Imagine you wanted to field a candidate for the Fifa presidency while at the same time ensuring there was zero chance of him getting elected.
(I know, far-fetched, but please bear with me.) How might you do it? Would you unveil your candidate just 13 days before the deadline to submit nominations?
Would you present him to the press knowing that he does not fulfil one of the basic criteria, two years in football administration in the past five years?
Might you throw him out there without having first secured the backing of five Football Associations, another prerequisite for standing?
Would he announce his candidacy without first sounding out senior anti-Blatter figures in the game, guys whose support he'd need to mount a threat? Would your guy be unable to name a single member of the Fifa Executive Committee?
Would he stare blankly at the camera when asked about IFAB, football's rule-making body, before admitting that he has "a lot to learn about Fifa"?
And, most of all, would all this be sponsored and bankrolled by a bookmaker known for publicity stunts when gambling on football is illegal in nearly half of Fifa member nations?
Yeah, that would work. And that's exactly what an Irish bookie did on Friday when it announced the candidacy of David Ginola.
It's a shame, because football could use a proper, well-resourced, credible candidate to challenge Sepp Blatter.
Instead, we got this freak show. Which, in one fell swoop, undermines the credibilty of anyone associated with it and boosts the Blatter camp.
Well done.
The build-up to Manchester City's clash with Arsenal at the Etihad today has been marked by words. Lots of them. There was Yaya Toure, off on African Cup of Nations duty, who, when asked about his future at the club, deviated from the usual cliche-strewn playerspeak.
"You have an easy answer," he said. "We'll see. I don't know. I'm at City. City is a great club where I've achieved lots of things."
City boss Manuel Pellegrini said that while he thought Toure was "100% committed" to the club, nobody knows "what will happen in six months' time".
Which, like Toure's, is the right answer. The intelligent, honest answer. But also the one football folk aren't supposed to give because we in the media turn it into a story.
Toure messed up when he didn't profess eternal love for City and Pellegrini screwed up when he failed to definitively proclaim his midfielder was staying. As a result, we have uncertainty on our hands.
Why? Because two intelligent men answered questions honestly and intelligently.
A couple of hundred miles south, Jose Mourinho, amid further outlining of his theories relating to the notorious anti-Chelsea campaign he's been complaining about, devoted a few words to City's new signing, Wilfried Bony.
"Good player, if they have the money and can spend the money and have no problems with Financial Fair Play, well done," he said. "They can only play with 11 though, unless the rules are different and they can play with 12. The rules are different for them in some areas."
He was talking out of his rear end, but, hey, it's a headline.
For those who have not been paying attention, here goes. City were found to be in breach of FFP last year and as part of the settlement, paid a fine and are subject to further fines if their net spend for 2014-15 exceeds €60 million.
The Bony deal - if reports are accurate - puts them around that mark. You'd imagine though, given the army of lawyers and accountants at the club, that somebody figured this out and structured the deal so they fall within the limit.
Not to mention the other, obvious, fact. If they want to register Bony for the Champions League, he'll need to replace somebody on their squad list (which has already been reduced to 21 by the FFP sanctions).
You'd presume they'd sell or loan someone - for a fee large enough to squeeze within the limit - to make room for Bony. It could be Stevan Jovetic (though Pellegrini said he was going to stick around) or it might be Edin Dzeko (given Bony's skill-set, it would make sense) or someone else. The bottom line is that to speak of City flouting rules when they haven't been assessed yet is unfounded provocation - something we're now accustomed to from the Chelsea manager. If they do their sums wrong, they'll be punished. Simple as that.
Having tried every which way, maybe this is what will do it. Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, Fernando Torres earned more than £30 million, most of it from Chelsea.
He played in 182 games in all contests and scored 46 goals. He was a member of the Spanish national side, playing 28 matches and scoring 12 times (a third of those goals against Tahiti in a 10-0 win.)
That type of attacking futility has long made him the butt of jokes, though he can point to his bank balance and medals for solace: a European Championship with Spain, an FA Cup, a Champions League and a Europa League with Chelsea.
His return to Atletico Madrid was heralded as some kind of therapeutic homecoming and he got a hero's welcome after seven-and-a-half years away from the Calderon. In fact, it's not entirely clear how much football had to do with it.
Chelsea had a black hole in their balance sheet and a player Mourinho did not want. So they loaned him to Milan, who covered part of his wages: not much, but, as they say, every little helps. One goal in five months meant the Rossoneri were going to ship him back.
To avoid that, he ended up at Atletico, with whom Chelsea have done much recent business. As part of the deal, Milan got Alessio Cerci, himself a bust in his short stay under Diego Simeone, in return.
And then came Wednesday night and those two goals against Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey, in a game Torres would not have started if Mario Mandzukic had not come down with the flu.
Has he turned the corner? Or is it an umpteenth false dawn? Time will tell. In the meantime, at least for a few days, he's no longer a ghostly, life-and-cash sucking liability, but a hometown hero.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article