At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Everton in the community launched Blue family and has since helped nearly 30,000 vulnerable families and individuals – and the project will continue. Tony McDonough Reports

The charitable arm of Everton Football Club will continue its initiative against the pandemic, Blue family, which over the past 12 months has helped nearly 30,000 vulnerable families and individuals.

Shortly after the start of the COVID-19 crisis last April, Everton in the Community launched Blue family in an effort to reach out to people in the Liverpool City area who found themselves isolated and short of basic necessities.

So far, Everton supporters have contributed more than £ 400,000 to the season ticket refund process when matches were played behind closed doors – a figure matched by the owner, Mr Farhad Moshiri and the chairman, Mr. Bill Kenwright. Local businesses have donated around £ 200,000 worth of laptops, clothes and toys to families.

And, at a virtual annual conference, Everton in Community CEO Richard Kenyon highlighted how Blue Family’s vital work can only continue after club supporters and corporate partners come together. during the pandemic.

Among the many companies that have stepped in to help the charity support those most in need are online retailer Very; LEGO; Relish restoration specialist; and the software expert Causeway.

Since the start of the first national lockdown in March 2020, Blue family has helped 29,000 families and individuals, with plans now in place to continue the program for as long as the local population needs.

At the conference, Richard and the directors of the charity outlined their plans to develop new programs that will meet the evolving needs of some of the most at risk and disadvantaged communities. Over the past 12 months, Blue Family has:

• We made over 26,500 registration and support phone calls.
• Received over 5550 referrals received for support and assistance through the Blue family referral system and Everton existing in community participants.
• Delivered more than 15,750 emergency food packages and food vouchers.
• Provided over 270,000 meals to schoolchildren, participants and those in need across Liverpool.
• Supported more than 3,500 families with utilities, mobile phone credits and essential household items.
• Received more than 275 self-referrals from families of students who attend our partner schools.
• We have provided over 570 laptops across the region to help bridge the education inequality gap and help them stay connected and engaged in learning.

Richard said: “As the whole country continues to reflect on the past 12 months, how the world has changed and what the future holds, it is heartwarming to see how our fans and local businesses have. demonstrates a true community spirit and generosity.

“Blue family was initially launched as a temporary measure in response to the enormous levels of social isolation and the dire need for help and support among some of the most vulnerable in society.

“But, a year later, we’re still running the services – from welfare calls made by staff and players to emergency food package deliveries, the initiative is still ongoing and will continue.

“It wouldn’t have been possible without everyone coming together and joining forces – whether it’s cash donations, ticket refunds or donations of laptops and clothing, we have a network. incredible behind us and we are extremely grateful for this unprecedented level of support. . “

Within days, a football controversy – also known as football in the United States – erupted and quickly died down. In my opinion, it was an attempt to Americanize the beautiful game.

The origins of football in the UK and Europe were never the result of a commercial enterprise and one cannot act as if football is just a money maker while ignoring its history and its anthropology. In its origins, football was the ordinary spectator sport of the worker. Making money out of it came much later.

The relationship between the club and its supporters cannot be launched for the pecuniary interest of an American billionaire or an oil-rich sheikh. Disregarding the anthropology of the game’s development was the major mistake of supporters of the so-called Super League.

He is myopic and silly if, when you think of Celtic and Glasgow Rangers, you think of them as two rival football clubs founded in Glasgow. Their history reflects the history of religious differences in Scotland. Likewise, Roma and Lazio are not just two Rome teams – their histories include undertones of fascism and anti-fascism.

I can go on and on. The rivalry between Manchester United and Manchester City or between Liverpool and Everton did not arise from the fact that they are two cities with each two rival football clubs. The reason why these cities must have had two rival football clubs is anthropological and not financial.

Football is the beautiful game because it perfectly balances luck with skill. And with luck, a less competent team can beat a much better team – see the giant killers in FA Cup history.

Football has therefore given hope to the oppressed to secure victory over the well-heeled – a hope that eternally springs from the human heart.

