Monday, 28 September 2026

Labour Nationalises Thameslink and cuts services to Mill Hill Broadway

There are times in my life when I wonder why I bother? Last week, our Labour MP David Pinto-Duschinsky posted this on Facebook "I’ve just met with Govia Thameslink (GTR) at Mill Hill Broadway Station to raise constituents’ concerns about the timetable changes they are bringing in. The new timetable will see the frequency of off peak trains reduced. GTR say it will improve service reliability but I’m not happy with the changes, nor with the fact the residents were not consulted before they were made. I pushed them pretty hard in the meeting. It’s not clear I can get them amended, but I’ll continue to push for residents’ voices to be listened to" 

I have taken a keen interest in the running of Thameslink for most of my adult life. I commuted on the line every day for 37 years. When I started, they were still running a diesel service. That became the BedPan line. Then Thameslink opened up and trains started running south of the river. John Major privatised the railways, which proved to be a disaster. Under British Rail, Mill Hill had eight trains an hour at peak times. A succession of private operators never achieved this. Labour quite rightly pointed to the shambolic way many private operators run the railway, and came up with a cunning scheme to renationalise the network. GTR, the company that ran the service was recently taken back into public ownership. I had assumed that this would see more investment and better services as profits which were going to private shareholders were reinvested back into the network. It seems that I was wrong. The new owners, answerable to the Labour government, have taken no time to start cost cutting, trimming services. 

This is absolutely ridiculous. London needs better, not worse public transport. Thameslink should operate a regular, frequent service that passengers can rely on. The claim that cutting services increases reliability is utter nonsense. You improve reliability by maintaing and investing in the infrastructure, employing enough staff, particularly drivers, to run the service and by having systems that correctly inform passengers when things go wrong. If there are less trains, it just means that you wait even longer for another one, when they cancel one. 

Renationalisation of rail was a key pledge of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour party. They didn't say that this would lead to a worse service. It almost feels like they are deliberately annoying people so that there is no clamour for more widespread nationalisation of other failing industries such as water. I can see no other sensible reason for service cuts. 

Now Mr Pinto-Duschisky has been MP since Labour won in 2024. He has a majority of seven votes, I believe Hendon is the most marginal seat in the country. I have some sage career advice for him. You may know that you have no power and the usefulness to your constituents of a chocolate teapot, but spelling it out on Facebook is not a good move. He should be banging on the door of the transport secretary and standing up for his constituents, not sitting around being fobbed off by a few members of Thameslinks middle management. 

Sunday, 27 September 2026

The Premiership, not Manchester City, has ruined football


Being a Manchester City FC fan has been challenging over the last few days. Oddly, it seems to mainly be Arsenal fans having the biggest pop. Given that Arsenal entered the top flight of football amid all manner of accusations of cheating and corruption in 1919, there is a certain irony. What is definitely unquestionable is that the "saviour of Arsenal" Henry Norris, pumped a huge amount of money into the club, moving it from Woolwich to North London, where he could make more cash. I merely mention this, to demostrate that the conept of 'financial doping' is nothing new. 

The accusation is that Manchester City have ruined football by dodgy financial dealings. Last Sunday, I went to the Etihad and saw City beat Sunderland 5-3, in what was one of the best games of football I've ever seen. Afterwards, I chatted to some great lads from Sunderland in the pub, who agreed. They also said they enjoyed the banter they had with Erling Haaland.

Sunderland get huge home crowds. They have a dedicated fan base and have built a good team. However, the chances of them, or anyone else doing a "Leicester" any time soon seem remote.  Have a look at the top three for the ten years before and after the advent of the Premiership

YEAR    CHAMPIONS    RUNNERS UP THIRD PLACE
84
1982–83Liverpool[e] (14)Watford (1)Manchester United[b] (3)
85
1983–84Liverpool[f][e] (15)Southampton (1)Nottingham Forest (1)
86
1984–85Everton[d] (8)Liverpool (7)Tottenham Hotspur (7)
87
1985–86Liverpool[b] (16)Everton (7)West Ham United (1)
88
1986–87Everton (9)Liverpool (8)Tottenham Hotspur (8)
89
1987–88Liverpool (17)Manchester United (9)Nottingham Forest (2)
90
1988–89Arsenal (9)Liverpool[b] (9)Nottingham Forest[e] (3)
91
1989–90Liverpool (18)Aston Villa (9)Tottenham Hotspur (9)
92
1990–91Arsenal (10)Liverpool (10)Crystal Palace (1)
93
1991–92Leeds United (3)Manchester United[e] (10)Sheffield Wednesday (7)
Premier League (1992–present)
94
1992–93Manchester United (8)Aston Villa (10)Norwich City (1)
95
1993–94Manchester United[b] (9)Blackburn Rovers (1)Newcastle United (3)
96
1994–95Blackburn Rovers (3)Manchester United (11)Nottingham Forest (4)
97
1995–96Manchester United[b] (10)Newcastle United (1)Liverpool (3)
98
1996–97Manchester United (11)Newcastle United (2)Arsenal (5)
99
1997–98Arsenal[b] (11)Manchester United (12)Liverpool (4)
100
1998–99Manchester United[i] (12)Arsenal (4)Chelsea (4)
101
1999–2000Manchester United[j] (13)Arsenal (5)Leeds United (2)
102
2000–01Manchester United (14)Arsenal (6)Liverpool[b][e][g] (5)
103
2001–02Arsenal[b] (12)Liverpool (11)Manchester United (4)
What do you notice? The second and third places are what interest me most. The mix of teaams before the Premiership gives the game away. Teams like Watford, Southampton, Palace and Sheffield Weds were in with a shout. In the first year of the premiership, Norwich made it. Within five years, the small clubs had all but been squeezed out. 

