So Microsoft have entered the social networking space with their recent purchase of a share in Facebook. Google was expected to win the bidding, which also involved Yahoo!, so Microsoft can now gloat over a (rare) triumph over the internet search giant. The coverage makes much of the fact that the bidding war has inflated the value of Facebook to dizzy heights. Here are the numbers according to the BBC:

“Microsoft has invested $240m (£117m) in social networking site Facebook in exchange for a 1.6% share of the company. That puts a value of $15bn (£7.3bn) on a firm that has only been in existence three and a half years.

Facebook is worth $15bn only because Microsoft says so. [...] Microsoft and Google were in a bidding war for a slice of the firm and both companies have large pockets. This was not just business, this was personal, according to some analysts. “

Part of this valuation is said to include Facebook’s potential in the relatively new field of “social advertising”. As Facebook users we hand over significant, valuable personal data that advertisers are very keen on, and want to use in order to sell us things. As well as covering the launch, the New York Times ran an editorial that makes an incisive comment about the commercial appeal of Facebook:

“On Facebook, we love to pretend that we are more than consumers, that we are as diverse and individual and idealistic as we say we are. And that is the curious thing. The more sincere and honest we are about ourselves, the easier it is for advertisers to pin us down. You may find yourself looking at the cloud of friends that surrounds most Facebook users, but what’s even more interesting is the cloud of advertisers that surround them.”

Newspapers and commentators have been, and will continue to be, keen to play up the Orwellian dimensions of social networking (in general) and Facebook (in particular) whenever the commercial side of the phenomenon surfaces. But are we really so “idealistic” about consumer patterns in Facebook? Do we really seek to step outside of our consumer behaviour on Facebook?

It’s much more a case of “both/and,” rather than “either/or.” As the New York Times says, to advertisers, Facebook is “a universe of self-created focus groups that link more or less virally to other groups.” Social networkers are by and large self-aware consumers, but are increasingly selective and reactive to commercial presences in their online spaces. So tread lightly — because, as the oft-quoted Yeats (who would be rolling in his grave at being quoted in this context) once wrote, “you tread upon my dreams.”

A big part of social networking are the “likes”/”dislikes” lists that populate every media sector that one cares to name. The fact is that our taste in music necessarily equates, at some level, with consumer behaviour, some form of commercial exchange. Ditto films, shows, literature, food, travel…we could get really controversial and add education to the list! But you get the picture. I think that the reality is most people recognise that one’s consumer behaviour is an inevitable part of one’s identity - the extent to which that’s the case is probably the real issue for people. The crucial thing is that in the social networking sphere (and perhaps even moreso in the mobile space) is that it’s a special kind of consumer behaviour, and one that people are very protective of.

I’ve discussed this idea as it relates to the relationship between online communities and mobile search and marketing in the mobile space. Advertisers are beginning to realise that although these spheres are highly desirable, they run the risk of alienating potential customers by targeting the wrong group, or getting their message wrong. Microsoft has stepped into the fray as both a middle-man and a marketer, client, and potential development partner. But Microsoft’s massive investment has put the social networking sphere in the spotlight. The microscope is sure to follow as the industry investigates the actual value attached to the investment…

The late, great Brian Clough once said “If a Chairman sacks the manager he initially appointed, he should go as well”. Rarely has football ever seen a more outspoken character than Brian Clough, but his point (made 20 years ago) rings true now more than ever. Almost all managers in football are at best 3 months from the sack. Chairmen have little loyalty, and short memories when it comes to deciding who should lead a football club. A run of bad results (or even average results) can force a club into knee-jerk reactions and sacking their managers- in doing so undermining any good work that has preceded. In the past few months there have been several notable cases, where a club has perhaps acted on a chairman’s impulse, and opted for a change of manager. Yet this contravenes the age old Football logic which says a good manager will need time to make a side “his team”. So are the likes of Ferguson and Wenger great managers because they have been given time to create their own team, or have they been given more time because they are great managers?

Perhaps the second biggest surprise of this season (after Jose Mourinho leaving Chelsea) has been the start that Tottenham fans have had to endure. At the start of the season, optimism was incredibly high, as Spurs were tipped to break into the Champions League spots. Yet, within six games there were reports that Martin Jol was going to be replaced by Sevilla’s Juande Ramos. Despite constant claims from senior players that they wanted Jol to stay in charge, it became clear it was a matter of time before he would be replaced. The situation was similar across London at Chelsea, where it became apparent Jose Mourinho was being forced in his team selection and even his playing squad. It was hardly surprising that a manager who oversaw a poor start (or a sub-perfect start in Mourinho’s case) to the season was sacked. What was surprising was the way in which successful club managers were undermined, and ultimately forced out. In Mourinho’s case, there is an argument to say that if there had been a breakdown in communications between himself and his chairman, it was only a matter of time before he would leave. Abramovic has nobody to answer to, and nobody to replace him- there are few people in the world with as deep pockets for starters. However, Jol had overseen Spurs’ most successful years of the Premiership era, both on and off the pitch.