The idiots who proposed the Super League to give guaranteed places to a number of famous clubs, did not know where football came from and only considered the recent development of some famous clubs becoming lucrative businesses.

For many, football is more than just a sport and more than a game with news, articles and rumors. It also has sociological, economic and political aspects. In many countries, football is immersed in national culture – see how many people normally disinterested in football express their joy when their national team wins a match!

Football has great importance in today’s society. It has had a magnificent history, with the emergence of a diverse culture.

Fans idolize players who train to improve their skills and enjoy rivalry with fans of another team – especially with teams coming from their own city in so-called “derbies”.

Fan behavior resembles political and social battles, rather than just a game. The historical aspect of derbies is emphasized by the fact that most rivalries are based on tradition.

Football clubs also carry political traits based on their traditions. Their rivalry can be affected by territory, history and political differences. Football also has economic characteristics, with the huge industry of merchandise with the team symbol and various markings showing support for “their” team.

Anthropologists have studied the analogies between football and its rules with the rituals of so-called primitive cultures. The anthropological study of football today has developed into a relatively global approach that includes interest for all players in the game: the public, the cultural good as evidenced by the actions of players, experts, supporters and others. journalists.

Just think of the rituals practiced in Malta over and over again by Valletta FC supporters every time they win the local Premier League.

Football has proven to be a tool for constructing identity and cultural symbols, a leisure activity linked to the economy and to humanity’s desire for a high level of glory. It spread by the concept of globalization because it is a simple and exciting game that can be understood by everyone.

Billionaires who try to make money from football are seen as a complete misunderstanding of what football is. It is certainly not about profits and television rights – as many of them seem to think.

Secular state

I rarely respond to comments on my articles – everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This time, I make an exception.

Dr Christian Colombo of the Humanist Association of Malta reacted to my opinion piece published two Sundays ago in which I said that Malta is a secular state. I have always viewed Malta as a secular state – unlike a denominational state which submits to the whims and fancies of a particular religious belief.

Article 2 of the Constitution recognizes that the religion of the majority of Maltese citizens is the Roman Catholic apostolic religion. He gives this religion rights and duties, but he does not impose them on anyone. That is why, in my opinion, Article 32, which grants everyone freedom of conscience and other recognized human rights, makes it clear that Maltese citizens are not obliged to follow the recognized religion such as that of the majority. Therefore, Malta is a secular state.

If the Maltese Constitution gave the Catholic Church more than recognition as a religion of the majority, it would not have been possible to introduce civil marriage, divorce, IVF, contraceptives, the teaching of ethics instead of religion in public schools and same-sex marriage. In all of these matters (and more) the Church has had its say, but the State has decided otherwise – a sure indication that Malta is a secular state with no obligation to follow the teachings of the Church. .

Remember that the Church has the right to teach which principles are good and which are false, but they do not have the right to stop the introduction of legislation with which they do not agree. . Neither does he have the right to impose his convictions on others.

Since the state has no obligation to follow the teachings of the Church, I consider Malta a secular state, with freedom of conscience recognized as a human right.

When a Minister of the Republic complies with the pseudo-religious sentiments of certain voters, such as the wish to install a “Way of the Cross” along a public highway using public money, the contradiction is obvious. The Church has never imposed or attempted to impose such an action. It is therefore the State that has chosen to contradict what is expected of its position on religious practices.

There is a scene in the streaming comedy series ‘Ted Lasso’ when his fictional Premier League side AFC Richmond faces the growing prospect of relegation.

At a team meeting, one of Richmond’s players, Colin, said grimly: “We were relegated when I was in Cardiff. It was my family’s team. My Nana never spoke to me again after that.

This vignette, while apocryphal, highlights the extreme emotion that accompanies relegation – and promotion – in English football. It is the system that is embedded in the very fabric of sport in many parts of the world. Simply put, the bottom three teams in the league at the end of each season are dropped (or “relegated”) to a lower league, while the top three teams from that lower league are promoted to replace them. “Pro-rel”, as it’s called, is the cornerstone of football culture.

