Why Sam Allardyce Leaving West Ham was the Right Decision

As a West Ham fan, I've experienced the ups and downs since 2005, when I started to support them. It's not easy. Watching the likes of Zola and Pardew leave - despite their flaws - was tough, watching them get relegated was a new low as well as witnessing the club nearly going bankrupt. Along with those lows, I have seen them win a dramatic play off to bounce straight back to the Premier League, seen the likes of Scott Parker, Carlos Tevez and Alex Song in the Claret and Blue and the club becoming financially sound thanks to the two Daves.

Somewhere in the middle of that rollercoaster comes the reign of Sam Allardyce. When he was appointed, I was sceptical. The man was known for negative tactics and was costing the club a mint, but in fairness he brought the club straight back up to the Premier League at the first time of asking - even if it wasn't pretty. So Season 1 was a moderate success, albeit most of his signings were poor and he had a tendency to bring back some of his former players.

Vaz Te's greatest contribution? His late goal sent us back up to the Premier League

Season 2 was better. Despite defensive tactics and a shoe-string budget, Big Sam got the Hammers to 10th in the league as the board's request to consolidate their position in the league was met. Season 3 was when things turned sour. The team took a backwards step by finishing 13th and although the side weren't relegated, the fans voiced their concern for Sam's negative tactics and transfer policy as he made some ridiculous decisions. Despite defeating rivals Tottenham three times in a season, he found himself shrouded in controversy. The fallout with youngster Ravel Morrison was strange. Although, it's hard to say who was in the right (going by Morrison's history, it probably was Sam), Ravel accused Sam of trying to bully him into signing with an agent, one that his ex-Bolton players were signed to. On top of this, two good cup runs ended in humiliation. Allardyce had conceded defeat before the match had even started with Nottingham Forest and Man City scoring 11 goals between them to show that even defensive tactics don't guarantee a low-scoring game.

Embarrassing was an understatement: Nott'm Forest 5-0 West Ham

Season 4 is a tricky one. Whoever thought of signing Aaron Cresswell, Diafra Sakho, Cheikou Kouyate, Alex Song (I could go on) done an incredible job. These players really upped the quality of the team, but I don't even think that these players thought they'd be sitting in the top 4 on Christmas Day. Thanks to a nudge from the board, Allardici (as he was known for a brief four months) started to play attacking, flowing football. "Hoof" wasn't in his dictionary. He played a deadly Sakho up front with a troublesome Enner Valencia who was also brought in in the summer. Europe wasn't an unrealistic goal.

Diafra Sakho was a revelation before his injury

However, in classic Sam fashion, he reverted to old ways. Despite his side's great form, he would replace some of his first team starters for his favourite players - Andy Carroll and Kevin Nolan. Carroll was great on return, but the team no longer played the same football. Nolan on the other hand, was an inexcusable starter. Right up to the game against Newcastle, he has only shown glimpses of talent. He squandered chances and has been a poor captain - Mark Noble should have the captain's armband like he did at the start of the season in my opinion. On top of this, he changed the tactics. The diamond 4-4-2 would only make cameo appearances, leaving on-form Stewart Downing out of position. All of this made 2015 a year to forget for the Hammers after that great start. From New Year onwards, the club only won three league matches out of a possible 19, all three sides (Hull, Sunderland and Burnley) finished in the bottom five. This run of form in 2015 was still somehow, not the worst. On the last day of the season, we couldn't even beat the most out-of-form side in the league.

It all went horribly wrong for Allardyce and West Ham

So in short, Allardyce won only three league games in 2015 (and one poor win against Bristol City in the cup); he continued to play Kevin Nolan despite his poor form which shows he has his favourites; he continued to leave the likes of Morgan Amalfitano and Nene out of the side, with the latter being a signing of the board; and he failed to keep the attacking ethos that was winning us games at the start of the season. Neutral fans are calling West Ham fans the "worst fans in the Premier League" because we want him out. We are being told by pundits that we will regret the decision, but to those I say - if we can be in the Champions League spots at Christmas, surely that shows our side has enough quality to stay well within the top 10? Spending £30m in the summer and reverting to tactics that simply do not work shows that we have the resources and if we had a manager with tactical know-how, we might actually win games. To those that are saying we don't have the resources, we have to spend £100m, our team's not strong enough - look at Stoke and Swansea City.