Jol might be the highest profile case yet of a manager whose success is what ultimately cost him his job, as he couldn’t match the growing expectation. When one takes each of their opening six games on their own, the results were not especially poor. Losses to Arsenal and Manchester United were hardly surprising, and losses to Everton and Sunderland were forgivable. Throwing away a 3-1 lead to draw 3-3 with Fulham was a poor result, but this was balanced by beating Derby 4-0. The start may have been poor in contrast to the expectations, but the cloak and dagger politics of the Spurs board, going behind their managers back to seek out a replacement while Jol still held the job, may well be the reason their poor start has continued.

The squad Tottenham have is far better than the position they find themselves in, and in Juande Ramos they have a manager who allows no passengers- legend has it he even forced his team to play with 10 players because he didn’t think they were trying hard enough. It is unlikely that Daniel Levy’s premature decision on Jol will cost Spurs’ their Premiership place this season, but it may well play a big part in where they finish. One only needs to look at what happened to Southampton when they were far too hasty in sacking Paul Sturrock, to see the dangers of acting too hastily in replacing a manager.

Perhaps this scenario is more applicable to Bolton. Sammy Lee was given an almost impossible task in filling the shoes of Sam Allardyce, arguably the best English manager around. He inherited a solid, hard working squad, with two players of genuine class in Nicolas Anelka and El-Hadji Diouf. Yet Allardyce had Bolton punching well above their weight for the past two seasons. They were well organised, strong, difficult to beat and each player knew their own position. When Sammy Lee took over, it was obvious that his job was going to be a difficult one- Lee’s opening games saw Bolton take no points from six matches. It may have been no surprise that Lee was replaced after nine games (and two points), but Phil Gartside (Bolton Chairman) should have thought about his own position when terminating Lee’s contract. It was Gartside’s decision to allow Lee to take the Head Coach job- a position he was more than qualified for after spells behind the scenes at Liverpool and England. For a chairman to dismiss a manager after they have only been in charge for six months, not only shows poor judgement, but a lack of faith in their own decisions. Gartside has further angered Bolton fans by appointing Gary Megson in the wake of Lee’s departure. Megson had been manager of Leicester for just 3 months, but that didn’t stop the Foxes fans cheering his departure during their win over Barnsley at the weekend. He also holds the dubious distinction of being relegated with both West Brom (to the Championship) and Nottingham Forest (to League 1; Clough would probably forgive a chairman that one!). There is every reason to suggest that Megson may yet turn Bolton’s season around- he certainly has the player and, if you believe rumour, funds available to do so- but Gartside has staked his reputation on a manager who will need to give 110% just to win over his own fans, let alone the players brought in by another manager.

There have been similar cases in Scotland. John Robertson was constantly undermined by Vladamir Romanov when he was caretaker manager of Hearts. Robertson made it abundantly clear he wanted the job, and Romanov made it as clear he would consider him if results continued to stay steady. Despite the backing of the Hearts fans, Robertson was left waiting for a decision which was ultimately negative. Now, two years and eight managerial appointments later, Hearts are still looking for focus.

There are notable success stories. Perhaps the most remarkable of these is that of Dario Gradi. As manager of Crewe, Gradi was given all the backing he needed from the board, and a realistic level of expectation. When Gradi’s Crewe side were relegated, the chairman did not forget that it was Gradi who had taken them up in the first place. Over the course of his 24 years in charge of Crewe, he has taken them between the fourth and second tiers of English football, both up and down. The fact that they keep faith in him is admirable, and profitable. Keeping the same man in the same job for so long has yielded one of the greatest youth schemes in English football history. Gradi’s planning for the long term has seen him bring through David Platt, Robbie Savage, Dean Ashton, Seth Johnson, Danny Murphy, Neil Lennon and Rob Jones. Crewe might never have managed to reach the very top of English football, but they have remained profitable, and progressive.

