Charlton 2 Birmingham City 0
I followed the Birmingham game by checking the progress of the scoreline on
Livescore. It is occasionally possible to pick up a commentary on Radio London, but not always, nor do I always have the time to sit within range of the computer and listen, anyway. So on Saturday I checked Livescore to find out how things were going, after about half an hour, and discovered that Charlton were winning 1-0; I returned to the kitchen and the domestic chore which was occupying me on this cold Madrid afternoon, and came back and checked again after about 64 minutes, still 1-0. I managed to finish what I was doing again round about the time the final whistle was due, so came back again to the computer. By now the readout in terms of minutes elapsed was showing 90, and the score still stood at 1-0. The Livescore readout can continue displaying the number 90 for anything up to 7 minutes, as in the first place the figure 90 is merely an automated update on the number of minutes elapsed since the scheduled kick-off, and then of course there are the added minutes, before the letters FT appear in place of the 9 and the 0.
So, given that it was looking like 1-0, I repeatedly pressed the F5 (for refresh) key every 30 or 40 seconds, but the number 90 remained in place. I forced myself to wait another two minutes, then pressed F5 again, hoping to see FT, meaning (full time) it would be over. And to my delight, there were the longed-for letters, and a cause for even further rejoicing, the score had changed and now read 2-0.
My euphoria, however, diminished a little when I read the first reports I could track down. Usually the Charlton website is first with the details, but all I could find before I had to rush off out to a friend's house for dinner, was
a report on the BBC, that well-known guardian of impartiality, which was written from the viewpoint of Birmingham City. Birmingham needed the three points, the report complained peevishly, as though it was Charlton's Christian duty to roll over and let them have them, especially as they'd gone to the trouble of signing Chris Sutton and everything. Charlton's goals were against the run of play, seemingly, and no mention was made of the appalling refereeing decisions which went against Charlton, though these I didn't at that time know about.
Frankie Valley, there in person, however, says Charlton were awful, but still won 2-0, and that this is the mark of the truly successful team: to win even when playing badly.
Also, much is being made of whether Danny Murphy, left out in the cup game last week, and left out again, is in dispute with the club and might be on his way during the transfer window. The club denies all of this, but clubs always do, until deals are done. Smoke screens, which is mostly what you get from public entities these days.
Interestingly, Frankie had predicted a 2-0 win, while the increasingly absurd Lawro had gone for a 1-1 draw as both clubs were 'down among the dead men', whatever that might mean. It's true that Birmingham are 19th in a 20-club league, but Charlton are now 11th, and were only 13th at the time Lawro made this statement. Lawro appears to be keen to bury us before we are dead. But then I suppose I feel much the same way towards him.
Meanwhile in Madrid, the quiz had restarted after the holidays. At the Centre on Thursday evening, Hugh pointed out to me that just as we nearly always win the Christmas charity quiz, we also have quite a good record on the first quiz of the year. I said I couldn't remember, but he was sure that we had won the first quiz of 2005, as well as the last, and he seemed inclined to see this as a good omen. I am usually quite good at remembering these kinds of details, but this time I couldn't remember anything about the first quiz of 2005, and do not recall, even, whether it took place on 10 January or 17 January. However if Hugh thought we'd won, then I expect we did.
The quiz was going to be the first one since the arrival of the new regulations governing smoking in public places, which are not being welcomed here in Spain with the same degree of alacrity with which they have, if you believe everything you read, been greeted elsewhere. Apparently a huge demonstration against the new laws is planned for this coming Tuesday. This will make no difference as the new law derives from some Brussels dictat, anyway. No one here voted for it, and had Sr Zapatero's socialist government included it in their manifesto at the time of the last election, they most certainly would not be where they are now.
Anyway the new regulations state that smaller restaurants and bars can choose to be smoking or non-smoking, while bigger ones have to have designated smoking (small) and non-smoking (large) areas. A nice graphic from the Madrid daily paper
El Mundo can be found
here.
The basic rule is that if the bar or restaurant is less than 100 square metres in extent, then they choose what they want to be. This 100 square metres, incidentally, refers only to space occupied by the public and does not include the space behind the bar, or kitchens and store-rooms. This in fact has meant that most establishments have been able to choose, and I personally have not seen any bars where smoking is not allowed. Hugh says he's seen two or three down in Lavapiés, where he lives. He added that they were all empty.
The pub, and our beloved landlady, decided that the downstairs space, where the quiz takes place, would be smoking, and the upstairs part, whither we repair afterwards to conduct post-mortems and set the world to rights, would be non-smoking, and so, last Thursday night, in the normally empty space alongside the area of the cellar where the questions are asked, there were refugees from the new laws, sipping their glasses of Guinness and smoking, and our customary tables had, for the first time, 'reserved' signs on them.
In fact the turnout was limited to the three long-standing teams, and, bucking the trend detected by Hugh, we threw away a not very commanding lead and came second, though only 5 points separated our old rivals the Old Farts in first place from Edu's team in third.
The long-delayed vote on whether we stay with Thursday or go back to Monday resulted in a dead-heat, and in any case, for staffing reasons at the pub, no changes can come in till next month, anyway. Rather on the lines of those European referendums which don't produce the desired result, another vote is planned for the end of January, and I suppose serious lobbying will take place between now and then. It remains to be seen what long-term effects all this might have for the quiz. I'll keep you posted.