The Cradle of the Game - One Year On

At the end of last year I wrote this article about my growing disillusionment with the not so beautiful aspects of our national game. Inspired by Stuart Clarke's amazing book The Cradle of The Game, I was reminded of what made football enjoyable in the past. Aspects of the game and supporting experience that are now being eroded by various parties, usually with avaricious motives.

So where are we one year on? Putting aside the fact that this year saw my team return to the third tier of English football for the first time in 22 years; the answer is not really any better off.

During 2011 there is rarely a week that passes without talk of a football club heading towards financial meltdown, moving close to oblivion. For some it happens, see Croydon Athletic. For many others it is a move into administration which eventually saves them, but again that may only be temporary respite. As I write there is speculation that Darlington are set to enter administration, for what could be the third time in nine years.

Last December I bemoaned the football creditor rule, which gives priority of settlement to football debts ahead of those of local businesses, charities and other suppliers. There is something inherently wrong about football clubs having their own rules which over-ride the manner in which any other business deals with such situations.

I am pleased to see HMRC challenge the rule in fact HMRC QC Gregory Mitchell described the rule as "the ugly side of the beautiful game". The Football League were quick to point out the domino effect that a club failing to satisfy their debts to other clubs might have on the league, but for me it is an example of how football sees itself as above common law. Where it deserves special treatment that other businesses in other industries do not receive. The failure of a manufacturing business may haves knock on effect on a team of raw materials suppliers in a local business community, but they get no preferential treatment and this could lead to the loss of hundreds of jobs in a community.

As clubs move on and are sold, you have to question whether the "Fit & Proper" rules are worth the paper they are written on?

• When Portsmouth now sit on the brink of a points deduction again.
• When the owner of Truro; a club with a six figure tax debt, unpaid wages and a white elephant stadium proposal, can be considered as a suitable bidder for Plymouth Argyle by the club's administrators.
• When you wonder what might happen to Milan Mandaric's ownership of Sheffield Wednesday and Harry Redknapp's suitability for the England manager's job if they are found guilty of tax evasion in the New Year? And you realise the answer is probably little.
• When you see Peter Ridsdale continue to find gainful employment as a John Harvey-Jones to troubled clubs.

Football clubs that avoid financial meltdown then face other problems, like not being welcome in the community whose name they use. One of the saddest stories this year relates to Barnet being forced out of their home of 104 years (Underhill) by the local council's inability to work with a club in meeting safety requirements. The same local council that is more than welcoming in helping develop the local athletics stadium to accomodate a nomadic rugby union team.  Even in the 21st century, communities display a nimby attitude to football and it's followers.

Last year I mentioned the FSF campaign for safe standing areas in grounds, like they have on the continent. Germany being the most quoted example. Twelve months on and we are seeing British football authorities seemingly split on the issue, but both motivated by the same factor.

The SPL see safe standing as a possibility for clubs, with "atmosphere" quoted as a reason for allowing pilot schemes at clubs. For atmosphere, read money. In a poorly supported league and in tough economic times, the availability of standing areas at reduced prices may pull in some wavering support with all the discretionary spend that comes with them.

Maybe the decision is easier for the Scottish authorities, not hide bound by the laws imposed in England post-Taylor Report, but for the the Premier League to immediately and vehemently rule out any move towards standing says as much about the financial success of the league and revenue maximisation than anything else.

Increasingly we are seeing extreme police measures to deal with the perceived potential for trouble at football games. Frequently they are deciding that certain games are to be "Bubble matches", where the freedom of movement of fans to and from the game is restricted by police containment. Basically match ticket and coach ticket have to be bought together and fans are picked up from assorted pick up points and then provided with match tickets at the ground where they are deposited and then collected post match.