While this leads to inevitable annual heartache and agony for these relegated teams (accompanied by jubilation for those promoted), they wouldn’t have it any other way. Which is a big part of why the recent misguided attempt by a bunch of powerful European football teams to go rogue and form a ‘Super League’ failed so spectacularly.

As well as being seen (quite accurately) as a shameless cash grab, the most heinous crime, in the overwhelming opinion of fans, was that it circumvented “pro-rel” orthodoxy. The 15 grassroots teams – six behemoths of the Premier League; Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atlético Madrid of Spain; Juventus, Inter Milan and AC Milan from Italy; and three other clubs to be named later – were to be guaranteed a permanent place in the league, regardless of their record. It was such an irritating idea to European fans that it sparked a real mutiny.

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola summed up the dominant school of thought:

“This is not a sport where the relationship between effort and success, effort and reward, does not exist. It is not a sport where success is already guaranteed or it is not a sport when it doesn’t matter where you lose.

Man City were one of the teams lined up for the Super League, but that did not deter Guardiola from speaking out, just as Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp did despite the Reds’ involvement in the Super League. In fact, everyone has spoken out, in anger and outrage – politicians, journalists, fans, players, ex-players, football officials at the highest level.

The outcry was so great that the league collapsed in less than a week, an ignominious rebuke from which owners who attempted the coup may never fully recover. The fact that some of the main instigators are Americans has not been lost on anyone.

The Glazer family, owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, also own Manchester United. John Henry’s Fenway Sports Group, which controls the Boston Red Sox, owns Liverpool. Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke owns Arsenal. All were in the Super League, as was AC Milan, owned by Elliott Management, an American hedge fund. The whole project was financially supported by JP Morgan Chase.

Many had predicted long ago that unsophisticated owners would try to “Americanize” football in Europe. It was an attempt that failed dramatically. It made me wonder if American sport could ever be “Europeanized” with a promotion-relegation system here?

Over the years, I have heard many people suggest that our sports would benefit from the threat of relegation. It’s usually when an NBA or NFL team wallows at the bottom of the standings in pursuit of a high draft pick in the following year, or an MLB team has emptied their roster to pitch. a reconstruction campaign that will condemn it to ineffectiveness for several years. .

One of the obvious attractions of the pro-rel system is that every game resonates with meaning, even (or mostly) those at the end of the season involving equally-led teams. Instead of just playing the rope, as is the case here with second division clubs, they are fighting for their lives. The financial and social ramifications of relegation are immense.

In this episode of Ted Lasso, a puzzled Richmond player asks what happens to bad American teams at the end of a season without relegation.

Ted replies: “You know, they play the rest of the program, go through the moves in trivial games played in lifeless, half-empty stadiums, and everyone’s pretty good with that.”

When you say it that way, it sounds pretty stupid. Yet, as appealing as it sounds in theory, relegation will never happen here. Just as the pro-rel system is so ingrained in England that it is impenetrable, our “closed” sports system is so so that it would be almost impossible to change it.

One would think that a capitalist society like ours would welcome the “survival of the fittest” mentality of relegation and promotion. Martin Luther King Jr. and others have said that America is socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. This is certainly true in professional sports.

Teams that have invested hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in their franchises simply won’t agree to ditch the minor leagues.

It would be different if relegation had been the norm for generations, as it is in Europe. But this is not the case. And the sports infrastructure here is just not in place to facilitate relegation and promotion.

It’s a good idea to eliminate the so-called “tanking” method of team-building that has become so popular in MLB – giving up a few seasons to come out stronger on the road, a strategy the Mariners are in the middle of.

But if you avoided the last three majors teams, who would replace them? The best Triple-A ball clubs? Aside from the obvious issues with the facilities, there is the fact that minor league clubs are controlled by and populated by players from their parent team. You can see the inherent issues that couldn’t be resolved without a complete overhaul of the entire structure. Likewise, football and basketball do not have an inferior league, even close to being on par with the talent of the top leagues.

Beyond all of that, the pro-rel concept doesn’t really work in salary cap leagues like the NFL and NBA. What makes it so convincing in England is that teams that flounder in the second division are motivated to spend a lot on players to get out of the relegation zone.