Evidence that you don't need a Sheikh to be competitive: Garry Monk and Mark Hughes

I cannot be more grateful for what Sam done in his first two seasons with us and the brief dizzy heights of third position, but all arrows point to new change, new football, new stadium, new players - so there is no point holding onto the deadwood.

Twitter: @mick_demarco

What's your opinion about Allardyce's departure? Leave us a comment.

Why The Monarchy Has No Place in Today's Britain

This old chestnut.

For years, citizens of the UK (and in fact other parts of the world) have debated about the position of the UK's monarchy, arguably the most famous monarchy to ever exist. Today, this debate has started again after Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, said that if her party had the power, they would scrap the monarchy and build more council houses. She then joked that she would even give the Queen one if it was necessary.

Natalie Bennett's joke was portrayed wrong in the media.

This joke has sparked discussion between those who are pro and anti-Royal. On the pro side people argue that the Royal Family brings in more money than is spent. On the anti-Royal side, they argue that this figure is actually false and costs the taxpayer more than they get back. They also state that it makes the system undemocratic - if it wasn't already.

If we look at it on a personal level, I think the Queen seems like a lovely old lady, William and Kate look great together and are great role models for the Royal Family. Harry is polite enough and down to earth and Philip - well, Philip's a character to say the least. They are fairly interesting people and even if she is a millionaire, you'd feel bad kicking little old Liz out of her house.

She's adorable, but she's costing too much. 

However, the monarchy is an outdated part of our country. We may love it when the Queen visits our town - to this day I can't believe that the Queen came to Greenock - but step back a minute. Forget that she is the Queen and think of what she is: a posh pensioner who gets top security and free holidays because she was born to the right family. It's hard to believe that we respect a woman who was lucky to be born into the most untouchable family in the world. It shows that the title of King or Queen gives you an untouchable reputation for doing nothing. Without going into whether or not that is good role-modelling, let's look at what the monarchy used to mean.

The monarchy was until the 1600s, the ruling body of England. Scotland had its own monarchy too and it was only until James VI of Scotland became King James I of England that England and Scotland had some unity (which would later be part of the creation of the British Parliament). So they used to have some power. The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland for many years were those who won the battles and won the land, therefore Kings and Queens were the best in the land and although I am anti-war that at least justifies why they ran the country. Nowadays the monarchy is pretty much ceremonial and has been since the late 17th century. Therefore, the Royal Family can't even justify their place in the palace. It's the equivalent of being rich and of a higher order because your great great grandfather was a famous footballer. It's ludicrous to think that it's acceptable to ride on the back of your ancestors' achievements.

Some would say that the Queen can veto legislation, but let's be honest, the Royal Family are supposed to be politically neutral or else it can cause controversy. So, even abhorrent bills pushed through by a majority party will get the consent of the Queen. However, I'd like to see whether or not a bill to abolish the monarchy would be approved by the Queen.

The main argument is whether or not the Royal Family makes or wastes our money. Monarchists believe that the reputation of the Royal Family and their fame contributes massively to the tourist industry in the UK. Republicans (not mad 'Muricans, but those who believe in anti-monarchism) believe that it's an outdated system which gives the Royal Family freebies without contributing enough to the country.

We know of the Queen's official expenditure for 2013-14 from the Sovereign Grant who said that the taxpayers paid 56p each a year for the upkeep of the Family - the equivalent of £35.7m. These include approximately £15m spent on wages and £246,160 spent on the Prince of Wales to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela according to The Guardian. Discovery Finance reported that Prince Charles makes his money from the Duchy of Cornwall (despite it being owned by the state), which are currently $28m a year. The Queen's net worth is more than $500m a year. They are constantly making money and will no doubt continue to have money even if the monarchy is abolished.

Republic, the anti-monarchy website, posted a report that suggests that costs could cost as much as £299m which you can find here. This includes over a third being spent on security from the state (£102m), lost profits (not the band) on Duchies that are owned by the state, but given to monarchs (£90m) and how they live rent-free (£30) or as some call it, living in a fancy council house.

