than admirers. The Daily Mail called Sarah Kane’s play Blasted ‘a disgusting feast of filth’ in 1995. It is now one of the most celebrated artistic debuts in theatre, forcing respected critics like Michael Billington to apologise for being ‘rudely dismissive’ of the play. Here, the debut provided critics with a unique angle of attack, where the Sunday Times snarked that Kane ‘has a lot to learn’; as if believing you can write a play is in some way arrogantly overconfident. To Kane, the notoriety to her arrival as a playwright was as much a springboard as a burden, first performing her fourth play Crave under the pseudonym Marie Kelevdon to distance herself from the notoriety surrounding her work. Throughout the entirety of her all too short career, she struggled to break away from the reputation Blasted had forced onto her.

Moreover, the seeming glorification of the debut seems alien to the actual physical act of artistic creation. Prior to every first film, most directors will have completed countless shorts, most writers countless rejected novels, every musician abandoned songs. The debut is only the first moment the world itself is made aware of the artist, the first time that widespread judgement is invited. It is far more like the arrival of Daphne to the London social scene in the first episode of Bridgerton than a birth of artistic endeavour. The debut lies in the presentation, not in the creation.

In fact, for Gyllenhaal, The Lost Daughter is not a debut but a new beginning, since her experience as an actor is surely long-term work experience for directing. The film is best released at the turn of the year to poetically foreground this fact, a theme frequently found within the film itself as character’s strive for reinvention. Similarly, Kane found a stylistic new beginning in Crave. As such, the new year is a time not of launching something new but of resetting and reconsidering; you can only build on what you have done previously. Like the new year, each new work is a second chance to affect your audience, cast out old themes that seem more stale than exciting. It seems no surprise that Sally Rooney has chosen to focus her latest book, Beautiful World, Where Are You?, on the problems of sudden fame – it highlights that debuts are indeed more indeed problematic for an artist than we often think.

Image Credit: The Lost Daughter//The Lost Daughter Facebook

New Year’s (Movie) Resolutions

0

This is the time of year for promises we may not keep. And we’ve got plenty of movie-related resolutions, whether it’s something we always wanted to see but have never found time for, or a new aspect of film that we want to get into. From contributors from and beyond the Film section, here are some of our movie-watching goals for the New Year…ones which we will hopefully stick to.

Caitlin Wilson 

This year I’m resolving to embrace the short film. I’m a fairly devoted film-watcher – I love carving out time to watch three-hour epics and ninety-minute gems alike, but I don’t always have the time to invest in a great feature. Short films are often under-promoted and under-watched, but the ones I have seen have stuck with me for years. Jim Cummings’ Thunder Road centres one of the best acting performances I’ve ever seen, and Jeremy Comte’s Fauvre haunts me to this day. Several of my favourite directors have also dabbled in shorts – Sofia Coppola’s Lick the Star has been in my Letterboxd ‘to watch’ list for a while now, as has Julia Ducornau’s Junior

Short films are a place for the weird and niche parts of cinema to thrive, where new filmmakers test the waters and veterans explore new facets of their art. So I’m declaring this year my year of the short film. Maybe I’ll even try making one of my own! 

Abbie Nott

My resolution to go in search of new favourite films this year got off to a false start when I put on ‘When Harry Met Sally’ for the definitely-at-least-twentieth time on New Year’s Day. I am a compulsive re-watcher of movies: this is something I thought everyone was guilty of, but it turns out not all of my friends have watched ‘Love, Actually’ enough times to know everyone’s lines – even the ones spoken by the little boy in the octopus costume… 

In 2022, I am going to expand my horizons beyond the Richard Curtis and Nora Ephron rom-com sections of Netflix. ‘Licorice Pizza’, featuring Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman, is a new coming-of-age movie I want to see, although I am mostly drawn in by the Bowie song in the trailer. I loved ‘tick, tick… BOOM!’, the Jonathan Larson biopic starring Andrew Garfield, so I’m hoping the musicals streak will continue with the new ‘West Side Story’ which I can’t wait to get around to. 

One film I keep hearing about is Spider-Man: No Way Home. I have somehow never watched a single Spiderman film – maybe this is the year that changes and then I can discover if the hype is to be believed! Either way, I hope 2022 gives me a new top-10 film… that was released after 2010. 