Not only does this impinge on the freedom of supporters, with no independent travel allowed, but also imposes unnecessary additional costs on supporters beyond extortionate ticket pricing. These have been applied at local derby games and the latest example, Portsmouth v Southampton, highlights one other key issue. It is often the case that away supporters may live closer to the opposition's stadium than their own. Plenty of Saints fans will live in and around Pompey and vice versa. They will end up travelling a thirty mile round trip, expend petrol and parking costs on top of their coach ticket. The police say that this is protecting the normal fans, preventing trouble occurring, yet all they are doing is badging all football fans as troublemakers. As the FSF protest, 'Watching football is not a crime'.

Yet in using these high profile methods of policing, upsetting the everyday supporter and actually increasing the likelihood of anti police/authority feeling amongst supporters, the police sometimes get it wrong and fans are put at risk. Not that they ever wish to admit it, portraying the image they want to in the local media, where the success of the plan and how worthwhile the hassle and inconvenience of supporters was is all you read.

In attending the Sheffield Derby at Bramall Lane in October, my brother arrived in his seat just before kick off rather flustered and breathless. As he walked along Shoreham Street, behind the Blades Kop, a group of Wednesday supporting trouble makers tore up the road indiscriminately throwing missiles and bottles at nearby Blades, with women and children about.

I immediately tweeted about the incident, to which I received a reply from a Police Inspector who had clearly been monitoring social networks saying that nothing had been reported and the helicopter reported that all was quiet. The fact of the matter is that Wednesday fans shouldn't have been where they were, if police plans has worked. Thus no mention in the press of any issues or arrests. Yet that by inference makes liars of those who witnessed events from the concourse at the back of the Kop, or those who were caught up in it like my brother. But that is okay, because they are only football supporters, their observations and opinions are automatically worthless.

It has been a year where players have done little to improve their own public image. The England captain charged by the CPS with making racist comments. The stupidity, thuggish and unsavoury behaviour of England's best striker. One of the best strikers in the World refusing to play for his club and providing piss poor excuses for his actions. An average Premier League striker playing the "Don't you know who I am?" card, when in a pizza shop without cash. The stand-off only ending when two young ladies paid for his pizza. Players have successfully and unsuccessfully issued injunctions to protect themselves from lurid allegations about their private lives being made public.

Beyond digging into the private lives of players whose salaries, partly  paid for by the man in the street, make them public property, we have a media that cannot move beyond lazy, patriotic and bombastic statements that fail to look at football beyond the white cliffs of Dover. Sky bigs up their Premier League product beyond belief, yet serve up Stoke v Aston Villa on Boxing Day. You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

Terrestrial television is no better. On the BBC pundits are paid exorbitant amounts per show to not have an opinion, or know nothing about players like Hatem Ben Arfa who arrive from successful careers overseas. Over on ITV they struggle to hide their disappointment at some of the (and I quote Adrian Chiles directly) "inferior teams left in the last sixteen of the Champions League". One hopes such insular views are not shared by clubs and players. It is certainly not by informed football followers.

Then we have a mainstream written media that feigned interest in the Football League when it suited them, but any other week wouldn't publish a story warranting more than a few lines. Premier League sells papers apparently, but every week more people watch Football League matches than Premier League games.   

Now, in the last couple of days, we have reports of terrestial television seemingly on the brink of casting aside any pretence at coverage of the game beyond the Premier League. Leaving it even more difficult for clubs outside the elite few able to inspire and attract the next generation of supporters in their own community.

Yet the clubs do little to help themselves. This year has also seen Football League clubs write off years of academy investment in one fail swoop after being blackmailed by the Premier League into accepting the EPPP proposals. Thus allowing Premier League clubs to poach young playing talent, pick them up cut price and stockpile them, to no one's benefit. The Premier League claim that this ensures that the best young talent gets the best coaching, providing a greater benefit to the national team. But since when have the Premier League chosen to do anything for the greater good of the national team?

The financial gains provided to football league clubs by the Premier League proposals may only provide short term succour at the expense of long term gain. For clubs like Crystal Palace, Southampton and Sheffield United who have invested heavily in facilities and coaches to provide a sustainable future for the football club it is a disaster. They could see players they have nurtured for a number of years creamed off by the big clubs with compensation figures massively reduced from those currently agreed. The Premier League potentially killing the vibrancy of the football pyramid that very few other countries have and many would court.