This is exactly what the Premiership was designed to do. The money is funnelled towards the big clubs. The biggest change was that home clubs keep all of the home gate money. Teams like Watford previously got a third of the gate when they played the likes of Manchester United. This gave them the cash to compete. The prize money for the Premiership is also weighted towards more successful clubs

2025-26 Premier League: Total Prize Money

20.

Wolves

£117.7m

19.

Burnley

£118.1m

18.

West Ham

£128.6m

17.

Tottenham

£135.8m

16.

Nottingham Forest

£137.1m

15.

Crystal Palace

£137.5m

14.

Leeds United

£144.5m

13.

Everton

£147.7m

12.

Newcastle United

£154.5m

11.

Fulham

£155.2m


10.

Brentford

£161.5m

9.

Brighton

£161.6m

8.

Chelsea

£162.6m

7.

Sunderland

£168.2m

6.

Bournemouth

£170.5m

5.

Liverpool

£181.8m

4.

Aston Villa

£182.6m

3.

Manchester United

£191.5m

2.

Manchester City

£192.5m

1.

Arsenal

£198.7m

Again, this favours the big clubs. In short, the Premiership is designed to protect the vested interests of the big clubs and to make sure that it is almost impossible for smaller clubs to make a serious challenge. The only club in recent times to break the monopoly was Leicester. What happened to them? The 'big clubs' asset stripped them and took all of their bestplayers, Ngolo Kante went to Chelsea, Riad Mahrez went to Manchester City.

In American football, it is recognised that it is bad for the sport to have an unfair playing field, and measures are taken to try and ensure every team gets a chance. This means that it is interesting for the fans of all of the clubs and they can dream. The Premiership however was set up to be a monoculture. One of the unexpected side effects of the system that was imposed on football fans by the big four clubs (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham) was that there was a huge amount of cash sloshing around. This attracted the attention of the likes of The Glazers, who bought Manchester United. It meant they could do leveraged takeovers and siphon off billions, whilst investing nothing. 

It all went wrong for them when Chelsea and then Manchester City were taken over by owners who wanted the club to win things, rather than being a bottomless money pit.  The reason that the owners of Arsenal and Man Utd are so anti City/Chelsea is all about the fact that it has affected their finances. Manchester United have the financial power to easily compete with City, they choose not to because they want to draw huge dividends. Arsenal are a well run club, but they are owned by another American Billionaire as an investment. 

I would be happy for City to never win another title, if we went back to a system where teams like Forest, Aston Villa, Sunderland, etc got a fair share of the cash and you'd start the season not knowing who the top three would most likely. What none of the fans of the "red cartel" admit is that it is their own fault for setting up the Premiership, allowing foreign ownership and not investing in their own clubs. If you look at City ad Chelsea, they have amazing youth academies. City's owners have given the whole of North Eastern Manchester a boost. The Glazers have done the opposite to Salford. 

There is still a lot of road left on the road the City are on with the current dispute. But if the 'red cartel' get there way, all of footballs ills will not go away. The Glazers will still be funnelling money out of the Prem, the likes of Sunderland and Palace will find it no easier to make title challenges. A far as I am concerned, the Premiership has ruined the league. That is one reason I go to Hadley FC. I go to football because I love watching football, I love being in an excited crowd and if we win its a bonus. I am not one of the trainspotter mentality fans, who measure success in titles, usually without going to matches. 

I am not too bothered how many titles City have won. If the league strips them, it doesn't change the buzz of being there, in the moment. If the boot was on the other foot and Livepool or Arsena were to be stripped of historic titles and they'd be awarded to City, it would mean nothing. As far as I am concerned, until the people who run English football start running the game for the fans of all of the clubs, rather than for a few rich owners, I personally view any adjudications they make with complete disdain. This whole thing has nothing to do with what is good for football, because if it was, they'd stop funnelling money into the pockets of a few rich clubs and make the league genuinely competetive.