Wang Sum Luk

For an editor of the Film section, the list of Important Classic Films I haven’t seen is embarrassingly long—and by that, I mean I saw Jaws for the first time this New Year’s Day. My initial plan of following that by watching Spielberg’s other major films in chronological order was put on hold when I remembered that I still had vacation reading to finish, but I’m finishing my Spielberg-A-Thon as soon as I can.

This may also be the year I finally make myself watch those boring foreign art films I’ve always been putting off seeing—yeah, I know the work of Yasujiro Ozu and Andrei Tarkovsky would be valuable additions to my education as a movie viewer, but why sit through a minute-long close-up of a vase when I could go on YouTube and watch fight scenes from a Marvel movie? Hopefully I’ll change that habit, even if I might need to duct-tape myself to my chair to ensure that I don’t start checking my phone while watching Tokyo Story.

Noah Wild

The new year is a good opportunity for reorganisation, perhaps a clear out of things that are now taking up space, left in the attic acquiring dust and beginning to smell of rotting nostalgia. For me, the film equivalent of old comics or never-played CDs is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Whilst WandaVision started off 2021 well for Marvel, providing an energetic series that utilised and subverted its TV format, this energy tailed off as the year went on. Now the saturation of Marvel content is taking up more time in my life than it’s worth. With an episode released on Disney Plus almost every week of the year, alongside four feature films, it seems no one can stay on top of the endless releases, study for a degree or hold a full-time job all at the same time. 2022 may be the year when I make some space on the shelves and walk away from the developing ‘multiverse’ before a new incarnation of Iron Man is ripped out from a solar system different from our own and the whole process starts all over again. Though maybe the Black Panther sequel will forge new ground like its predecessor, and I’ll end up breaking the resolution. In the meantime, I have a stack of unwatched old classics on DVD that need watching before I take them to the charity shop. I’d estimate that it’s about four years since I bought Gladiator from CEX for fifty-pence and at this point I’m starting to feel sorry for it, left there unloved and unwatched.

Artwork by Wang Sum Luk. Image credit: Matej//Pexels, Pexels//Pixabay, ViTalko//Pexels, Hans//Pixabay, Deltaworks//Pixabay, ericspaete//Pixabay, Jonas von Werne//Pexels

New Stadium for Oxford United F.C.

0

After inevitably leaking on social media the day before, Oxford United Football Club released a statement last Monday which finally outlined long-awaited plans for a proposed move to a new ground, with the League One team hoping to complete their relocation in time for the beginning of the 2026-27 season. If final approval is received, a new sporting complex will be built across 45 acres of land on the present site of Stratfield Brake sports ground, located just to the north of the Oxford ring road on the southern fringes of Kidlington. In addition to a modern, technologically-advanced 18,000 seater stadium, which would be by far the largest such facility in Oxfordshire, an illustrative masterplan published concurrently by Oxfordshire County Council reveals plans for adjacent conference, restaurant, and hotel facilities, as well as the possible construction of a new ice rink, which may function jointly as a large-capacity indoor arena.

As with almost every major construction project in the football world, the planning phase is likely to be characterised by complaints, controversy, and aggravation. After two decades of searching and two failed relocation attempts, Premier League club Everton are at last building a modern stadium on the Merseyside waterfront to replace the aging Goodison Park, but have simultaneously contributed to the loss of Liverpool’s UNESCO World Heritage status in the process. Similarly, in the lower-leagues, the likes of Darlington, Barnet, and York City have all suffered drama, delay, and ultimately a fair dose of dejection in their pursuit of new stadia over recent years, despite plans originally being greeted with much fanfare and optimism. Given this, why do Oxford United feel the need to relocate? And perhaps more importantly, do the benefits of moving outweigh the potential drawbacks?

