The barista will take down your particulars

Picture: Costa

Until I went to live in America, the meme about US cops "hanging out in donut shops" (to quote The Bangles) seemed something of a cartoon myth. And then I went to live in America, renting a 'condo' in a new housing development with its own branch of Starbucks, and there, every morning, queuing with me for their 'morning joe' would be several representatives of the Sunnyvale Police Department.

Now, in my local Costa in Greenwich, I often see the borough's constabulary queuing for cappuccinos. But the more I think of it, the more such visibility reassures, especially given the latest crime figures, released yesterday by the Office for National Statistics. In the 12 months to the end of March there were almost five million crimes committed across England and Wales, an increase of 458,000 offences on the previous 12 months. And although London saw a more modest increase of just four per cent in the total number committed that figure includes a significant rise in violent crime. Indeed, since I've been back in London, barely a day has passed without the Evening Standard reporting another senseless stabbing, as gangs carry out their bloody turf wars. Knife crime has increased in London by 24 per cent. On top of that, the city has been inundated with moped-born muggings, with police seemingly unable - or not allowed - to prevent them for fear of another teenage miscreant losing his life in a pursuit. And now we have the apparent epidemic of acid attacks, with thugs choosing callously and cynically to render their victims with life-altering disfigurement.

It's easy to conclude, then, that London's streets (and, yes, Glasgow's or Liverpool's too) are becoming too dangerous, and that we should cocoon ourselves away. Not so, of course. But there's no doubt that encroaching high levels of street crime, not to mention recent terror events, are impacting the choices people make on where they go out, or even whether they go out. Just last Friday night, and no more than a five-minute walk from my front door, 31-year-old Danny Pearce, father to a five-year-old daughter, was stabbed to death in Greenwich town centre, apparently by thugs on a moped who took his mobile phone and Rolex watch, as he walked home from a jazz club. When it happens right in the midst of where you live, and and in a street frequented by tourists, you can't help take a different perspective on community policing needs. With the Metropolitan Police facing drastic budget cuts of up to £400 million at a time when crime and the terror threat is on the rise, you actually must feel sympathy for the thin blue line, as expectations increase on what they can do, just as they're finding they're less able to do it.

So, to return to the coffee shop theme, the latest idea for community policing is for officers to set up shop in high street branches of the big coffee chains. This is one proposal from London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, as the Met is forced to close more of its actual police stations to save money. Traditional high street stations have been disappearing at a rate of knots over the last few years: in the London suburb of New Malden, where I grew up, the once familiar police station next to The Fountain roundabout (and across the road from a once notorious pub of the same name) has been turned into a pub itself, The Watchman. Oh, the irony of eating gastropub food in what used to be the station's cells...

Khan has said that 40 police stations will be closed along with other local contact kiosks in libraries and supermarkets, leaving around 32 in operation - roughly one per borough. Instead, the public will be encouraged to report crime via the Internet or phone, rather than walking into a physical location. The argument being made is that these days fewer people, anyway, are actually going into police stations voluntarily, either to ask for directions or to actually report crime. The era of Dixon Of Dock Green is well and truly over. The logic, therefore, is that a borough's ward teams get out and about in London's high streets (where coffee shops have proliferated as other forms of employment have disappeared). As a result, the likes of Costa, Starbucks and Cafe Nero have become prominent parts of local social fabric, making them sensible locations for community engagement. But is such visibility enough? Didn't the local nick, with its traditional blue lamp above the front door, provide a more imposing statement of the police's authority in a town?

The mayor and senior Met officers apparently want to see officers spend more time on the beat. The trouble, though, is not so much where as to who and how many: Khan has warned that London's police numbers could fall below 30,000 as a result of government cuts, putting severe strain on the Met's plan to have at least two dedicated beat officers in every London ward by the end of the year.

As the BBC's brilliant recent fly-on-the-wall series The Met demonstrated, London's police do a remarkable job. Along with the fire and ambulance services I really only have absolute admiration for what they do, and the Grenfell fire and the events of June 3 in Borough Market only underline why the emergency services deserve to be resourced properly. Being able to engage the police in my local Costa is probably more of a PR exercise than one that actually prevents or reduces crime. And a coffee shop is no substitute for a police station, anyway. After all, where would you lock someone up?

Falling through an open window

You've got to love the summer transfer window, haven't you? From season's end to season's beginning, three months of rumour and speculation and, occasionally, a transaction. No one - be they football hack or football fan - knows what's really going on, usually until it actually happens. And even then, in the case of Romelu Lukaku's transfer from Everton to Manchester United, the club he was expecting to join - Chelsea - didn't seem to have much of a clue of what was going on, either. Or so we're led to believe.