All those fences add up

These costs add up and in fact cost us more than it's worth. Let's say that we even take the extreme articles of Tory papers like The Telegraph who really support the monarchy. They say that the monarchy brings in £500m a year from overseas tourists as they visit the likes of The Tower of London and St Paul's Cathedral because they are linked with the Royal Family. To think that people go to these places because there is currently a monarchy is stupid. Someone tweeted today regarding the abolition of the monarchy saying: "You wouldn't stand atop the Eiffel Tower and think 'Paris would be so much better if it had a monarchy'". Therefore, why do we focus on tourism to keep them? The Palace of Versailles is the third largest tourist attraction in France behind the Louvre Museum and the Eiffel Tower yet France hasn't had a King since the 1840s. I don't see anyone boycotting India despite the fact that they have no monarchy. Especially because the Taj Mahal is one of the most famous buildings in the world. America is known for Hollywood, celebrities and the President. I wouldn't go to America in hope of meeting Obama or bumping into KimYe at a restaurant. Get real.

"What do you mean nobody lives here?" - Palace of Versailles

So as I've said, if it doesn't even make financial sense to you, at least think that tourism will not be affected as part of abolishment of the monarchy. People visit countries for their landmarks, their history, their culture, their natural beauty. People don't go to the Louvre to see the artists who made the art, but the art itself and the history of it. Therefore, tourism will not suffer through the abolishment of the monarchy, it will only encourage those to come and see the history and the wonders of the once forbidden spots in the UK.

If this still doesn't convince you, just think for a second why you think the Queen is a better person than you. The Queen is no different from any of us, she was just lucky to come from the untouchable family.

How The Oscars Got It Wrong With American Sniper

So this week we have seen the release of the Oscar nominations and the film American Sniper. The Oscar nominations were as controversial as usual. They were viewed by many as the "white Oscars" for their lack of diversity - not only in ethnic minorities, but also in women.

The films up for Best Picture are male dominated and so is the Director's award. You look at the films that are featured in the Best Actress award: Wild, Gone Girl, The Theory of Everything, Still Alice and Two Days, One Night. With the exception of The Theory of Everything, these films have been snubbed in every other category.

But I'll give the Oscars the benefit of the doubt on this one, you get years where the good films are dominated by straight white males. Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel dominate the nominations and both films have been given very positive reviews. If anything, 2014-early 2015 has been a great period for good films with as many as 20 real contenders for Best Picture, but the Oscars, as ever, have managed to get at least one wrong.

Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel reflect some of the best films of the year

The inclusion of American Sniper.

The Clint Eastwood-directed film focuses on Chris Kyle, a US Navy SEAL who is believed to be the most lethal sniper in the US military's history with 160 confirmed kills. The film focuses on his life in the Iraq War and in between when he returns from tours. It is basically your run-of-the-mill war film that is almost ever-present at the Oscars.

The thing is, 2014-15 has been a great year for unique and boundary-pushing films. Fair enough we have the war film in American Sniper, the "boring" film in The Imitation Game, but we also had a comedy as one of the best films of the year - The Grand Budapest Hotel. Blockbusters like Interstellar and Gone Girl have been forgotten about despite their quality. This is because we have films like Birdman and Nightcrawler taking cinema into a different dimension. You had dark films like Foxcatcher keeping people intrigued. You had low-budget wonders like Boyhood and Whiplash giving us different stories and making potentially boring film ideas come to life. These are examples of just some of the great films that have came about in the past year.

Cooper is a convincing Kyle, but the film is flawed

American Sniper looks weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, American Sniper isn't a bad film, but it's a little average. In my humble opinion, a 6 or 7 out of 10. Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle well, but not enough to stop Jake Gyllenhaal from getting a nomination for his great performance in Nightcrawler. Even if we put to the side that this film isn't even in the top 10 films of the year, there are other reasons why it shouldn't have so many Oscar nominations.