Even North American professional football, where the call for relegation has been strongest, does not seem to be going in this direction. MLS is a one-entity league – basically a company with many branches – and they have a vested interest in making those entities happy.

Graham Norton was invited by the Observer, “Are you bored with BBC reviews?” Considering how much Norton is paid by the BBC, his response comes as no surprise. “It’s the public broadcaster, so it will always be under control. I just wish he would defend himself more solidly. “

Norton makes a good point. The BBC is doing a terrible job of defending itself. In part, however, it is because what he is doing is indefensible. First, there is the bias: anti-Israel, anti-Brexit, anti-Johnson. Then there are the silences and the false statements: the silence on left-wing anti-Semitism, for example, and the misrepresentation of how the police handled the Clapham Common tribute: lots of footage from one young woman being abused, let alone footage of aggressive young men throwing objects at police during what was supposed to be a peaceful rally.

In his journal this week Spectator, Jonathan Dimbleby reflected on his retirement Questions, which he superbly chaired for 32 years. There is no lack of “the BBC’s impartiality protocols”, he writes. This raises two questions. Why would a presenter miss the impartiality protocols? Why does he think they are there? And second, what impartiality protocols?

More recently there have been a few more chapters in the BBC’s Fairness Saga, all relating to major international reporting. One of the best shows on the BBC News Channel is presented by Katty Kay and Christian Fraser. They are both, normally, superbly professional. Last week, the channel’s controller rightly erased the decks on the news channel so that he could cover the verdict of the Chauvin trial live. After all, it was perhaps the most famous trial in America since OJ Simpson and, no coincidence, it was also a matter of race and divisions that haunt contemporary America.

“Divisions” may be the key word. America is a fiercely divided nation. Fiercely, but also evenly. In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden won 51.3% of the vote, compared to 46.8% for Trump. The Senate could not have been divided more evenly: 50-50. When Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, she won two percent more of the popular vote. Americans are fiercely divided on race, abortion, gun control, Covid and immigration, but they haven’t experienced a landslide like Ronald Reagan’s on the late Walter Mondale in many years .

One would therefore expect the BBC to represent these divisions when presenting their discussions on Chauvin. Presumably, some on the American right thought Chauvin might be innocent, or at least they might have different views on policing America’s cities than Professor Cornell West or former Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. But the BBC didn’t think viewers needed to hear the opinions of anyone, black or white, with dissenting opinions.

The editor-in-chief of Newsnight. Emily Maitlis interviewed three black Americans who all agreed that Chauvin was guilty and that the American police were institutionally racist. No editorial balance at all. It is not about whether Chauvin was guilty or not or whether black Americans are right to be concerned about the state of the police in America. The question is whether, when a society is so fiercely and equally divided, we have the right to hear a range of views?

After this discussion, Emily Maitlis interviewed the new Israeli ambassador, Tzipi Hotovely, in part to find out whether Israel had withheld Covid vaccines from Palestinians. In her item, “Rattling Israel’s BBC tormentors” April 21, Melanie Phillips gives a clear summary of the interview. Maitlis, writes Phillips, accused Israel of “discriminating against its own Arab citizens by vaccinating them at a slower rate.” This is not the first time that a BBC presenter has accused Israel of not offering Covid vaccines to Palestinians. Whenever this was presented to a spokesperson or to an Israeli woman, it was clearly refuted. As the ambassador explained to Maitlis, the Palestinian Authority (PA) did not want Israel to provide Palestinian Arabs with a vaccination program. Rather, the Palestinian Authority had wanted to provide it to them itself, and had done just that by purchasing doses of the Russian vaccine Sputnik. “Let me ask you, Emily,” Ambassador Hotovely said, “would you really require getting vaccines? [on] the leaders of the Palestinians? Would you actually say [they had to] accept Israeli access and Israeli aid? When they are not interested? But these rebuttals and others will not stop the anti-Israel accusations by BBC presenters and journalists.

