Thursday 17 August 2006, Sardinia; walking down to the rather pebbly beach on the third day of our holiday, in what now felt as an accepted routine, I felt confident.
"... at worst, Mum, I'll get ABBC," I remember saying, "A in English, B in History, B in Sport and a C in Biology."
It was AS Level results day, and I wasn't facing the nervous walk in to school to pick up an envelope before looking down with my heart pounding. I was waiting on a text, from a friend who I had placed the responsibility of getting my results for me whilst I was on holiday.
I had breezed through GCSE without much effort, and whilst I hadn't changed too much, I was sure I had put in enough effort to make the step up to AS. With only four subjects, how could I not have enough time to revise sufficiently, and achieve some good solid foundations before A2 began? Well, that was the thinking anyway.
Lying on the beach, phone in hand, the text was expected around 12 o'clock. A nervy fifteen minutes or so followed after midday, attempting to read a book as the nerves hit.
Finally, the vibration on the old Nokia hit.
English C.
History D.
Sport Studies E.
Biology U.
Umm, was this a joke? "I'm really sorry mate, I'm not joking."
In that instant, my trouble free world took the most unexpected and devastating of hits. Relatively speaking, of course. I had expected, and been expected to do far better. I was aiming for BBB to get on the Uni course that I wanted to be on, so this had massively set me back and left me with a mountain to climb to get remotely near where I should have been.
Getting the results on holiday was horrible. I had no time or space to get my head round the results, and spent most of my time swimming out to a big rock a hundred meters or so to sea. Worse of all, my parents - clearly disappointed, didn't lay in to me until we got home. Very much an air of a stay of execution. I knew it was coming.
Friday 28th October 2011, Home; shortly before work, it was worth a quick check on the Uni online results page to see if the painfully dull sounding Board of Examiners had finally confirmed my results.
Not that I expected any thing to have been published, just like the umpteen looks before hand. So when I checked and saw "Pass with Distinction" I had to get my mum to read it, just to make sure I wasn't seeing things.
Whilst it was what I had aimed for over the last year, I feared I had just dropped short after a particular Icelandic lecturer took a dislike to me and crucified a presentation that deserved a good 10% more. Of course, to get a commendation at MSc level would have been good still, but I had aimed for a distinction knowing it was the only grade I could get that would make the cost of the last year worth it.
To get a distinction completed five years and two months of an educational roller coaster. Back in August 2006, I was told by pretty much everyone going that it was nigh on impossible to recover grades like that. I had a firm talking to by both the head of sixth form and my parents to get my head down and work, focusing less on being the class clown and playing football. Three resits in January helped bring English, History and Sport Studies up a grade, whilst Biology was never given another passing thought as it was unceremoniously sacked off. There are some things you can recover from in the world, but a U in Biology is not one of them.
I went on to get BBC at A Level, and whilst it didn't hit my BBB target, I had recovered enough to give myself a chance of getting on a good course at a good Uni. Even before the results were published, I'd decided journalism wasn't the path I wanted to take, I eventually took a course through clearing that had some modules which I was really interested in. Somewhat bravely (stupidly?), a fair few of the modules were science based, but I managed to get through. Fortunately, the management focused modules helped and I earnt a solid 2.1 - another step as I tried to recover the disaster of '06.
The result of this year has finally put to bed that let down, and allowed me to perform better than expected.
With the price and time invested in the last year, it was inevitable that it would/will act as a huge weight on my shoulders until I justify it by getting a job better than one I would have got had I not studied for an MSc. It will be some time yet until that weight can truly be lifted, but the result gained on Friday is the best first step towards achieving that.
Now to get a job.
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Saturday, 15 October 2011
365 Days of Change
"That was as good as we have played all season, and I have no qualms
with the performance whatsoever. I only hope fair-minded people will see
it the same way. It's just unfortunate that such a good
game of football, a real credit to the Premier League, will revolve
round the fact that Liverpool did not win."
A year ago this week, Liverpool had just succumbed to their fourth defeat out of the opening eight games under Roy Hodgson's management, only goal difference separated them from being bottom of the table. It was already painfully clear that Hodgson was not up to scratch - both in terms of managing a club with aspirations a top four finish at the very minimum, and in terms of what we, the fans, expect from the manager. He simply wasn't made for Liverpool. His football philosophy, culture and expectations were at polar opposites to that of the club, and the 34 years of experience he so often relied upon as justification for his appointment, was the very reason he should never have been considered for the job.