Gyllenhaal was excellent as the mysterious Lou Bloom

One blatantly obvious observation is how 'Murican this film is. When I was in the cinema watching Unbroken, American Sniper came up in a preview. The first thing I said to my friends was "How can they make a film about an illegal war seem so good?" I noticed these Inglorious Basterds comparison even before Seth Rogen announced his opinion. Now that I have seen it, it makes sense. This is a propaganda film created by a Republican director (despite my hatred for Republican policies, I still find Eastwood great) who is trying to mask the illegal war through the memoirs of a biased soldier. This film seems less real and more patriotic propaganda when you read Chris Kyle's memoirs. He called the Iraqis "savages". Ok, fair enough that's an opinion of his opponents I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But he also lied about punching former wrestler Jesse Ventura claiming that he said that the SEALs deserved to "lose some". Ventura won a court case stating that he had never met Kyle. Kyle also claimed that he stood atop of the Superdome - home to the New Orlean Saints - after Hurricane Katrina and killed 30 armed civilians that he thought were causing trouble. There were no reports of these deaths. He also claimed to kill two people who tried to carjack him. Unsurprisingly this case also didn't exist.

A mix of lies from Kyle, political bias from Eastwood and a general lack of excitement in American Sniper really made it a flawed film trying to make a man who killed people look like a hero. You can make some people look like heroes in a war film, but you just can't see Kyle as a hero in this. He fought for the bad guys in the Iraq War just like Fredrick Zoller did for the Nazis in Inglorious Basterds. He was glorified as a hero for killing the enemy. He was doing his job. That makes him neither a villain or a hero, he just followed orders.

Uncanny (not that I thought Clint Eastwood would take ideas from a fictional Joseph Goebbels)

If we had made a film called "Iraqi Sniper" it would be too controversial. So why do we find it celebratory to applaud a man - who was on the wrong side of the conflict - for killing people defending their country? The media seems to work its magic sometimes.

All of the above shows why The Oscars aren't perfect. American Sniper looks shoddy next to Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. I mean, it's not even the best war film of the best year. That award goes to the far more intriguing Fury - a film that was actually realistic and not polished in patriotism.

So overall, I believe that it doesn't deserve any Oscars because it was a film with a total lack of ambition, lack of truth, lack of entertainment and taken from the wrong angle. Personally, if they had made the story more focused on his family, it could have been a hit - but it all seemed to either bore or frustrate me.

Chris Kyle was probably not a bad man, but it's very hard to believe that a pathological liar does not have flaws. American Sniper seems to make him Lincoln-esque, when really he was just like one of us with blood on his hands.

Is Noel Gallagher Worth the Money?

I, like many people, were excited by the return of Noel Gallagher and his High Flying Birds. His first album may have not been exactly the most ground-breaking or original, but it was very enjoyable and you could imagine it being great live.

So with the announcement of his second album, it was inevitable that a tour would follow and I was considering getting myself some tickets. However, I refused to join my friends in purchasing tickets when I seen how much one was going to cost me.

AT LEAST 60 QUID.

And from what I was reading, after booking and process fees, it was nearly £80 for a standing ticket at The Hydro. I was absolutely shocked and angry at the price he was charging his adoring fans.

I'll put this in perspective for you, I went to see The Libertines for £61 at Hyde Park at their comeback gig - something so rare that tickets sold out so fast. As well as The Pogues, you got to see a bunch of bands for the day - albeit it was hard to see half the bands due to lack of organisation from the crap promoters.

Now some might argue, "Well Noel Gallagher is an undisputed legend of rock music. He was in one of the biggest bands of the 90s (Oasis) and he's one of the best known musicians in the industry." They would be correct, but does that mean that he should sell his tickets for that much? Of course not! He may have been in Oasis, but is he going to play Oasis material at a show? You'll be lucky to hear two Oasis tracks and even at that, I'll be surprised if it's better than with the rest of the band. So you are basically paying at least £60 to listen to two albums worth of solo work.

This is a man who was part of a band who "stuck up for the working class", yet he won't make his shows affordable enough to satisfy the common man.

If you want a better alternative, go see Johnny Marr. He was in a band as big as Oasis (The Smiths) as well as later playing in bands such as The Cribs, The The and Modest Mouse. Marr is too on his second solo album, yet his tour tickets are unlikely to surpass £30.

If I was paying 60 quid to see Noel Gallagher live I'd expect Liam Gallagher to duet, monkeys on unicycles and a Kate Bush-esque stage presence. But if I'm honest, I don't think Noel G suits dramatically throwing himself across a stage.

In my humble opinion, he does not merit such a price tag as of yet. If you were to spend that kind of money, you'd expect Springsteen, not a two-album wonder.