More recently, the BBC news programs have been very enthusiastic about the Conservatives’ sleaze. They can’t get enough. Much more enthusiastic than them about the allegations over construction and development contracts against Joe Anderson, the Labor mayor of Liverpool, arrested last December. Indeed, as far as I know, Liverpool haven’t been mentioned at all amid all this worry about corruption in government. Or how about the Sky News story and the Time recently published an article about Unite boss Len McCluskey facing calls for an investigation into £ 98million in hotel and conference center spending. Len who?

Back to Graham Norton. “I just wish it [the BBC] would defend itself more solidly. It’s worth asking, not that Norton was asked, if it’s because the BBC’s media coverage is sometimes indefensible. Or if the BBC is so smug, and certain of its access to the truth, that its presenters and editors don’t need to be interested in questions of impartiality or carefully balanced panels. The BBC seems to know she is right, which is why they never respond to such criticism.

A message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that is committed to covering all angles. We have an important contribution to make, which is needed more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please donate.

By Andrew Warshaw

April 26 – UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin is keeping pressure on the 12 clubs who have sought to create the European Super League as England supporters maintained their opposition to the failed project.

Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur supporters – half of the so-called Dirty Dozen ripped apart their respective owners over the weekend as the backlash showed no sign of recoil.

In doing so, Ceferin made it clear that the escaped Renegades would not be allowed out without a scot.

“Everyone has to take responsibility for the consequences of what they did and we cannot pretend that nothing happened,” he told the Mail on Sunday newspaper.

“You can’t do something like that and just say, ‘I was punished because everyone hates me.’ They don’t have any problems because of anyone other than themselves. What they have done is not correct and we will see in the next few days what we need to do.

Ceferin has hinted that the six non-England teams will not face the toughest penalties. Atletico Madrid and the two Milan clubs withdrew later than their English counterparts while Juventus, Real Madrid and Barcelona stepped on their heels.

“For me, it’s a clear difference between the English clubs and the other six. They pulled out first, they admitted they made a mistake. You have to have greatness to say: “I was wrong”.

“For me there are three groups of those 12 – the English Six, which came out first, then the other three. [Atletico Madrid, AC Milan, Inter] after them and then those who feel the Earth is flat and they think the Super League still exists [Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus]. And there is a big difference between these. But everyone will be held responsible. In what way, we will see.

“I don’t mean to talk about the disciplinary process, but it should be clear that everyone has to be held accountable in a different way. Is it disciplinary? Is this the decision of the executive committee? We will see. It is too early to tell.

Ceferin praised the unprecedented outpouring of fan power which was instrumental in fueling the ESL.

“Listen, honestly I was completely in awe of the reaction from the fans, the whole football community and not just the football community, but I would say society. I’ve never seen it, ”he said.

“UEFA did its part, the clubs that were with us did their part. And of course the British government. But by far, most of it was made by the fans.

As the fallout continues, UEFA seems likely to revisit its new Champions League format, but there is no doubt that Ceferin feels betrayed, especially by Juventus president Andrea Agnelli, one of the main architects of the Super League who insisted for months on the European. The Club Association, which he led until his resignation last week, was working with UEFA, not against it.

Ceferin is the godfather of Agnelli’s daughter but has publicly described him as a liar and has no regrets.

He said he got wind of Agnelli’s alleged duplicity as he drove from his home in Slovenia to UEFA headquarters in Nyon, preparing to officially announce the changes to the Champions League which he said had the support of the biggest clubs.

“It was very stressful. I felt like I had been put in a washing machine. On Saturday, I went to Switzerland from my home country, an eight-hour drive away. I had everything ready to talk about reforms and everything in my speech.

“They were up to stuff they didn’t tell me, guy [Agnelli] lied to me saying: “It’s not true, it’s not true …”

Ceferin said widespread outrage over ESL has proven to be an important point.

“This joint effort has shown that it’s not all for sale, that you can’t come up with billions and say, ‘I don’t care about the tradition, the history of the things you love, because I have enough money, I’ll buy it all. ”Certainly not! It does not pass.