To understand the situation that Oxford United currently find themselves in, it is necessary to sketch out a brief history of the football club. Founded in 1893 by clergymen of St Andrew’s Church in Headington, the U’s have spent the majority of their existence playing under their original moniker: Headington United. Only in 1960 was their name was changed to its present form in an effort to raise the profile of the club, as part of a successful attempt to gain Football League membership via the archaic re-election process. These Headington roots are reflected in the location of United’s spiritual home, the Manor Ground, which stood for more than 75 years on a site between Sandfield Road and Osler Road in the heart of the East Oxford suburb. For anyone unsure of their Oxford geography, this is next door to John Radcliffe Hospital and just over the London Road from the Headington Shark. Despite considerable on-field success during their first two decades as a Football League team, by 1982, the now Third Division club found itself heavily in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. Fortunately however, salvation arrived in the form of Robert Maxwell, Oxford’s very own multi-millionnaire business tycoon and publishing boss, who famously lived and worked in the palatial Headington Hill Hall. Maxwell was the father of the now notorious Ghislaine, who was herself installed as a club director whilst studying at Balliol aged just 22, and who still retains shares in OUFC to this day.

Almost immediately after taking ownership of the club, Maxwell recognised the limitations of the old Manor Ground, which, despite its great charm and character, resembled little more than a ramshackle collection of stands, terraces, and scaffolding, bolted together like some sort of architectural Frankenstein’s monster. Nevertheless, intense fan-pressure scuppered his ill-advised proposal of a merger with local rivals Reading FC to create the Thames Valley Royals, which in turn prevented the realisation of plans for a new stadium in Didcot for this hybrid team. Instead, with Maxwell’s millions behind them, the “still-in-Oxford” Oxford United flew up the leagues during the mid-80s, and eventually spent three years in the First Division (equivalent to today’s Premier League) during a golden era capped by victory over Queen’s Park Rangers in the 1986 Milk Cup final at Wembley. Sadly for Yellows supporters, these glory days couldn’t last forever, and after relegation back to the second Division in 1988, the future of the club was again plunged into doubt upon the mysterious and unexplained death of Maxwell – reputedly an MI6 and Mossad spy – in 1991 after a late-night fall into the Atlantic from his super-yacht Lady Ghislaine, moored off the Canary Islands. Investigations after his death soon uncovered that Maxwell’s business empire had itself been racking up humongous debts. Scandalously, the late football club owner had only prevented its collapse by thieving hundreds of millions of pounds from the pension funds of his employees at the Daily Mirror. Oxford United were subsequently declared insolvent in the aftermath of this affair, and remained in financial dire straits throughout the 90s until their takeover by London hotelier Firoz Kassam in 1999.

Many of the problems associated with the present-day Kassam Stadium – and ultimately the proposed move to Kidlington – can be traced back to its namesake, who finally oversaw a move away from the half-derelict Manor Ground in 2001. Kassam’s chief motivation for owning Oxford United appeared to be greed, as the hugely-valuable land owned by the club in Headington was almost immediately sold to a healthcare company for £12 million – double the amount Kassam had paid for the stadium the year before. The old site is now occupied by the private Manor Hospital. To replace the Manor Ground, the Yellows started playing at Kassam’s new stadium in Blackbird Leys, on the south-eastern edge of the city. However, from the very beginning it was clear that this was not a match made in heaven. After first overcoming a supposed “gypsy curse” placed on the team by an aggrieved traveller who had been evicted from the site to make way for construction vehicles, it quickly became clear that the new owner had under-invested in the construction and maintenance of the new ground. If anyone reading this has ever had the misfortune of visiting the Kassam (perhaps for your Covid vaccination, or for a JCR committee team building trip to the escape rooms next door – cheers Brasenose!) this should have been immediately obvious. Most glaring is the complete absence of a fourth stand behind the western goal, the result of Kassam’s money drying up as Oxford tumbled out of the Football League in the mid 2000s. Ironically, this cruel omission leaves the Yellows with a uniquely three-sided stadium, despite representing a city famous worldwide for its quads.