It is one of the most repeated stories in football, that Alex Ferguson was 90 minutes from being sacked as Manchester United manager, and had it not been for a Mark Robins FA Cup goal against Nottingham Forest, history could have been very different. Ferguson is now in the process of honing his third generation of World Beaters. This is entirely down to the fact that he has the time and faith of his employers to do so. Manchester United may have won the league last year, and they might not win it this year, but Fergie’s team’s always seem to take one step backwards if they can take two steps forwards. The additions of Nani, Anderson and Tevez in particular, could take a season to click, just as the team did when he first added Rooney and Ronaldo to the squad. Knowing there is this breathing space allows managers to build for two or three years ahead, rather than concentrating on instant success.

Here at Texpert Towers, we love our service, our logo, our brand. We are proud, very proud!

So we had some very fetching attire put together for us to strut around in like peacocks.

Check out this sexy number here, for example:

There I sit, surrounded by Sarah’s PR and bicycle, fully weaponised for Texperts action.

I’ll post more Texperts-in-action shots later. For now, if you want one of these sexy little black numbers, drop me a mail or contact me through the Contact Form on the site, above, and I’ll trade you one of these little beaut’s for your iPod Touch (or cash of an equivalent value ;-).

++++

On another note, people have been comparing Bryan Habana to a cheetah of late. Not surprising, as he is one fast, fast running machine. However, as our Fact O’ The Day recently pointed out, he isn’t even as fast as a Welshman. Nigel Walker, former Olympic sprinter and Welsh Winger, has clocked 10.38 for the 100m. I tried to find his try against France to win the game for Wales on YouTube, to no avail. I did find this, though: more evidence of Habana’s vulnerability for the Fastest Rugby Dude In the World … Ever crown. I must admit that I didn’t tune in to USA v S Africa, one of the few games I missed during the fantastic rugby world cup. Ngwenya is clearly one to watch out for. This effort is up there with the try by Kosuke Endo for Japan v Wales (from the ITV site; click here and then select Wales v Japan highlights). Amazing skills!

Just over a year ago, there was not a more unpopular man amongst the English football fans than Sven Goran Eriksson. His time as England manager had been an expensive experiment which was, at best, an era of unfulfilled potential. Stories about his private life were as common on the front pages of newspapers as England’s results were on the back, and his reported 5M per year salary was the cause of much controversy. After an average World Cup display from England in 2006, Sven stepped down. Such was the ferocity of the backlash against Sven, it was difficult to see where he would get his next job. His time as England boss may have been financially lucrative, but it left him with a shattered reputation, and he was seen as a laughing stock. Now, some sixteen months after Eriksson left the England post, and with his England successor living on borrowed time, Sven has taken Manchester City to new heights. Is it time to re-evaluate just how good he was?

Sven was appointed England manager because of his impressive pedigree at club level. He is the only manager in the history of European football who has won top flight titles in three different countries. He took IFK Goteburg to the Swedish title, as well as the UEFA Cup, before winning the Portuguese league with Benfica, then the European Cup Winners Cup and the Scudetto with Lazio. This is not to mention his domestic cup successes at Sampdoria and Roma. He was clearly someone who knew what he was doing when it came to managing a football team. At the time of his appointment, England were in need of direction- Kevin Keegan had fallen on his sword, following a 1-0 defeat at home to Germany and a disastrous Euro 2000 campaign. Eriksson took charge in January of 2001, and made the perfect start, winning 3-0 against Spain thanks to goals by Nick Barmby, Emile Heskey and Ugo Ehiogu. The press were gushing in their praise, and continued this trend as England put in superlative performances against Mexico (4-0) and Germany (5-1). It was only at the 2002 World Cup that Eriksson was first criticised. England were defeated 2-1 by Brazil, thanks to a sublime/ridiculous free kick from Ronaldinho. However, the same player was then sent off for a foul on Danny Mills, and England failed to capitalise on their numerical advantage over the Brazilians in the second half. Brazil then went on to win the tournament. Little by little Eriksson started to lose the support of the press, and with them the public. His public affairs with Ulrika Jonsson and Faria Alam hurt his reputation, as would his alleged meeting with the “fake sheik”, Mazher Mamood, over a fictitious approach to become Aston Villa manager. Despite exceptional qualifying records for both Euro 2004 and the World Cup in 2006, his popularity continued to wane. He was criticised for using too many players in friendlies, or playing in form players (notably Andrew Johnson) out of position. After the World Cup, it was clear that he could no longer continue and he stepped aside.