It is often reported that clubs are considering or even activating wholesale changes, as new managers come in and overhaul their squads. Sometimes it's attritional, at others, a clearout. Which is what makes what's going on at Chelsea more curious. Away from the shock-horror headlines about Lukaku, there appears to be something of a talent drain. Last night Nathaniel Chalobah was sold to Watford for just £5.5 million, a transfer of the player's own volition in the pursuit of more playing time. Likewise Nathan Aké, the superbly versatile 22-year-old sold to Bournemouth. Ditto Dominic Solanke, another highly rated youth product, whose sale to Liverpool is still being finalised due to a difference of opinion between the clubs on his value. Winger Christian Atsu has been sold to Newcastle, while Bertrand Traoré has gone to Lyon. All highly rated young players, players who've either come through Chelsea's youth system, or have been acquired as the next great thing.

The outflow of youth players has also seen more disappearing via Chelsea's now well established loan route: Ruben Loftus-Cheek - one of the few young players to break through under José Mourinho - is now on a season-long spell at Crystal Palace, while Ola Aina finds himself at Hull City for the duration of the next term. Tammy Abraham, who was such a prolific striker last season while on loan to Bristol City, is now at Swansea for the season ahead, albeit with a substantial new five-year contract anchoring him at his parent club. Until he, too, is deemed surplus to requirements, of course.

But still, it's not like Chelsea are awash with strikers, and with Solanke gone and Diego Costa going (a matter of when rather than if), some of the club's fans are getting a little irritated. Chelsea aren't threadbare, though: the current full squad currently totals around 50 players, if first team and 'development' personnel are added together. But the real concern is not warm bodies, but talent, and the nurturing of that talent.

It's long been clear that Chelsea works on a dual strategy of populating its first team with players it has invested heavily in, while its so-called "development squad" acts largely as a husbandry operation. The principle established early on in Roman Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea was that the club's academy should be consistently feeding players to the first team. However, the last academy product to become a fixture was John Terry. Prospects like Josh McEachran, striker Izzie Brown and indeed Loftus-Cheek have all been talked of as having the potential to establish themselves, but nothing has come of it. McEachran is now at Brentford and Loftus-Cheek is at Selhurst Park. Brown remains in the squad, but could be another loanee.

Chelsea's husbandry has drawn praise in some quarters: Marina Granovskaia, described by Chelsea as the "representative of the owner", but also a kind of de facto chief executive, oversees transfer dealings, along with technical director Michael Emenalo. And, it could be said, they've done quite well in generating transfer income so far this summer, with £65.3 million in the kitty from the sales of Aké, Juan Cuadrado, Asmir Begovic, Traore, Solanke and Atsu - all fringe players. In fact, Chelsea have earned in well over £330 million from player sales in the last few seasons, all of which being good for financial fair play, and putting money back Abramovich's way.

Picture: Chelsea FC/Twitter

The issue, however, remains who is coming in, and why. So far the club has only brought in Manchester City keeper Willie Caballero on a free (to replace Begovic) and defender Antonio Rüdiger (above) for £29 million, with Monaco's midfielder Tiemoué Bakayoko expected any moment for £40 million (the latter two being specific requirements for Antonio Conte, which explains his willingness to let Chalobah go for £10 million and consider even letting Kurt Zouma - once seen as John Terry's shoe-in successor in central defence - go out on loan as well).

The most vexed issue of all is clearly what's happening about strikers. There was, in fact, a certain indifference from Chelsea fans over the club's failure to land Lukaku. He'd hardly set the world alight when a Chelsea player previously, and for all his prolific goal-scoring at Everton, didn't exactly put himself high on the list of must-have forwards. But, still, Chelsea are currently looking threadbare up front, with only Michy Batshuayi and the forgotten man Loic Remy as first team options for the centre forward position, when Costa goes. Which means signing Alvaro Morata from Real Madrid or Fernando Llorente from Swansea is now a money-no-object imperative.

With a Premier League title to defend and the Champions League to return to (not to mention the domestic cups), Chelsea have a big season ahead, raising even more questions as to why the club has been prepared to let so many of its brightest rising talents go. I'm sure - as indeed are many fans - tjat the club knows what it is doing, and we should just put our faith in them. In the case of Lukaku, it became clear that the club simply wasn't prepared to pay and inflated agent's fee to secure him, and to some extent, that should be respected. But with pre-season already in progress, a summer tour next week to the Far East and a return to Wembley and Arsenal in just three weeks' time for the Community Shield, we can be forgiven for feeling nervous that another summer transfer window will close with targets missed and some last-minute surprises smirking their way through St. Pancras station on the final evening of trading.

Counting the cost of the gig economy

© Simon Poulter 2017

I'm sure it's merely coincidence that, according to new figures from the British music industry body UK Music, gig-going has risen in this country during a period in which I returned to London after 17 years abroad. But given that I've been averaging one gig every two to three weeks since coming back last October, I'd like to think that, in my own small way, I'm keeping the real gig economy alive.