Regardless, if one can put aside thoughts of the pitiful western fence for a moment, various other aspects of the Kassam are far from ideal. First, the three stands that do exist were built out of cheap, concrete breeze blocks, and retain a kind of brutalist feel, particularly from the inside. Consequently, the place lacks a great deal of character and atmosphere. Furthermore, the Kassam is inconveniently located about 300 yards away from the Oxford Sewage Treatment Works, which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “crap game of football” when the wind blows in the wrong direction. However, perhaps worst of all is the financial situation, as Kassam still owns the stadium, despite relinquishing ownership of the football club in 2006. For the privilege of playing their 23 home matches per season at this soulless arena, Kassam charges the club’s current owners approximately £1 million a year, a substantial money drain that severely hampers the club’s potential for development on and off the field. To make matters worse, until this season the club made no money from food and beverages sold inside the stadium on matchdays, which represented a considerable loss of income, particularly given the severe lack of places to eat and drink nearby. 

The decision to move away from Blackbird Leys is made even more palatable to many stakeholders by potential plans in store for the Kassam site after the football club vacate it. Firoz Kassam’s seemingly spiteful decision to rent out his stadium to OUFC at extortionate rates is somewhat borne out of understandable frustration, as this land is ripe for property development. Once the football team head elsewhere, it is widely hypothesised that Kassam will sell the land to construction companies for a large profit, enabling the building of potentially hundreds of houses on a new brownfield site. The same fate befell the White House Ground, home to Oxford City FC until 1988, which was also sold to developers by landlord Brasenose College after they evicted the city’s second club from their quaint old premises, which were formerly located behind the White House pub on the Abingdon Road. This therefore is a win-win situation for both Kassam and the County Council, who are currently struggling to deal with perhaps the worst housing crisis in the UK. A 2015 study led by University of Oxford professor Danny Dowling found that the average house price in the City of Dreaming Spires was 16 times higher than the local average wage, a ratio larger even than London. This property price squeeze is the inevitable consequence of limited housing stock in a city whose population is quickly expanding. In 2011, Oxford City Council predicted that at least 24,000 new homes were needed by 2031 in order to tackle this growing issue, however, property developers are increasingly hamstrung by the greenbelt which strangles Oxford, preventing construction on most green space outside of the ring road. Consequently, the potential emergence of a large brownfield site on the edge of the city would be a desirable outcome for both the city and county councils.

Finally, if you contrast my previous description of the Kassam with the blueprints for a new venue at Stratfield Brake, the decision to move becomes even more obvious. Populous, the American architectural firm chosen to carry out the construction, have a strong reputation for building impressive new stadia of comparable size, including Minnesota United’s stunning Allianz Field which opened in 2019 after less than 30 months of building work. This venue includes a safe-standing terrace, steep intimidating stands with potential for expansion, and even its own on-site brewery-cum-pub. Another opportunity arises with the possible construction of a modern ice rink/indoor arena next door to the stadium. Although Oxford United have acknowledged that these are only “indicative plans” that have not been officially submitted, relocating the current ice rink from its present site on Oxpens Road would solve a big headache for the city council, who have earmarked the undeniably miserable Oxpens area (another victim of post-war town planning decisions) for a major £1.5 billion overhaul over the next 15 years. In addition, a large indoor events centre on the new site is likely to be greeted enthusiastically by university bosses, who have long desired a similar such venue to host conferences and other flagship events. Put together, this range of factors suggests that the recent decision to leave the Kassam is a sensible one for most involved.

Having established that OUFC have good reason to move away from their current home, one wonders whether Stratfield Brake is the right location to move to? A cynic would argue that Oxford are merely swapping one out-of-town new-build for another, given that both the Kassam and Straftfield Brake are – as the crow flies – about four miles from Carfax, Oxford’s traditional centre-point. Nevertheless, there are a number of good reasons why a site closer to the city centre would be unfeasible. Most obviously, a quick glance at a map of Oxford reveals that there isn’t too much green space available within the city limits. The only places of any substantial size are Port Meadow – common land which hasn’t been built upon for thousands of years – and various other meadows either side of the Botley Road and the Marston Ferry Road. Here, the clue is in the word “meadow”. Oxford is handily situated at the confluence of the Thames (or Isis) and the Cherwell, and is mostly as flat as a pancake, so these areas flood regularly. Not ideal for a football stadium. Consequently, OUFC have been forced to look exclusively at locations outside of the ring road. Incidentally, my own team Wycombe Wanderers have almost the reverse problem, as pretty much everywhere in High Wycombe is on a steep hill. Wanderers’ old pitch at Loakes Park had an amazing 11 foot slope from one side to the other!