The General Election: Why We Are Doomed No Matter What

You'd think that in a first world, civilised country like the UK, you could look at the upcoming general election with a smile and say "ah democracy".

But that doesn't seem to be the case for next year's vote where we seem to be stuck in an awkward place, no matter what we vote. These last few weeks have left us in a purgatorial state, especially those of us living in Scotland.

After Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom, it was fair to say that a strong majority of citizens wanted Devolution Max - which would give Scotland all power except foreign and defence affairs. However, since the No vote, the parties in Westminster haven't been able to agree on Devo Max for Scotland, with Labour leader Ed Miliband saying that it isn't the number one priority for now. Not only do Scots have a dislike for the Conservatives, but there will also be a growing hatred for the Labour party who have stuttered on this issue.

Now, from a Scottish point of view - a generally socialist nation - they aren't going to vote for the party killing the welfare state (Tories), they aren't going to vote for the party who decided to sleep with the welfare killers and in doing so completely contradicted their manifesto (Lib Dems), they aren't going to vote for a the Conservatives' racist cousin (UKIP) and now they are going to find it hard to believe in a party who are increasingly becoming more and more like what they hated in the first place as the Labour party are becoming a less extreme version of the Conservative party. 

Who is left then? Well you have SNP and Greens really, both of whom I think are relate-able - but they are also never going to get in power (as part of the UK). The Scottish National Party aren't perfect either to be fair. They have truly effed up the police system in Scotland and have a few pieces of legislation that raise eyebrows (such as banning certain football chants). As for the Greens? Maybe they are more sinister than we think, only disguised by their lack of power. But the main point I make with these two left-leaning parties is, you wouldn't vote for them and expect them to cause many ripples.

That leaves us with no real parties that are worth voting for who have a chance. Some will vote Labour and still believe that they can actually do something, but it seems a little far-fetched. They have became out of touch with the people, which has made people turn to UKIP, who are no better than the Conservatives, but also have a very anti-immigration stance. If Lib Dems hadn't shown how capable they are of lying, they would have definitely been in my mind for next year. As for the Green? Tough to say that your vote would matter. This leaves SNP which are a good bet to vote for if you are more focused on who represents your constituency, rather than your country and this is the view I'm taking - but when I think of my constituency, I'm thinking of voting Labour.

Why after all that slating of the Labour Party? Because of an incident that happened last week. Up until a few weeks ago, I had nothing but dislike for my local MP Iain McKenzie and his lack of action in the area. However, his vote against the Iraq air strikes restored my faith in him. He turned his back on the party and lost his job as an aide to Shadow Secretary of Defence, Vernon Coaker. That's a job that could have really got him places later in his political career and after sacrificing that for what he or what his constituents believe is great. Yet again, if my opinion of him stays the same, I will only vote Labour for the candidate and not the party. 

But elsewhere, I feel for those who don't know who to vote for. Do you vote for who you really believe in and vote Green, SNP, UKIP or Lib Dem? Or do you vote for Labour or Conservative because you couldn't bare to see the opposite party in power? It's certainly a huge dilemma that we all need to think about.

Give me a follow on Twitter if you want: @TrainInVainn

Also let me know what you think about this and if you want, tell me who you will vote for and why.

Has Materialism Killed Society?

This blog entry isn't my inner pensioner talking, but my genuine, real-life nineteen year old self.

Just the other day, I was speaking to one of my university friends and we were discussing the new iPhone 6. I asked her "What's the difference between a 5 and a 6?"

She replied "Not much. A better processor and it's bigger".

I was baffled by the cost and after reading up about it, it seemed a little crazy to spend so much money for essentially a better processor, bigger screen, thinner phone, more memory and a slightly-improved battery life.

Confused, I asked "How can you justify paying that much for a slightly improved iPhone 5s?". Her reply?

"To say you've got an iPhone 6."

I was slightly saddened by her reply, but I do not blame her. It is so easy nowadays to care about your reputation and your possessions. I myself gave into materialism last year and bought an iPhone 4s as I felt my peers were moving with the times as I sat content with a phone that could only run one app at a time. It's not just about your phone though.