In its latest Wish You Were Here report, UK Music reveals that concert and festival attendance increased by 12 per cent during 2016, with 30.9 million people - almost three million more - going to events, generating £4 billion in direct and indirect spending. There was also a sizeable increase in the number of tourists coming to the UK for gigs, apparently adding more than 47,000 full-time jobs and spending, on average, £850 per trip.

Now, all this sounds very encouraging for the live music scene until you discover that much of this bounty came from the big venues, such as my near-neighbour, the O2, or Glasgow's SSE. Spending at the smaller venues (those I actually prefer) fell by 13%, continuing to raise concerns about the economic sustainability of Britain's independent music stages. It's something that UK Music and many of its members and affiliates are trying to do something about. "This success is being put at risk," chief executive Michael Dugher said in a press release. "That's why UK Music will continue to campaign to safeguard smaller music venues, many of which are fighting for survival. And, we will be pressing the Government to make sure the impact of Brexit does not damage our export trade or make it harder for UK artists to tour abroad and for overseas acts to come here.”

While I lived in Amsterdam and Paris, going to small, intimate venues was one of the immense charms of those cities. At Amsterdam's Paradiso and Le Cigale, Le Trianon and, yes, Le Bataclan in Paris, you could be up close and almost personal to acts that in the UK you'd have to see from Row Z of the biggest halls. Thanks to these modest theatres I've been a matter of yards away from Robert Plant, The Stone Roses, Paul Weller, the Manic Street Preachers, Kaiser Chiefs and many, many more. In fact, here's a secret: if you're thinking of coming to London to see one of the bigger bands play one of the bigger venues, check first that it wouldn't be cheaper and more rewarding to get the Eurostar to Paris...

Of course, what the UK Music report doesn't really share is the percentage of revenues generated by all the ancillary elements of gig-going. Just this week, Paul Sinclair, editor of the excellent Super Deluxe Edition music blog, was highlighting the habitual ripping off of punters at the big branded outdoor gigs.

In the superbly headlined 'Great Sausage Roll Swindle', Paul railed - quite justifiably - about how, having paid £220 for his family to attend last Saturday's British Summer Time event in London's Hyde Park (featuring Elbow, Tears For Fears and The Killers), he was then stung for food and drink he was forced to buy because his family wasn't allowed to bring its own catering in to enjoy as a picnic. "Time to vote with our wallets and not buy tickets to events that have this restrictive policy," Paul wrote. "I'm not going to accept it and I'm not going to attend another BST event for this very reason. Same with the O2 (which I loathe, anyway)."

On top of the well known problem of price gouging by so-called legitimate ticket agencies (which would take up a rather angry post all of its own), gig-goers face other hidden horrors: when The Foo Fighters cancelled their Wembley shows two years ago after the berk Dave Grohl broke his leg on stage in Gothenburg, I could only get a refund for the tickets themselves, and stoically accepted that I'd use the return flight from Paris as a family visit. However, when I challenged the Gigs And Tours ticket agency about refunding the "transaction" fee, they pointed out the Ts & Cs and that I wouldn't be getting my £2.50 back. OK, it's only a couple of quid, but it meant that over the two shows they would have pocketed a cool £450,000 from no Foo being fought at all. Harumph.

There is also the charge that concerts in the UK are more expensive than in other countries. I've certainly noticed a price difference that doesn't match up to exchange rate variations when buying tickets to see bands while I've been on holiday in America. Last Saturday The Times ran a damning story comparing ticket prices for 15 major touring acts, finding that the cheapest were, on average, 28 per cent more expensive in Britain than the United States. For example, tickets for the aforementioned Foos cost £62 for their UK dates but just £38 a pop for their US shows. Similar gaps were found for A-list acts like Katy Perry and Adele, although tickets for U2, Coldplay, Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga were cheaper in Britain. Well, relatively cheaper.

Whatever you pay, it's a given that touring is an expensive business for the artists themselves. These days it's no longer a licence to print cash (a myth born from the tales from the '70s of acts like Led Zeppelin stuffing cash takings into suitcases thanks to the strongarm acumen of manager Peter Grant), unless you are Bruce Springsteen (whose The River tour last year grossed $268,300,000) or Roger Waters, whose epic three-year tour of The Wall reportedly took more than $458 million at the box office.

However, concert promoters say they have to take on the biggest risks when it comes to touring artists - covering the cost of hiring venues, insurance and paying for venue staff and security. According to The Times, the promoter also has to pick up Performing Rights Society royalty fees as well as pay for catering and transport for the talent. One promoter even told the newspaper that the high price of tickets is simply down to the bands: "Everyone is complaining that artists are asking for too much," she said, speaking anonymously. "Promoters wish they were making big money but they’re not. It's a risky business. Cash flow is always a problem. Big stars take 95 per cent of the revenue after costs."