Once it is accepted that the U’s won’t find anywhere to play within the city boundaries, why is Stratfield Brake more suitable than any of the other possible relocation sites around the fringes of Oxford? The key to this answer is accessibility. Unlike the Kassam, which takes a painfully slow 40 minutes to arrive at from the city centre by bus, Stratfield Brake is very well connected to both Oxford city centre and the rest of the country. The buses up to Kidlington from outside the Magdalen Street Tesco travel quickly along the Woodstock and Banbury Roads at regular five minute intervals. In addition, the proposed site is within a ten-minute walk from the new Oxford Parkway railway station, which opened in 2016 and serves passengers travelling directly from London Marylebone. More importantly, the Parkway is only a cheap five-minute journey from Oxford’s central train station, which should make the city centre pubs and restaurants a far more attractive prospect for fans before and after the match, providing a boost for local business. Similarly, Oxford Parkway is also just ten minutes down the line from Bicester, the rapidly expanding Oxfordshire town which harbours its own hospitality industry and a large chunk of Yellows supporters. 

Critically, these regular bus and train links should reduce fans’ reliance on car travel to get to the stadium, which appears to be another major reason behind the county council’s backing of the project. Conservative councillor Liam Walker tweeted last week that the new site will “reduce car journeys and will boost public transport usage”, a message that chimes with recent schemes formulated by the city and county councils, such as the proposed introduction of a Zero Emission Zone (ZEZ) which aims to ban all petrol and diesel cars from the city centre. Nonetheless, if some fans do still feel the need to drive to the stadium, Stratfield Brake is perfectly located next to the A34, A40, and A44, is within 15 minutes of the M40 motorway, and has thousands of parking spaces available at both the Oxford Parkway and Pear Tree park-and-ride facilities.

Despite these outstanding transportation links, one group that could potentially be disenfranchised by the proposed move to Stratfield Brake are the thousands of longstanding supporters living in Oxford’s extensive south-eastern suburbs near to the Kassam, including the traditional working-class areas of Littlemore, Blackbird Leys, and Rose Hill. As mentioned already, these parts of town are poorly connected to the city centre, let alone Kidlington, and these fans may soon face much longer journeys to watch their beloved team in action. Fortunately however, some of this consternation should be offset by the anticipated 2028 reopening of up to four passenger railway stations along the Cowley Branch Line of the old Wycombe Railway, which was closed during the short-sighted Beeching Cuts of the 1960s and is currently used only for freight services from the BMW-Mini factory in Horspath. This long-awaited infrastructural project should greatly improve access to central Oxford from these areas. Furthermore, by moving towards Kidlington, the football club exposes itself to a new support base of Oxfordshire dwellers living outside of the city itself (who account for 78% of the county’s population). This statement particularly applies to those residing in the Cherwell district, which contains multiple large settlements across north eastern Oxfordshire, including Banbury, Bicester, and of course Kidlington.

Finally, perhaps the last major hurdle to overcome for supporters of this move is the issue of building on greenbelt land. As mentioned previously, Oxford is completely encircled by the greenbelt, which aims to prevent the coalescence of settlements and urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside by restricting building work around the edges of the city. Damningly, the land at Stratfield Brake was bought by Oxfordshire County Council in 1937 for the sole purpose of retaining green space in the small gap between Oxford and Kidlington. For this reason, the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) have already voiced their opposition to the proposals, with a spokesperson claiming that it was “unlikely that [the development] could be justified”, citing inevitable harm from “associated traffic impacts” and the prior existence of “significant pressure from housing development”. In contrast to the CPRE which lacks real influence, a more powerful potential opponent to these plans are the Liberal Democrats, who control a large proportion of the county council and who represent the Stratfield Brake area with the Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon, Layla Moran. Rightly or wrongly, the Lib Dems’ recent successes in parliamentary by-elections have been at least partly attributed by some commentators to a Not-In-My-Backyard approach towards greenfield developments. Nevertheless, in what clearly represents a huge boost to the relocation campaign, the Oxford Liberal Democrats stated on Thursday that they “warmly welcome this proposal [to move to Stratfield Brake]”, perhaps swayed by the potential emergence of a prime brownfield site when the club leave the Kassam. The Lib Dem statement therefore attests to the considerable political will for this project to get the go-ahead.