Eriksson’s tenure in charge of England had several high points. Not only was he in charge of the side that beat Germany 5-1, but he also led the side to the top of their qualifying group for the major tournaments in 02, 04 and 06. When Eriksson took the England job, they were ranked 17th in the World. When he left the post in August 2006, England were ranked 4th. On top of this, England were the only country during this time (other than Brazil) to make the Quarter Finals of 3 consecutive International Tournaments. Sven’s record speaks for itself. In his 5 and a half years in charge, he lost 5 competitive games- 2 of which were on penalties. Of the losses, only the 1-0 defeat to Northern Ireland was surprising, as there is no shame in losing to Brazil or France. Twice England lost on penalties to Filipe Scolari’s Portugal side, and both times they were denied the services of the player which Sven saw as the most gifted he had available- Wayne Rooney. The first time was through an unfortunate injury, the second by an act of stupidity on behalf of the player. In the game against France, England allowed Zinedine Zidane- the greatest player in the World- two chances, and were punished with two goals. It was not Eriksson’s fault that Steven Gerrard elected to pass the ball back to the goalkeeper from so far inside his own half, nor was it his fault that Beckham missed a penalty at 1-0. He could do little about England’s inability in a penalty shoot out either. The main reason Eriksson was so maligned is that when his side were off form, they didn’t ever look like winning. But surely the players must take more than part of the blame for this, if the same players were capable of such heroics against Germany and Argentina? He was also criticised for an inability to make match turning decisions. Those who do so forget that England went 1-0 down when they beat Germany 5-1, and were down1-0 at half time against Slovakia, Macedonia (games they came back to win) and Greece (the Beckham Free Kick game) in Qualifiers.

Another criticism which is often thrown at Sven Goran Eriksson regards the amount of money which he was paid for the job he did. Unfortunately this is part of the cost of getting a recognised International manager. International management does not hold the glamour that it once did, and countries must compete with clubs when it comes to appointing a manager. It is easy in retrospect to say that the decision to offer him 5M a year was a bad one, yet he came from club football with an immaculate reputation and a history of winning things. He was in demand, and if England wanted to get their man, they would have to pay the going rate. Whether he is available or not, consider the possibility of Jose Mourinho taking the England job. His salary would be in the same ballpark as Eriksson’s, he would be greeted with a rapturous reception from the press, but what guarantee does he offer of success that Eriksson didn’t? Both have/had been successful in every job they have/had been in previously.

It is difficult to build a reputation, but almost impossible to rebuild one. However, this seems to be exactly what Sven Goran Eriksson is on his way to doing. He has returned to club management with Manchester City, and transformed them from a team who couldn’t score at all last season, into the side most likely to break into the Top Four. Ten games into the season and they have already equaled the amount of Home goals they scored in all of 2006/07 and boast a 100% home record only equaled by Arsenal. There is no doubt that Eriksson is responsible for the turnaround, as it has been his shrewd eye in the transfer market, and focus on bringing through young players, which has transformed Manchester City’s fortunes. Under his management the club have come on leaps and bounds, with talented youngsters (Micah Richards, Nedum Onuoha, Michael Johnson, Kasper Schmeichel) complimenting the talented players Eriksson brought in (Elano, Martin Petrov, Geovanni). They are still perhaps short of a 20 goal a season striker (a weakness that may be galvanised if they succeed in bringing in Alfonso Alves from Heerenveen) but Manchester City look like a real threat, and have been a joy to watch this season. Those who previously doubted Sven’s passion, or his ability to make match turning decisions, only need to look at their recent results against Fulham and Newcastle to see that this is not the case.

International management is considerably different to club management. International managers must rely on sporadic get-togethers throughout the season to build a “club” camaraderie. They spend months at a time preparing for one or two matches in the space of four days, and then frequently have many more months until the next fixtures. Perhaps most tellingly of all, there are no transfers. Each manager must craft a team from the players they have available to them. If the talent isn’t there, tough. There are many managers who have found the transition between the two impossible. Most find it difficult to go from club management to the international stage (see Keegan and Hoddle), while some rare breeds find the opposite impossible (Bora Milutinovic for example). There are few who have managed to be successful in both spheres (perhaps Gus Hiddink is the best example). However, Sven Goran Eriksson will be seen as a failure in international management when both his record and the record of Steve McLaren suggest otherwise. He didn’t deliver the World Cup, or the European Championship, but his record as England manager is far better than history will suggest. Far too much of his era in charge will be attached to stories off the pitch, than the actual results which were achieved on the pitch. There is a definite feeling that he might get a chance to change people’s perception of his abilities at Premiership level sooner rather than later. What price a title in a fourth country to add to the collection?

There has been a growing trend amongst England’s supporters to let their feelings be known to certain players. Peter Crouch, Owen Hargreaves and now Frank Lampard have all felt the wrath of irate supporters. But why Lampard? And is it acceptable to boo your own players?