Ceferin pledged to re-engage with the reformed ECA, now led by Nasser Al-Khelaifi of Paris Saint-Germain, but reiterated that he would no longer tolerate any separatist nonsense from Real Madrid and Barcelona who still believe the project has legs.

“It is clear that the clubs will have to decide if they are in the Super League or if they are a European club,” Ceferin said in a separate interview with The Associated Press.

“If they say we’re a Super League, then they don’t play in the Champions League, of course.”

Although the concept fell apart within 48 hours, Ceferin couldn’t cover up the injury caused by ESL’s announcement that threatened to undermine UEFA’s own landmark statement on Champions League reforms.

“The worst day was Saturday, because then I realized it was pure betrayal, that some people have been lying to us for years.”

Contact the author of this story at moc.l1619496662labto1619496662ofdlr1619496662Owedi1619496662sni @ w1619496662Ahra1619496662w.wer1619496662DNA1619496662

The LFC Foundation is partnering with the NSPCC to help improve the lives of children in the city area – forming the first official partnership of its kind between the children’s charity and a Premier League club foundation.

The LFC Foundation is already working to support young people in Liverpool and beyond, as well as NSPCC practitioners based at the charity’s Hargreaves Center. Childline volunteers are also based on the Great Homer Street charity website and speak to thousands of children across the country each month.

The Foundation and the NSPCC will work together to support even more children and families in the city area, directing them to the resources and help they may need, educating adults, parents and supporters. with tips on how to spot signs that something might not be right. young people in their region.

Liverpool FC mascot Mighty Red welcomed NSPCC’s Pantosaurus mascot to Anfield to launch the new partnership, which will aim to provide essential support to children and young people who have been particularly affected by the pandemic.

Matt Parish, CEO of the LFC Foundation, said:

“We are two organizations born in the same city and by working together as a single team we can help achieve a common ambition to help and support children and young people in our city. The people of Liverpool care for each other and by working together we can make our city and our society a safer place.

“We are delighted to be the first Premier League club foundation to have an official partnership with the NSPCC and the opportunity to build on the work we have done together to date. We are already making a difference, but we want to do more and by working together we can help solve one of the biggest issues facing children and families in our urban area.

In addition to promoting the NSPCC and its local activities and campaigns throughout the year, Liverpool FC and Foundation staff will be able to access the charity’s saving advice and additional expertise throughout partnership, ensuring that the club can continue to provide top-notch service. experience for children who work with the Academy club, at the Foundation, for young supporters who visit matches and their families.

Liverpool FC backup director John Pout said:

“Everyone has a role to play in caring for children, even more so with the effects of the pandemic. Thanks to the combined commitment and expertise of the LFC Foundation and the NSPCC, we know we can do more together.

The foundation and children’s charity originated in the city of Liverpool – with the Liverpool Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children founded in the city in 1883 and eventually becoming the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children under patronage of Queen Victoria. in 1889.

Tess O’Callaghan, Senior Director of Corporate Partnerships at NSPCC, said:

“The pandemic has had a huge impact on young people, with the NSPCC’s Childline service having conducted more than 61,000 counseling sessions with children across the country on mental health alone since the start of the first lockdown.

“This is the NSPCC’s first partnership with a Premier League team, and we are very happy to be working with such a prestigious club on a groundbreaking initiative to help support and protect children and young people across the region. Liverpool. .

“While the long-term effects of the pandemic on children are still unknown, we anticipate a huge demand for services to help young people and families in the region and across the country. By working with amazing partners like the LFC Foundation, we can ensure that every child gets the support they need when they need it most. It is vital that we all play our part in protecting children, and every fan, supporter and resident of Liverpool can help us to do so.

Going forward, the partnership will play a leading role in publicizing Mental Health Awareness Week (May 10-16), throughout the city, with videos, activities and workshops to help families to be active and outdoors together, and examine early interventions and preventive measures. .

To find out how you can support the NSPCC and LFC Foundation campaign to fight child abuse, visit www.liverpoolfc.com/foundation and join the fight for every childhood.

04/26/2021

Keywords