© Simon Poulter 2017

For many artists, though, gigging and recording, recording and gigging, is a subsistence living. One leading rock musician, who is a good friend of mine, will barely make much profit from sell-out world tours of medium-sized venues, once wages and creative costs are taken into account. Not that he will complain, it's just that he's not - yet - in the echelon of the mega rock star. Being a rock star at all in 2017 is nothing like it was in 1971, when record sales and tours bought Malibu mansions and swimming pools in which to park the Roller. "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stack," as Pink Floyd satirised on Money.

Here, I'm caught in a bind. The truly great artists who still tour - a McCartney or the Stones, for example - are only going to make it work in the big halls, the venues where the fan experience is questionable, and the add-on costs of a hot dog and beer are unreasonable. Which means I can probably forgo seeing the legends.

Actually, given the choice I would rather enjoy the intimacy of a pub basement, venues like Camden's Green Note, where for a tenner acts like The Magic Numbers' Romeo and Michele Stodart will host evenings for the 30-odd people who can fit in the place, inviting their mates to join them. The bar and toilets are a better experience, too.

The other day I had the privilege to be at the famous Half Moon pub in Putney where, for just £5 I saw an incredible set by The Second Sons, a superb, rollicking young R'n'B band in the vein of Exile On Main Street-era Rolling Stones (whose producer, Chris Kimsey, worked on their current singles, along with the late Stones sax player Bobby Keys). With cold Guinness on tap at reasonable bar prices, this was as good a gig experience as you could possibly get. And you didn't have to spend the evening staring up at a giant video screen, either.

You snooze, you lose?

I know I'm tempting fate posting on the Romelu Lukaku situation this Saturday morning, given that by the end of the weekend the striker could be a signed, sealed and delivered Manchester United player. That's as opposed to the Chelsea player everyone - including Antonio Conte - has spent the better part of the last 12 months assuming he would eventually become again.

The 24-year-old's protracted desire to escape Everton, to whom Chelsea sold him in 2014, has been as tiresome as it has generated eye-watering headlines of his valuation. That Everton allegedly slapped a presumably prohibitive £100 million price on him is as damning a statement of the inflationary state of football as anything else. I suppose you can't really blame Everton, even if he's really worth only a fraction of that amount.

Both United and Chelsea have apparently offered £75 million. This is still an insane amount, but Conte is reported to have instructed his club's dealmakers (principally Marina Granovskaia) to get Lukaku at any cost. However, that doesn't appear to extend to the fee that Lukaku's agent, Mino Raola, would want from any sale (Raola notoriously pocketed a tidy sum for bringing Paul Pogba to Old Trafford, and also represents another United player, Henrikh Mkhitaryan). Advantage United.

Antonio Conte has now, according to The Times, made his peace over Lukaku signing for United, although he's understandably seething that a player he's been openly courting for the better part of a year is being drawn towards José Mourinho's United at the last minute. And it will raise questions about Chelsea's transfer nous. There's no doubt that the club has demonstrated sound acumen when husbanding its resources: the sales of Juan Cuadrado, Asmir Begovic, Christian Atsu, Bertrand Traore and Nathan Ake have brought in £62 million, money which will go towards the impending acquisitions of Tiemoue Bakayoko and Antonio Rudiger, and possibly Alex Sandro. But still.

Long before those three names were on anyone's lips, Lukaku had been a case of 'when' rather than 'if'. At root has been his desire to play in the Champions League and even to prove to Chelsea that José Mourinho was wrong for selling him to begin with. Everton initially didn't want to let him go, and slapped a nonsensical price tag on him as the proverbial sprig of garlic to ward of predatory interest. On top of that, it has been suggested that Chelsea's relationship with Everton has not been great since it spent much of 2015 trying to buy John Stones. Increasing bids from Chelsea were rejected on the basis that Stones was not for sale. Until Manchester City came along with £47 million, of course. Funny that.

Clubs now appear giddy with an inflated pot of television money, and are apparently happy with increasing their spending on individual players by magnitudes of leaps and bounds. There is a precedent for this: when BSkyB bought the first package of Premier League broadcasting rights in 1992, ahead of the league's debut season, it paid £304 million, establishing the model for paying way over the odds to keep all competitors at bay. 26 years on, the last three-year Premier League TV deal checked in at £8.3 billion. Even with Financial Fair Play ensuring that clubs balance the books, things have gone nuts. If Chelsea do, against the odds, manage to bag Lukaku, it should be remembered that the last two strikers they bought - Diego Costa in 2015 and Michy Batshuayi last summer - cost £32 million and £33 million respectively. And in the case of Costa, you could say they've got their money's worth. Would the same be said of Lukaku? I'm not so sure...