Over the past four games, England’s qualifying campaign has finally gathered some momentum. McClaren’s recent back to basics attitude has seen England win, while playing well within themselves. Initially, England’s boss had sought to stamp his authority on the team through grandiose gestures- aimed at distancing himself from the era of Sven Goran Eriksson- such as the controversial dropping of David Beckham. It is only now he realises there are only minor tweaks to be made, that results are more favourable. Perhaps the biggest difference in recent games, has been the switch in central midfield, opting for a complimentary pairing as opposed to the two Best Midfielders In The Country.

Yet this decision was taken out of McClaren’s hands. After an uninspiring win against Andorra in March (which had fans booing the entire team at half time), the new England boss was under serious pressure. His selection was being questioned, and the general feeling was that he would have to choose between Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard in the heart of the England midfield. This could have been the most dangerous decision of his career, yet an injury to Lampard ahead of the vital game against Israel (along with injuries to Michael Carrick and Owen Hargreaves), meant that his hand was forced into recalling Aston Villa captain, Gareth Barry. His performance was one of the highlights of a solid win, which put England back on track for Austria and Switzerland. His inclusion freed Steven Gerrard to take up a more creative midfield role, a role he so often adopts for Liverpool. Since this point, it seems that Steve McLaren has found his preferred eleven. This has, however, raised a question over the International future of Frank Lampard. Not least because he has recently been the targets of boos from the fans, when he played against Germany and when he came onto the pitch to replace Michael Owen in the recent win over Estonia.

18 months ago, Lampard was the most important player in the England team. It was his 80th minute winner against Poland that had secured qualification for the 2006 World Cup, his 5th goal in the qualifying tournament. He had just been voted as the 2nd best player in the World (behind Ronaldinho). His importance was such that Steven Gerrard was shoehorned into the England side, often finding himself wide on the right or left wing. Even a lacklustre World Cup performance failed to raise too many questions about his position within the team. After injury forced him out of the game against Israel, there has been a snowballing theory that dropping him was definitely the Right Thing To Do, culminating in his inclusion in the Boo Boys Club on Saturday. There are two questions to answer here- Why have fans rounded on Lampard? And Are fans entitled to such vitriolic booing of players?

The first question is arguably the more difficult. Lampard has always come across as a likable professional, who may not have the range of abilities of someone like Steven Gerrard, but has consistently provided goals. In interviews he seems understated, intelligent and relatively modest (by Premiership footballer standards anyway). One theory suggests that he is resented by fans because he is a Chelsea player (who have overtaken Manchester United as the most hated team in England) and symbolic of the overspending at Stamford Bridge. Yet, if this were true, surely Wembley would echo with a chorus of boos whenever Joe Cole collected the ball. Another theory suggests it is that he is symbolic of the lavish lifestyle of the Premiership footballer, for which he is resented, especially by supporters of lower league clubs. But why should Ashley Cole be excused if this is the case (pop star wife, expensive cars, high profile contract dispute)? Alex Ferguson may have the most accurate theory; that it has become fashionable to boo players. Previous targets (especially Peter Crouch and Owen Hargreaves) have shown themselves to be more than capable players when given the chance, but Lampard looks like he will have to do more than this, as he has already proven himself. What more can he do?

There is a school of thought that suggests that it is acceptable to boo your “own” players, because “you pays your money” to watch players perform at their best. If you went to the theatre, or went to see a band, and were not impressed with their performance, you would have the right to let the performers know of your displeasure. A game of International football can cost significantly more than this, and so there is no reason why the rules should be any different. It is difficult to sympathise with players who are paid large sums of money to be able to take criticism and respond to it.

The difference with Lampard’s case, is that he was booed before he even kicked a ball. It is in these cases that the criticism is counter-productive and malicious. Fans have every right to let players know how they feel about their performance, but the players must be allowed an opportunity to perform. The past year may have shown some of Lampard’s shortcomings, but a fit and keen Lampard is an asset to any squad (if not starting XI). If there were an injury to Gerrard, would most fans not want Lampard playing alongside Barry/Hargreaves/Carrick in the centre of midfield? It is a worrying situation for England, that sections of the support seem to prefer taking their frustrations out on certain players, than supporting the side. The England side is far from problem free (Paul Robinson has been looking more and more shaky in recent games; Owen and Rooney don’t seem to work together; is Joe Cole the long term prospect on the left wing?), but they have started to look like they have a solid base to build on. The last thing McClaren needs, are problems being created out of nothing.