We live in a world where judgement surrounds us. Think about it. Hollister went through a stage where boys would be buying clothes out there because "the girls love a boy in Hollister gear". I also fell into this trap as a young boy thinking that I would somehow look better in a t-shirt modelled by male models and that girls would fall at my feet. Hilarious when you think back. But yet again, this is another example of peer pressure and materialism crushing what is society.

I'm sure a few people have heard horror stories of a poor family not having a penny to their name after the Christmas period and having to use food banks. Who's fault is that? To be fair, it is partially the fault of the poor family - they could have easily cut back the gifts for a year - but it is also the fault of society. How would you like to break the news to your young children that they can't have the new PS4 because they are poor? How would you like to tell your children that they are not normal and can't fit in at school because they don't have the latest trend? You can't. It's horrible.

A guy I was in school with was shy in primary school and his dad wanted him to make friends. So instead of letting the child be himself, he spoiled him and kept him up with technology to make sure that he fitted in at something - even if it was only having an Xbox 360 or the new Call of Duty game. It just shows how much materialism has taken over our lives.

So, what has caused this materialism? As much as I hate to say it, it is capitalism. The rich companies hypnotise you into thinking "this brand will make your life easy", "this top will make you the next Beyonce" or "all of the cool kids wear these jeans, you don't want to be left out do you?"

When you wake up on Christmas Day to open a present that you really wish you didn't get, materialism has caused that. The rich get richer with everyone needing fairly useless things like iPhones, whilst the normal people buy them to seem trendy or to not look too different.

My advice? Buy something if you think that it will be useful enough to warrant the price. Be yourself and save your money as much as you can so that you have money for your bucket list and you aren't left regretting decisions later on in life. Oh and if you haven't already, create a bucket list.

Independence Referendum: My Vote

As I begin to write this blog post, I have made my mind up. In fact, I made a decision last night as I blocked the propaganda coming from both campaigns and it wasn't an easy one.

For those of you who know me, I've been a proud Scot and Brit and have supported the union despite its flaws over the past couple of years, but in the last couple of weeks I have flip-flopped between yes and no. Here's the reasons why.

The Yes campaign have in most people's views, been the campaign with the momentum leading up to today. They have had an all-round better campaign but they have failed to answer what will happen in an independent Scotland exactly. If we vote yes, we are going into the unknown. It's scary. That's why a no vote sounds more ideal because it is a little more secure.

However in saying that, the Better Together campaign have patronised to the masses and made a bit of a mess for no voters. They may well be right on some areas, but they have failed to really reach the young people and the working class as they have been too middle-class orientated. I do believe that being part of the UK is in some ways undemocratic and we don't always get what we want, but I don't believe in the yes campaign's dystopian view of a no vote.

They scare you as much as the no campaign do. There will be a Tory/UKIP coalition apparently. They will scrap our free university (even though we have complete control over that) apparently. They will privatise our NHS (we control that as well) apparently. This sort of scare tactics has well put me off the yes campaign, but in the end my love for change and my socialist nature has just about made me over-come the negatives in the campaign.

I'm voting yes after two years of voting no.

In fact as I write this sentence I have just came back from the polling station. I think that the yes campaign have tried to fit everyone and it has worked to an extent. I just believe that Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and that makes it a very obvious reason to vote yes. However, do I expect this inequality gap to close significantly? No. When yes voters talk about leaving the UK to get rid of millionaires and greed, they do not realise that that also occurs on their front door step. When they talk about getting rid of the tories, they forget that if we do become a prosperous nation, greed will go hand in hand with that and a right-wing party will become popular. When they talk about poverty and helping us, they forget about the millions of others left behind from our neighbouring countries who are just as worse off as us. It is incredibly sad that yes voters believe that Scotland is worse off than all because that is not at all true. But in saying that, I feel we could do better with a more people-powered government. Also, a big point for me is that I believe in peace and a world without nuclear weapons, something that is possible in an independent Scotland.

I will always call myself British and will always be proud of my English roots, but I think it is time to leave the union. I love Britain and that will never change. I will always look out for my English, Welsh and Irish neighbours in times of trouble and give my support. I just hope that they will give us support too.

Whether it is a yes or no tomorrow, I hope that our country can unite as one and accept the result. We have a lot to lose, but at the same time we have a lot to gain. Vote how you feel is right by all means, but my vote is a yes.