As much as there are more informed and pro-active supporters around, sadly, there are those supporters who don't possess the basic skills of being a decent human being. There are still the uninformed, uneducated and those of twisted minds that not only embarrass themselves, but also their clubs and the game they profess to follow. If it is not defending Luis Suarez by racially abusing and wishing death on Patrice Evra, some are telling depression sufferer Stan Collymore to hang himself and others make "jokes" about the death of Gary Speed. Away from twitter, at the F.A. Cup Semi Final, some Stoke supporters considered a car containing a mother and son supporting Bolton to be fair game for abuse and damage just outside Wembley.

Above it all is one over-arching enemy of football at its head - Sepp Blatter. Whether caught up in racism or corruption scandals, this man is seemingly untouchable. His support across the rest of the world is as strong and widespread as the sense of indignation amongst the British media, authorities and fans. Whatever we uncover is seemingly turned to reflect badly on the bitter English. Blatter and the state of world football can best be summed up in his reaction to the apparent corruption crisis within F.I.F.A.

"Crisis? What is a crisis? We're not in a crisis ... I am FIFA president, you cannot question me."

Maybe, we can't, but surely we can question everything else. Yes, there are plenty of things in football past that we wouldn't want back and are best forgotten, but I think that the way things are heading there are plenty more unpleasant aspects heading our way. Sadly I am not sure there is enough of a will, enough lobbying power and enough financial clout to do anything about it.

Here's to a positive 2012 for football. Sadly, I just don't see it.

How to Buy a Football Club...or Not!

My twitter timeline went kind of mad last night, with a peak at around 8:50pm onwards. The Dispatches - How to Buy a Football Club programme on Channel 4 was suitably hyped as must see television, yet for the most part it didn't really live up to expectations and can be seen as a missed opportunity. A view I know is shared by writers at Two Hundred Percent and The Two Unfortunates.

When the goal was gaping several times (the opportunity to expose further cracks in foreign club ownership), the investigative team seemed intent on trying to round yet another defender, showboating when they should have tapped home. Joe Sim's braggadocio about his relationship with Sir Alex Ferguson, was latched on to as the big name target to reel viewers in, a target that would be particularly difficult to nail, yet they still went ahead. Yet there were many, just as important, threads not pursued, regarding the network of far-eastern football investors/potential investors.

So what did the first 50 minutes tell us. For the informed football fan, probably not a lot more than we already know:

That football attracts businessmen for who breaking rules is just a minor headache to get what they want. Really!

That Bryan Robson proposes a business model where a (non-supporting) owner buys a floundering lower league club on the cheap, invests enough to try and reach the Premier League (or the Premiership as he seemed intent on referring to it) and then sells up at a profit (probably without a care about who to). What's new about that? Isn't that the Milan Mandaric model? One that he is applying to his purchase of Sheffield Wednesday?

That a footballer/ex-footballer is happy to hang around with businessmen who buy him drinks and go along with their business deals providing there is something in it for him? No - didn't see that one coming.

That Bryan Robson, former England captain, failed club manager, failed international coach is now desperately trying to claw something back from his footballing connections/ nah, can't imagine an ex-pro would be doing any of that.

That Robson's knowledge of the modern game is limited. Ask any Blades fan or Boro fan and they wouldn't disagree. Noting Sheffield Wednesday as having big investment potential, yes I can see, but the sell the training ground model he proposed wont work at Wednesday and to say they will get average Premier league crowds on 35-38,000 was naïve in the extreme. Wednesday haven't averaged 35,000 crowds for over 50 years.

That big businessmen, get to sit at the shoulder of football managers and owners at dinner? Well if certain businessmen get the ear of politicians, the PM, why are football directors and managers any different when they are being "entertained"?

That the Football League is a "simple alliance" of clubs who cannot afford to have the regulatory systems in place that identify and prevent potential shared ownership or unscrupulous owners taking over. The Football League - archaic in it's approach? Never! If the Premier League struggle to manage and impose a Fit & Proper rule, what chance have the Football League got? It has barely moved forward from the Hardaker days.

