Amidst all the celebrations after Wednesday, we shouldn't forget.

Unfortunately, it seems almost everyone has.

Caremani does not flinch from describing all those present at Heysel as victims in the sense that they were playing roles in a larger tragedy that they did and could not understand at the time. This is the perspective of the French media theorist Jean Baudrillard, who devotes a chapter in his book The Transparency of Evil to Heysel.

His analysis is uncharacteristically straightforward and clear-eyed. He says Heysel was a primitive but devastatingly effective form of 'interactive television'. He points the finger at the Thatcher government's war with the miners (which he describes as 'state terrorism'), which he says was bound to lead directly or indirectly to eruptions of violence at sporting 'pseudo-events'.

Heysel, says Baudrillard, did not happen by chance; it was the inevitable result of the desire of spectators to turn themselves into actors. The nature of the violence itself - crude, tribal and pointless - was a cultural reflex conditioned by circumstance and environment.

Given that he was at a club with no money, huge debts and only one star player, who may yet leave this summer anyway, with nothing left to play for and the club unlikely to be relegated, was there any real reason for him to stay?

And in other news, the ethically challenged Bruce Grobbelaar has been fired from a coaching job for the second time this season.

But things may all get turned around once they start to build a new stadium with associated retail developments, but for some strange reason I won't be a bit surprised if the club ends up having to transfer them to a property company... owned by the club chairman, of course...

You have to admit it, the man speaks sense.

This is a shame, as there are few things more interesting than watching a football journalist trying to run a football team. At least Ridley knew a lot about football, a charge you wouldn't make against most of his erstwhile colleagues...

There is a school of thought that when Alan Green calls a side a 'pub team' they are guaranteed to do something unpleasant [in footballing terms...].

Is there some Premiership rule I don't know about that says that teams now have to have a yellow away strip? Liverpool, Charlton, Arsenal, Spurs, Southampton...?

John Terry. You make enough money: get a decent hair cut.

Humour me if you will. Assume that there are ten Premiership games on a weekend (which, for the point of this exercise, will be deemed to include Monday night). Three of them will be absolutely god-awful. Two will show some potential but turn out to be mostly dire. Three will highlight middling/decent/good teams who may or may not decide to put in a decent performance, depending upon the phase of the moon, the number of r's in the month and whether a dead chicken has recently been waved over the centre-circle. (The latter two groups invariably overlap.) There may be one game with a good team playing well, and then there's the Arsenal game.

Now, would you willingly sit through all that, hoping for the good bits?? Of course not. Would you even sit through four or five games, hoping for he good bits? Of course not. Would you watch four or five simultaneously, to make sure you know the instant anything happens? (Of course not, that's what Radio 5 Live is for...)

Which is why you watch MotD, because some poor sod has had to suffer through all this for you, and you get to see whichever watchable bits they can find, plus quite a few more un-watchable bits they sneak in to fill the time slot. The joys. Which is why we watch recorded highlights: most of the time they're the only interesting bits anyway.

We knew this would be a year of changes, but didn't expect quite so many...

Friday the 13th. Not quite the Ides of March, but in truth a close bloody second.