Hodgson, his experience and methods "translated from Halmstad to Malmo to Orebo to Neuchatel Xamax to the Swiss national team" did nothing to warrant his appointment, merely being the safe option, a yes man after that awful Rafael Benitez and his constant politics and "rants." This was what Liverpool needed, in the opinion of Christian Purslow (the Fernando Torres of finance, no less), to steady the ship in the face of loan repayment deadlines, and make the club more attractive to possible investors.
However, the logic behind that decision quickly unraveled as Liverpool had their worst start to a season in 82 years. Liverpool were playing awful, unimaginative football despite Hodgson's claims that he liked a "high tempo passing game," had a manager who refused to consider the Liverpool Way and whose expectations meant a 1-0 victory at Bolton was referred to as a "famous victory." It was not, but it was another nail in the coffin as Liverpool, its players and fans endured some of its darkest days on the pitch.
Fans, already heavily worn down by the ownership situation and the club bleeding money, were beginning to fall out of love with the club. With the game. I no longer looked forward to our next game, each loss felt less and less significant, and I was tired. It wasn't our club anymore. I vividly remember being sat high in the Main Stand on cold night in December when we lost to Wolves. There was an air of inevitability of what was occurring in front of us. We were playing rubbish football, no creativity, no spark, and were completely outplayed by bottom of the table Wolves. It was the night where the ironic chants of "Hodgson for England!" and "Dalglish!" became louder and louder. Both in terms of sound, and meaning.
Hodgson didn't last much longer fortunately, yet I dread to think the state we would have found ourselves in had that gone on for a few months longer.
But Hodgson was just the support act of those dark days, the ownership situation had reached its head. Martin Broughton, brought to the club by George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell the club, had finally found an organisation who met the criterion set to buy the club. On the 5th October, one of the most surreal statements I've ever read set the ball rolling in the most tumultuous few weeks in Liverpool's history. Hicks and Gillett, unhappy with the prospect of making such a loss on the club they had bled try for 3 and a half years, attempted to remove Purslow and Ian Ayre from the board. What followed was something I never thought I'd see, nor want to experience ever again - the future existence of the club being decided in a court.
It was a horrible period of time, but a year ago today, FSG completed the purchase of Liverpool Football Club.
"It's a real indication of how far we've come when we come into the dressing room and the boys are disappointed that they've drawn 1-1 with Manchester United."
This quote from Kenny Dalglish speaks volumes for the changes that the club has been through over the last 12 months. No longer do we have a manager who so painfully and obviously didn't fit, nor are we bleeding £110,000 in interest payments every day. The club is being professionally and effectively ran, making the most of our brand and strengthening our off the pitch performance ten fold. The team is still in its infancy in terms of meeting its ultimate goals, but the potential and determination to do so is clear.
It is incredible to think how far we have come in the last 365 days, certainly further than my own expectations. It was simply a relief to be free from Gillett and Hicks, yet there was massive caution associated with the new owners, and rightly so. However, from the outset, John Henry and his colleagues have been willing to learn and to understand what needed to be done, from both the club perspective but also from the fans. The ambition and honesty shown by FSG is in stark contrast from the depths of distrust, infighting and public embarrassment that overwhelmed everyone associated with the club, and seemed never ending only just over a year ago.
The reds are coming up the hill.
A year ago this week, Liverpool had just succumbed to their fourth defeat out of the opening eight games under Roy Hodgson's management, only goal difference separated them from being bottom of the table. It was already painfully clear that Hodgson was not up to scratch - both in terms of managing a club with aspirations a top four finish at the very minimum, and in terms of what we, the fans, expect from the manager. He simply wasn't made for Liverpool. His football philosophy, culture and expectations were at polar opposites to that of the club, and the 34 years of experience he so often relied upon as justification for his appointment, was the very reason he should never have been considered for the job.
Hodgson, his experience and methods "translated from Halmstad to Malmo to Orebo to Neuchatel Xamax to the Swiss national team" did nothing to warrant his appointment, merely being the safe option, a yes man after that awful Rafael Benitez and his constant politics and "rants." This was what Liverpool needed, in the opinion of Christian Purslow (the Fernando Torres of finance, no less), to steady the ship in the face of loan repayment deadlines, and make the club more attractive to possible investors.
However, the logic behind that decision quickly unraveled as Liverpool had their worst start to a season in 82 years. Liverpool were playing awful, unimaginative football despite Hodgson's claims that he liked a "high tempo passing game," had a manager who refused to consider the Liverpool Way and whose expectations meant a 1-0 victory at Bolton was referred to as a "famous victory." It was not, but it was another nail in the coffin as Liverpool, its players and fans endured some of its darkest days on the pitch.
Fans, already heavily worn down by the ownership situation and the club bleeding money, were beginning to fall out of love with the club. With the game. I no longer looked forward to our next game, each loss felt less and less significant, and I was tired. It wasn't our club anymore. I vividly remember being sat high in the Main Stand on cold night in December when we lost to Wolves. There was an air of inevitability of what was occurring in front of us. We were playing rubbish football, no creativity, no spark, and were completely outplayed by bottom of the table Wolves. It was the night where the ironic chants of "Hodgson for England!" and "Dalglish!" became louder and louder. Both in terms of sound, and meaning.
Hodgson didn't last much longer fortunately, yet I dread to think the state we would have found ourselves in had that gone on for a few months longer.
But Hodgson was just the support act of those dark days, the ownership situation had reached its head. Martin Broughton, brought to the club by George Gillett and Tom Hicks to sell the club, had finally found an organisation who met the criterion set to buy the club. On the 5th October, one of the most surreal statements I've ever read set the ball rolling in the most tumultuous few weeks in Liverpool's history. Hicks and Gillett, unhappy with the prospect of making such a loss on the club they had bled try for 3 and a half years, attempted to remove Purslow and Ian Ayre from the board. What followed was something I never thought I'd see, nor want to experience ever again - the future existence of the club being decided in a court.
It was a horrible period of time, but a year ago today, FSG completed the purchase of Liverpool Football Club.
"It's a real indication of how far we've come when we come into the dressing room and the boys are disappointed that they've drawn 1-1 with Manchester United."
This quote from Kenny Dalglish speaks volumes for the changes that the club has been through over the last 12 months. No longer do we have a manager who so painfully and obviously didn't fit, nor are we bleeding £110,000 in interest payments every day. The club is being professionally and effectively ran, making the most of our brand and strengthening our off the pitch performance ten fold. The team is still in its infancy in terms of meeting its ultimate goals, but the potential and determination to do so is clear.
It is incredible to think how far we have come in the last 365 days, certainly further than my own expectations. It was simply a relief to be free from Gillett and Hicks, yet there was massive caution associated with the new owners, and rightly so. However, from the outset, John Henry and his colleagues have been willing to learn and to understand what needed to be done, from both the club perspective but also from the fans. The ambition and honesty shown by FSG is in stark contrast from the depths of distrust, infighting and public embarrassment that overwhelmed everyone associated with the club, and seemed never ending only just over a year ago.
The reds are coming up the hill.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
An Ayre of Inevitability
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for
each other, everyone having a share of the rewards.
It's the way I see football, the way I see life."
Over the last few days, this ethos, The Liverpool Way, has been widely considered to be under threat as the Liverpool Managing Director, Ian Ayre, indicated the club's desire to move away from the collective majority of the Premier League, and negotiate it's own overseas television deal.
I don't believe this idea to be quite as "scandalous" as some in the media would make out, and whilst I am not in support of it, I can see the thinking behind it. Of course, it goes against the socialism that Shankly believed in, but sadly and with an air of inevitably, football sold it's soul to the devil long ago and this is just the next stage in it's unstoppable path (to ultimate destruction?).
In a world where Manchester United can sell sponsorship of their training kit for £40m, and Manchester City can sell their stadium naming rights, somewhat coincidentally admittedly, to Etihad for £400m over ten years - it is difficult for anyone to argue that it is still a level playing field, and everyone certainly can't be considered to be "sharing the rewards" as football appears to go from strength to strength.
However, with that said, challenging the issue of overseas television rights is very much frowned upon and equally unlikely to to happen, with 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs needing to sign off on it. But why do Liverpool feel the need to float this idea? The Financial Fair Play rules.
The increasingly influential FFP rules dictate that a club must "compete within their revenues" based upon relevant income and expenses. UEFA states in Article 58 that "relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations."
Broadcasting rights are the only aspect of "relevant income" that are not individual to the club. It would be wrong to share the income of gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial activities between every club in the league, as different clubs receive more, obviously. So in that respect, why is it so out of the question for clubs to be paid their worth in terms of broadcasting. Television rights in the UK, result in each club receiving £17.7m as an equal share, with then the more viewed clubs, i.e. the top 4-6, receiving up to £10m more in TV money. So, to an extent, the bigger clubs already receive a greater slice of the pie. However, even Alex Ferguson has suggested he doesn't think his club "gets enough money" considering the Premier League product, as it were, is sold to over 200 countries.
With that said, why can't the approach taken by Barcelona and Real Madrid be taken, where they rake in £136m per season? PER SEASON. It is clear to see why the Liverpool management feel their is a significantly untapped resource here, the support of the club and a number of others across the world means their hand could be strengthened beyond any happy majority. But is suggesting this idea alone going against the foundations of the club?
Ian Ayre will merely be the mouth piece in this, with FSG, vastly experienced in monster television right deals and 80% owners of a sports network in America. They are doing their job, they are investigating every single possible avenue for increase relevant income, and if that ruffles a few feathers... well it only highlights the state of the game. If you don't play to the current environment and expectations, then someone else will and you will be left behind. It is a sad fact of modern day football, and one that has already cost Liverpool dearly over the last 15 years or so, and its inability to fully realise the potential of its brand, and plan effectively for the future. When football sold out to Sky in 1992, the Liverpool brand was immeasurably stronger than that of Manchester United. Some two decades later and I don't need to tell you who did a better job on the business side of the club, never mind the integral links between on and off the pitch success.
I for one don't have any expectation for FSG and Ayre to get their wish, there are simply too many clubs who rely on the popularity and size of these clubs to bring in a significant proportion of their relevant income to accept any change. I am sure FSG know this is probably the case too, and so, the eventual bottom line of this story is to strengthen the hand of the majority. FSG are far too calculated and experienced as an organisation to not know every eventuality, whether that be going it alone, or achieving a stronger hand for the majority - both will benefit the club. An overseas television deal that includes the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City when they are posturing to go it alone, will be worth a lot more than a happy cast of satisfied clubs.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar suggestions from clubs looking at the possibilities of chasing their own overseas television rights over the next 20 months or so, again strengthening the hand of the majority with the ultimate outcome being an increase in deal that the Premier League receives in 2013, probably even more than the regular doubling of the fee up to now.
Benefiting everyone, sharing the rewards.
Over the last few days, this ethos, The Liverpool Way, has been widely considered to be under threat as the Liverpool Managing Director, Ian Ayre, indicated the club's desire to move away from the collective majority of the Premier League, and negotiate it's own overseas television deal.
I don't believe this idea to be quite as "scandalous" as some in the media would make out, and whilst I am not in support of it, I can see the thinking behind it. Of course, it goes against the socialism that Shankly believed in, but sadly and with an air of inevitably, football sold it's soul to the devil long ago and this is just the next stage in it's unstoppable path (to ultimate destruction?).
In a world where Manchester United can sell sponsorship of their training kit for £40m, and Manchester City can sell their stadium naming rights, somewhat coincidentally admittedly, to Etihad for £400m over ten years - it is difficult for anyone to argue that it is still a level playing field, and everyone certainly can't be considered to be "sharing the rewards" as football appears to go from strength to strength.
However, with that said, challenging the issue of overseas television rights is very much frowned upon and equally unlikely to to happen, with 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs needing to sign off on it. But why do Liverpool feel the need to float this idea? The Financial Fair Play rules.
The increasingly influential FFP rules dictate that a club must "compete within their revenues" based upon relevant income and expenses. UEFA states in Article 58 that "relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations."
Broadcasting rights are the only aspect of "relevant income" that are not individual to the club. It would be wrong to share the income of gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial activities between every club in the league, as different clubs receive more, obviously. So in that respect, why is it so out of the question for clubs to be paid their worth in terms of broadcasting. Television rights in the UK, result in each club receiving £17.7m as an equal share, with then the more viewed clubs, i.e. the top 4-6, receiving up to £10m more in TV money. So, to an extent, the bigger clubs already receive a greater slice of the pie. However, even Alex Ferguson has suggested he doesn't think his club "gets enough money" considering the Premier League product, as it were, is sold to over 200 countries.
With that said, why can't the approach taken by Barcelona and Real Madrid be taken, where they rake in £136m per season? PER SEASON. It is clear to see why the Liverpool management feel their is a significantly untapped resource here, the support of the club and a number of others across the world means their hand could be strengthened beyond any happy majority. But is suggesting this idea alone going against the foundations of the club?
Ian Ayre will merely be the mouth piece in this, with FSG, vastly experienced in monster television right deals and 80% owners of a sports network in America. They are doing their job, they are investigating every single possible avenue for increase relevant income, and if that ruffles a few feathers... well it only highlights the state of the game. If you don't play to the current environment and expectations, then someone else will and you will be left behind. It is a sad fact of modern day football, and one that has already cost Liverpool dearly over the last 15 years or so, and its inability to fully realise the potential of its brand, and plan effectively for the future. When football sold out to Sky in 1992, the Liverpool brand was immeasurably stronger than that of Manchester United. Some two decades later and I don't need to tell you who did a better job on the business side of the club, never mind the integral links between on and off the pitch success.
I for one don't have any expectation for FSG and Ayre to get their wish, there are simply too many clubs who rely on the popularity and size of these clubs to bring in a significant proportion of their relevant income to accept any change. I am sure FSG know this is probably the case too, and so, the eventual bottom line of this story is to strengthen the hand of the majority. FSG are far too calculated and experienced as an organisation to not know every eventuality, whether that be going it alone, or achieving a stronger hand for the majority - both will benefit the club. An overseas television deal that includes the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City when they are posturing to go it alone, will be worth a lot more than a happy cast of satisfied clubs.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar suggestions from clubs looking at the possibilities of chasing their own overseas television rights over the next 20 months or so, again strengthening the hand of the majority with the ultimate outcome being an increase in deal that the Premier League receives in 2013, probably even more than the regular doubling of the fee up to now.
Benefiting everyone, sharing the rewards.
Monday, 3 October 2011
The Assessment Centre
The assessment centre. Fundamentally flawed.
That is my feeling towards them at the
minute. Especially if they are run as badly as some of the ones I have been on
in the last week or two. The whole
point of an assessment centre, at least in terms of my understanding, is to
find the most appropriate candidate(s) to recruit. Whether that be through in-tray exercises, presentations, case
studies, numerical/English tests, or group assessments… they’re basically there
to test you, the candidate, against their criteria as to what they believe will
be an appropriate candidate to hire.
Some of the aspects of assessment centre’s,
I have absolutely no problem with.
None at all. Some however,
well one in particular, I couldn’t be more frustrated and disapproving of.
Group assessments.
I know, I’ve got a great idea that will
absolutely, definitely show me who we should employ. We’ll give them 10 minutes, split them up in to a group of
umm… lets say 10? 15? And let them work out a problem. It’s brilliant. We can see how they work with people,
how they’ll fit in to our company culture, blah blah blah.
Wrong.
I have taken part in a number of group
assessments, and to be honest, they are only getting worse. They shouldn’t even be called group
assessments. They should be called
‘let’s see who can shout the loudest, and make the most insincere, fake
approach to solving the problem.’ It is absolutely infuriating. I took part in one a couple of weeks
ago in London. In groups of 15, we
had 10 minutes to do one of those
you-crash-land-on-the-moon-what-do-you-need-most tasks.
Fifteen people. That is a stupid, stupid number for such an activity. So we spent 10 minutes with four or
five people talking really loudly and saying all the things you are programmed
to say, usually starting with the most patronising “right guys.” It’s a game,
and maybe my inability to play the game is costing me, but ultimately, it is
costing a good proportion of organisations that assume that just because you
are shot down by some boisterous “Essixxxx girl” or some pompous Covent Garden politics
graduate, that you are indeed rubbish at team work.
It is without a doubt the most frustrating
aspect of trying to get a job.
Each time I am posed with such an
assessment, I try my absolute best to get noticed, to weigh in well and show
that I can play the game. But
sometimes, it is just impossible.
But as I say, this will be costing the
organisations that hire these people who play the game the best, and ultimately
realise that they don’t match the company culture in terms of their
personality, and they are god awful at teamwork.
I do my best, and will continue to try and have my voice heard in such rubbish assessments, but the system itself is fundamentally flawed. The ironic thing from my perspective at least, is the week assessment centre I spent at Adecco allowed a far better process, with group assessments over a week, in smaller groups with people who you have been able to create some kind of relationship with. It is surely here where you are more likely to show an accurate representation of your team working skills and personality. I say ironic, because my team work "skills" were highly rated in that assessment, but it was my... wait for it... customer service skills that let me down. Nevermind, only had 6 years of retail experience, must have awful customer service skills.
I just can't win.
This will be massive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)