Then, after 50 minutes came the big reveal. Joe Sim was prepared to name one of his two target clubs, the one he was going to invest in with the Dispatches consortium. Photos of Bramall Lane appeared. Photos of Sim being entertained by Scott McCabe, son of majority shareholder Kevin were shown. The #twitterblades #sufc hashtags were in frenzy.

The club, he claimed, is £57m in debt (although most of that is owed to McCabe and his companies) and was available for $15m. So we are seen as ripe for investment, despite the significant debt. No surprise really, although it shows the hit McCabe is willing to take to get out. It was also no surprise to hear the names of other clubs mentioned earlier in the programme as potential targets. All with decent fan bases, most with recent Premier League experience.

So should Blades fans be embarrassed that their club was shown to be entertaining Joe Sim? Well after the initial shock of seeing us involved, no I don't think so.

We have an owner trying to take a back seat, who is looking for new investors and has promised to ensure the club is in safe hands. As he is a fan, we have more reason than most to believe the latter point. Can other club's fans feel as confident? Maybe we have misplaced confidence? God knows McCabe has made mistakes in recent years.

In advertising the fact that he is looking for investment, McCabe is going to attract a variety of different people to the club. Some will be the right kind of person, some wont. Some will be unscrupulous businessmen, where it is self evident, others may mask it well. He will not know this until they have been fully researched, met and discussions have taken place. The statement from the club this morning; that initial meetings took place, but the club decided to take it no further, were no more than I expected. 

Sim and London Nominees are not the only reported investors showing an interest in United. The Malaysian press reported the interest of "billionaire" Vinod Sekhar a man who was reportedly at Bramall Lane for the QPR match last August. A match which saw the Blades defeated and  Kevin Blackwell sacked after just 3 games of the season. This story then went quiet as a bankruptcy claim was filed against him in Malaysia, a claim dismissed just a couple of months ago. Having read some of the comments under this article regarding the case, I would suggest we proceed with caution should any further interest arise.

Interestingly, Dave McCarthy (United's Managing Director), in an interview with the Sheffield Star at the end of June reassured fans that any potential investment would undergo the utmost scrutiny;

"Investment is an ongoing search and before anything gets done it has to satisfy Kevin McCabe and his family. they want what's best for United. they don't want to do something in haste that turns out to be wrong further down the line."

Maybe to temper press speculation, maybe based on the club's recent experience, or maybe even pre-empting last night's programme? Either way we have to take the directors at their word. Trust is a massive part of being a fan of a football club. It is not a nice position of trust, but when someone has as much money tied up in the club as McCabe we have to accept his word.

So we escaped from the clutches of a man who said the need for good PR on takeover was so that they can appease the fans who can be "a bit of a headache". Nice not to know you Joe. Yet we haven't been so lucky in the past. 

I recently reviewed the book Fit & Proper: Conflicts and Conscience in an English Football Club for When Saturday Comes. You can read the review here. The book sets out many of the "characters" to have taken a seat in the Blades boardroom over the last thirty years. From the country's biggest white collar fraudster, to an Iraqi businessman later to undergo gender realignment - before a subsequent reversal. A chairman subject to an international arrest warrant to a fugitive still on the run from Interpol and a London socialite known as "The Count", with indirect connections to Libyan arms dealers. It would have been less of a surprise if Joe Sim and co had taken over.

On reflection, I think the people to be most worried about last night's programme are those with existing foreign ownership, particularly from the Far East where the number of connections made between various football investors was a concern. This was where the programme fell down, briefly casting light on these connections, before returning to Sim and Ferguson.

Do you really know who owns your club? Can you be sure that they are fit and proper? Do they have interests in other clubs? The scary thing is not that you don't know, but the Football League and Premier League probably don't know either.

Football fans as stakeholders deserve greater governance of those running the game and their clubs. There is enough money flushing around our game to fund it, so it just makes you wonder if deep down they really want it. Maybe it is up to the fans to up the ante and really demand it.