Overall, Oxford United’s plan to leave the Kassam Stadium in favour of a new site at Straftfield Brake is well-founded, and could provide major benefits for the club’s fans and owners, the county and city councils, and perhaps the university too. Controversy and disapproval are inevitable with major construction projects, particularly when sports teams are involved, but on balance, the Stratfield Brake proposal appears to offer hope of a much brighter future for Oxford’s leading sports team.

Richard Rogerson/ CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Magic of the Cup? – A weekend of historic upsets shows that football’s oldest tournament is still alive and kicking

0

There’s been a lot of talk about the FA Cup over the past few years.  A rise in squad rotation from top teams and declining attendances at the highest level have led to many questioning whether the world’s oldest tournament has lost its magic.  Any doubters need look no further than last weekend’s third round results to see that the magic of the cup is very much still alive. 

For the last 150 years the fabled trophy has been lifted above the heads of the eventual winners at grounds across the UK from the Kennington Oval, to Crystal Palace, Old Trafford, the Millennium Stadium and of course both the old and new Wembley’s.  Those historic moments of glory will always be remembered and make the headlines come the end of the season but the glitz and glamour of cup final day are just one part of what makes this competition so special and so unique.

Many fans are simply unaware of the scale of the competition.  For most, it begins on the fantastic spectacle that is third round weekend in January when clubs from the top two divisions enter the hat.  For the vast majority of sides though, the long slog to Wembley begins right back in August.  736 sides enter the hat and there are six preliminary and qualifying rounds to navigate before a club even makes it to the ‘First Round Proper’.  Most never will but there is an undeniable magic to the fact that a game involving two non-league clubs at your local football ground in early August is a part of the same competition that culminates in front of 80 000 at one of football’s greatest grounds in May.

The romance is key to the importance of the cup but truly what makes it so vital is the financial windfall that it brings to clubs away from the top end of the footballing pyramid.  Now more than ever lower league and non-league sides are in financial distress across the country, reeling from the wrecking-ball of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Without the TV deals of the top divisions to fall back on and with little to no governmental support, the cancellation of seasons and lack of gate receipts risked decimating the grassroots game. 

One cup run can change all that.  One cup run and one televised game can transform the fortunes of a non-league side for years to come.  Aside from TV deals, a third-round win is worth £86 000.  That might be peanuts to Premier League giants but for a side like Kidderminster Town who triumphed over Reading last week it is game-changing.  The £160 000 they have already earnt from the competition this season opens up a world of possibilities from new training pitches, to changing room refurbs, to physio tables and a new bar. Plymouth Argyle’s trip to Stamford Bridge alone in the Fourth Round will earn them £1 million.  Whilst top clubs are rotating squads and complaining about cuts in prize money, those at the other end of the pyramid are desperate to take whatever help they can get.

This year, after last season’s third round was played out behind closed doors, felt like a return to the old days and yet again served up countless historic upsets.  It all kicked off on Saturday afternoon with the three-o’clock kick-offs.  Kidderminster Town of the sixth tier served up perhaps the biggest shock of the day when they stunned Championship side Reading with a 2-1 comeback win.  This was eclipsed only by the stunning result at St. James Park where the world’s richest club paraded their new star signing Kieran Trippier and a full-strength side only to fall to a 1-0 defeat at the hands of League One strugglers Cambridge United.  Elsewhere non-league’s Boreham Wood comfortably beat AFC Wimbledon 2-0, League Two Hartlepool swept aside Championship Blackpool and Nottingham Forest strode to a famous 1-0 win over Mikel Arteta’s Arsenal under the Sunday night lights at the City Ground.  

These results might be forgotten in a couple of weeks by the casual Premier League fan but for those involved the memories will be timeless and for the average non-league player who has to work several jobs just to pay the bills, the chance to play in front of tens of thousands at a Premier League ground is once-in-a-lifetime.

So, next time you find yourself lamenting the fixture congestion crisis facing your favourite team as it tries to juggle five competitions at once just remind yourself which one was there first and why its magic very much lives on.

Dave Gunn/ CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr