St Mirren vs Hearts - Match Preview

Crisis club Hearts travel to St Mirren on Saturday afternoon with the aim of pushing their ongoing wage nightmare to one side.

St Mirren are flying high at present, sitting in 6th place in the SPL and looking up, not down, for the first time in many seasons. Buddies' boss Danny Lennon urged the campaign is a long way from over: "This [season] is a Grand National. You get over one or two jumps and then you fall at one. You've got to quickly get back up." He was optimistic when asked about whether he thought his team had the right mindset to push on for a top six finish: "We've got to keep dripping in that winning mentality."

Hearts are a club headed in the opposite direction: players and staff have not been paid in nineteen days and they having picked up just six points from their last five games. Lennon spoke about the situation at Tynecastle, saying in regard to players and staff going unpaid: "if you've worked...you deserve your wages. I can totally sympathize with that."

Hearts' task this weekend will be made that much harder as the team will be without both Ian Black and Danny Grainger, both suspended for violent conduct during last weekend's home defeat to Kilmarnock.

Buddies' midfielder Graham Carey reckons that Hearts' current behind-the-scenes turmoil make them an unknown quantity: "You don't really know how they're going to react. We're just going to focus on ourselves, play our own game.' Carey said, 'these things can bring players together, they have a point to prove. We can't worry about that and have to focus on the three points."

Carey also believes that the squad'good league standing is down to "the mindset that we have this season. We just take every game as it comes."

John McShane will be missing for St Mirren after picking up a minor knee injury in training, however the squad will be at near-full strength for a clash that could see them rise as high as 4th in the SPL come Monday evening.

NBA: Last chance to save the day.

League officials and Players' Union representatives will meet Monday in New York in a final attempt to thrash out a deal that would save the start of the 2011-12 NBA season.

NBA Commissioner David Stern and Union President Derek Fisher will both be in attendance, Fisher also invited all NBA players to attend the critical meeting. If a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is not agreed upon at least in principle, Stern says he will have no choice but to cancel the opening two weeks of the season.

The main (and perhaps only) sticking point is the proposed split of Basketball Related Income (BRI). The Players' got a 57% share under the old CBA, and refuse to come below 53% in any new proposal. The League and Owners have drawn their line in the sand at a 50-50 split. 2011-12's projected BRI is $4bn, meaning that the 3% being fought over is 'just' $120 million, earning the players $2.12 billion. If the players and owners do not reach agreement today, the first two weeks of games will be zapped from the calender. That would cost the players a hefty sum of money in wages. Billy Hunter, executive director of the Union, alleged that the players would lose $350 million for each month of the season killed by the lockout.

Essentially, if the players lost a month of the season, they would need to up their split demand to 58% to guarantee the $2.12bn they are after today. To even get what is currently offered at 50-50 would mean the players would need to up their demand to 54.5%. Going by this (complicated) maths, the players and owners are being incredibly narrow-minded over this whole affair.

Instead of bickering over such an arbitrary number as 3% of BRI, why not agree to the equal share of 50% and focus on providing another sterling season of Basketball? 2010-11 was one of the best in history and not just for the on-court skills we witnessed. Lebron James' "Decision" made the Miami Heat must-watch TV, Derrick Rose's rags-to-riches rise to MVP status made the Bulls a team you couldn't miss and then we had the complete surprise package in the Playoffs, the Mavericks, sweeping the Lakers and ousting the star-studded Heat to lift their first-ever NBA Championship.

Why give up a continuation of that amazing season for such a relatively small amount of money? If the players and owners agreed they could make the current $4bn pie even bigger for themselves next time around.

One thing's for certain, Monday's meeting is absolutely crucial to the fate of the season.

--------------

Around the League
NBA fans seem to be the forgotten entity in this lockout saga. While millionaire players and billionaire owners bicker and whinge over an amount of money that the common person dreams about having, the rest of the world is suffering. Owners are constantly cranking up prices of the NBA games that people love to watch. The fans come to the games to get away from their daily lives, to forget about things like money and the recession. Now when they log onto their basketball websites or turn on the television to watch at some basketball, recession and money has taken over their old safe haven. No matter the outcome, the fans will never come out of a lockout with a more favourable opinion of either side.

NBA: No deal reached, first fortnight of 2011-12 Regular Season facing cancellation.

It started with some brave smiles, a little hope and a lot of optimism.

Tuesdays' crucial NBA Labor negotiations ended when both owners and players left their Manhattan boardroom with disappointment written all over their faces. The talks ground to a halt once more over the proposed split of Basketball Related Income (BRI). The agreement that expired saw the players take a 57% share of BRI, which equated to a figure of roughly $2.18bn per year. In the present, the owners maintain their stance that a 57% share going to the players is unsustainable, citing $300 million in losses as their motivation for wanting a fairer (read - more in favor of the owners) deal.

The owners side, fronted by NBA Commissioner David Stern (who is bound to come in for some harsh criticism if he allows the Regular Season to be affected by the labor dispute) and his associated band of owners and lawyers officially proposed a 52-48% split in favor of the players, a major concession from their previous stance of 47% share going to the players, a stance that they claimed would not change. Their decision in moving off of this sparked off optimism that a deal could be reached Tuesday.

The Players' Union (NBPA) however became the sticking block as they moved from their previous 'lowest possible' offer of 54% down to 53%, another move that allowed optimism to creep in.

The two sides seem to be close to accepting the loss of Regular Season games. The losses for both would total into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This fact is what makes Inside Sports believe that a deal could be reached before Stern's Monday deadline for saving the November 1st season opener. If the two sides, who were once a full $800 million apart on proposed deals, are just one BRI percentage point away from each other then logic would dictate that both sides would be willing to compromise for that one percent rather than lose such a vast sum of money from lost games.

One hot topic that came out of the boardroom was the League's 50-50% split that was allegedly offered. The leak came from Stern, and it infuriated the players who claimed that the leak painted them in a bad light (if that were still possible). The deal that was officially offered was one that saw the players get 50% of BRI but also allowed them to garner up to 53% if their contracts included the correct clauses. If this deal was really on the table then someone somewhere must have had their minds on their coffers rather than the game.

In the end, a deal will likely be formed in the 50-53% range that favors the players. And then, just maybe, we can get back to what we all want most. A bit of basketball.

NFL Newbie: Ravens ripping of Pittsburgh highlight of thrilling opening weekend

I have never watched an entire NFL game outside of the Superbowl, thinking it was the only game worth seeing. Could I have been any more wrong?

Can Scotland make the 2014 World Cup?

The draw for the qualifying stage of the Brazil 2014 World Cup took place on Saturday evening in Rio de Janeiro, the city set to host the final in just under 3 years' time.

Scotland have not made a World Cup, or any major tournament, since the 1998 World Cup. 13 long years of disappointment. There was once a time where our national side made it to 5 straight World Cups, a record number, from 1970-90 we were regulars.

It would boost our chances of ending that run if Scotland got a favourable draw. We have played our best football against some of the top teams in the world and just missed out. In qualifying for Euro 2008 we came up against both 2006 World Cup finalists, in 2010 WC qualifying we came up against eventual-runners up Holland and in Euro 2012 qualifying we have drawn the best side in the world, and current World Champions, the Spanish. So the Tartan Army had a right to be nervous, as we could have drawn both one top-tier team and the French, who have fallen into the second pot of teams.

Thankfully, it didn't turn out so badly. Croatia from the top pot, Serbia, Belgium, Macedonia and Wales make up the rest.

A winnable group? If Craig Levein can get the team playing as good as they did in the 2008-qualifying group, then I don't see why not. Scotland could certainly claim second place and a subsequent Playoff berth as a reasonable target.

Croatia: World Ranking: 9

Previous result vs Scotland: 1-1, March 2008.

The Croatians are a decent outfit, managed by fan favourite Slaven Bilic. They can count Tottenham's Luka Modric, Ivica Olic of Bayern Munich, Shaktar Donetsk and ex-Arsenal man Eduardo and a familiar face to Scottish fans - Rangers' Nikica Jelavic.

Target Results: A hard-fought draw at Hampden is a possibility, but I would expect the Croats to be too strong in Zagreb.

Serbia: World Ranking: 27

Previous result vs Scotland: These two teams have not meant since Serbia became independent in 1993.

The Serbs are in disarray at the minute. Although they qualified for both the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, they were recently beaten 3-1, at home, by Estonia (Rank 79th). That said, they can boast Manchester City's Aleksander Kolarov, Premier League champion Nemanja Vidic, Nikica Zigic from Birmingham and their main danger man, Inter Milan's Dejan Stankovic, a man who is a leader, a goal scorer and a competent defender.

Target Results: On their day, Scotland could win at Hampden and possibly snatch a valuable point away from home. It all depends on the Serbian team that shows up.

Belgium: World Ranking: 37

Previous result vs Scotland: The pair were last together in the 2002 World Cup qualifying group. A 2-2 draw at Hampden, followed by a 2-0 defeat in Brussels put paid to our chances of progressing to a second-successive World Cup.

Belgium are in a state of redevelopment. They do however field a clutch of dangerous players. Everton's Marouanne Felaini, Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany, and Arsenal defender Thomas Vermaelen.

Target Results: A win at home and looking for another away draw would be the ideal return for Levein's men.

Macedonia: World Ranking: 96

Previous result vs Scotland: Scotland won 2-0 at Hampden during the 2010 World Cup campaign after a 1-0 away defeat in the searing summer heat of Skopje.

Macedonia are a team who are better than their current world ranking suggests. They always take their game to their opponents and have given some of Europe's big boys a real test. Their main and only true threat is Lazio's Goran Pandev.

Target Results: A win at home is an absolute must, and a win away should be targeted, though a draw cannot be deemed a failure.

Wales: World Ranking: 112

Previous result vs Scotland: Scotland beat the Welsh 3-1 in the recent Nations Cup, although a 3-0 hiding in Cardiff marked the end of George Burley's tenure as Scotland coach.

The Welsh have slipped into the final pot of qualifying, albeit a mere 0.07 ranking points behind the Faroe Islands. The Welsh have Craig Bellamy and of course Premier League Player of the Year Gareth Bale. An intense atmosphere will surround this 'home-nations' tie.

Target Results: Scotland cannot afford to drop any points at home or away to the Welsh. The second-placed team in each group has it's results against the bottom team scrapped at the end of qualifying to determine which of the 9 runners-up misses out on the 8-team playoff. This is why Scotland need 6 points from the Welsh. This may be easier said than done, especially in the trip to the Millennium Stadium which will undoubtedly be packed to the rafters.

Group prediction:

Croatia should win the group if the rankings are to be believed, but second place is up for grabs between 3 or possibly even 4 teams. Belgium and Serbia are a couple of steps ahead of Scotland, but the bigger teams have disregarded us before and we ended beating the French in Paris and being robbed of at least a draw with the then-World Champion Italians. Macedonia have an outside chance depending on their overall squad strength given that the first qualifying game is over a year away.

F1: An open letter to the BBC

Dear BBC,

Your Formula One coverage has won awards, earned praise from all quarters and seen decade-high audience figures for Grand Prix this year. I can understand the need to cost-cut, but is reducing coverage your biggest crowd-puller by 50% the way to do it? Is saving BBC 4 really necessary? 

Formula One fans are some of the most loyal, many will simply refuse to miss a race. Why do you feel it is OK to slap them in the face by removing coverage of their sport in favour of "FULL COVERAGE OF THE 70-DAY OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY." Do you expect to collect 6.6 million viewers for this, as you did for the British Grand Prix? Do you expect to earn a BAFTA for coverage of various people carrying a burning stick around the country? I understand the importance of the Olympics to the UK and the BBC (as the Olympic Broadcaster), and that this is an opportunity that comes around perhaps once every 50 years, but is this what the public wants? 

The reaction of Formula One fans is one of near solidarity. That reaction is overwhelmingly negative, this speaks volumes. Even those who already pay for Sky/Sky Sports are disappointed that the BBC have agreed to this deal. I and many others urge you to reconsider.

Thank you.

F1: Bernie Ecclestone's great betrayal?

“Sky have been trying to buy the TV rights from us for a long time, but we won’t because they are not free-to-air broadcasters. With their viewing figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal.” - Bernie Ecclestone, May 2011.

Fast forward two months. 90% of Formula One fans are going to be forced to either pay to watch every race, or miss half of them. Bernie Ecclestone told us this wouldn't happen. He said it wouldn't make sense, the teams wouldn't like it, the fans wouldn't like it, he wouldn't like it. But here we are, faced with a choice between paying up or giving up.

Sky, the BBC and Ecclestone have agreed on a seven-year deal (2012-18) that will see Sky Sports broadcast every practice session, qualifying and race live and uninterrupted. The BBC will air just 10, including the Monaco and British Grand Prix, and the final race of each season.

Today, a customer new to Sky has to pay at least £40 a month for Sky and Sky Sports subscriptions, both of which are needed to watch every race live. Considering that on average there are two races per month, and as half are on the BBC, one of those will be free-to-air, you pay £40 for that one race each month. Such a great deal, according to Ecclestone.

Formula One is entering a dark time, it's popularity has grown and grown since the end of the Schumacher era, with the Championship battles in 2007, 2008 and 2010 going down to the final race, and 2009 being decided in the second-to-last race. 6.6 million tuned into the British Grand Prix, and over 8 million watched the rain-delayed Canadian Grand Prix. Both figures are 10-year highs. The German Grand Prix this year drew it's highest audience in 15 years, and the BBC have given that up to save money.

The BBC have done this in the name of 'cost-cutting'. This is the same BBC who sent over 400 reporters and technicians to Glastonbury Festival, the same BBC who sent 250 employees to cover a 1-day event marking one year to the 2012 Olympics. Sky, with a hundred times the budget, sent 11 people in total. The corporation pays Chris Moyles and Jeremy Clarkson £6million a year. All of this is funded by the license fee, which is used to "fund" the BBC. Most expect that to mean "paying for bringing us programs." Obviously not.

This letter appeared in a major UK Newspaper not to long ago, and sums up precisely why Formula 1 should appear on the BBC:

"What other international sport has two recent British World Champions competing in a British team? What other sport has a hi-tech support industry centred on Britain? What other sport has two thirds of the international teams choosing to base themselves in Britain?

 What other sport is the pinnacle of an industry estimated to be worth £5 billion a year to the British economy? What other sport has as many Brits in key positions in foreign-based teams? What other sports is associated with cutting-edge engineering, and is a stimulus to youngsters to enter engineering? The BBC should feel a patriotic duty to broadcast Formula One."

Fan reaction so far has been overwhelmingly negative:

"Not impressed."- Martin Brundle

"F1 on Sky is a joke! So much for the sport's own rules. If the money is there then the rules go out of the window"

"F1 has won many new fans because of the BBC F1 coverage the last few years, the new deal will loose those not prepared to pay" - Sir Stirling Moss

"I can't afford Sky TV let alone a sports package on top, unfair, I feel cheated."

"I can assure you that I won't be paying for Sky. This is awful."


"I can't afford Sky, so that will be the end of 12 years of watching Formula One."


There are rays of hope for people opposed to this deal. Some fans have raised the legality of the deal, and teams are confused over what the benefits actually are. The teams, FIA and Bernie Ecclestone have all signed the Concorde Agreement, a contract that determines the rules of the sport and how it is run. It states that Formula One should be on free-to-air TV until 2013, which was when the original BBC contract was due to expire. The deal could be in breach of that aspect of the agreement. Several people have pointed out that teams must be consulted before any new broadcasting deal is agreed. The surprised reaction from many teams suggests that this has not happened. A couple of teams have questioned the benefits of the deal. Sponsors pay for the right to advertise on the cars. They are much happier paying for sponsorship of a team in a free-to-air sport. The sport going to pay-TV means that sponsors must pay even more. Along with this hit, less people will be watching on pay-TV as not everyone can afford it, this results in sponsors paying more for less exposure. Many would simply walk away from the sport, leaving huge holes in some budgets and causing other teams to fold altogether. Teams such as Virgin, HRT and Williams rely heavily on sponsorship deals to balance their books.