Mandaric, owner of Leicester since February 2007, has been making regular-as-clockwork pleas almost ever since to investors to help “ease” his Leicester City “burden” whilst all the time claiming that he was “not actively trying to sell the club.” The latest of these denials arrived, on time, last month. “I’m not about to sell Leicester City, vows Milan Mandaric,” ran the headline in Leicester’s Mercury newspaper. But, on this occasion, Mandaric spoke of “on-going negotiations” with “several interested parties.” A club statement added that “(he) has always maintained that he welcome the right partner to help him move the club forward.” And he rounded things off with a solemn pledge. Whatever transpired, “The Leicester City fans would be the first ones to be told the truth.”

Three weeks later, Mandaric announced a takeover deal with Thailand’s 27th-richest man, 52-year-old Vichai Raksriaksorn and a “consortium led by Thai businessman Aiyawatt Raksriaksorn”, Vichai’s 25-year-old son. And he added that he would “stay on as chairman and hold a minority stake in the club for the next two years. This is not an arrangement with a hugely successful track record, as Portsmouth fans are bitterly aware. Although there is no remote suggestion that Vichai and Aiyawatt share any of the ‘colourful’ history of the Gaydamaks, who were Mandaric’s Pompey legacy. Indeed, Vichai is President of the Ham Polo Club in South-West London suburbia. So he must be fit and proper – as well as “fit and proper.”

But the club’s 600-word announcement contrived to overlook some important details. Amid considerable guff from Mandaric and his chief executive, the never-knowingly-popular Lee Hoos, there was no reference to trivialities such as how much of the club had been sold, for how much, and specifically to whom. These were vital questions, not only because they were…well…the vital, issues of any such deal, but also because conflicting stories about these and every other conceivably linked matter were appearing in media, old and new, from the East Midlands to South-East Asia.

Mandaric had accused the media of “creating their own information” when stories first emerged that the Thai consortium were buying 49% of the club for £26m. “It is all false information. We are not even close to talking about anything close to those kind of details,” he insisted. “I have no idea where it comes from.” The figures did though make some sense, in the light of what Mandaric had said about easing burdens without ceding control. 49% would specifically not cede control, while £26m specifically would clear the club’s over all reported debt.

But in newspaper reports of the takeover announcement – if not the announcement itself – different figures emerged, about which Mandaric appeared to have no quarrels or queries about source. Raksriaksorn senior would take a 60% stake in the club, while “Mandaric and a third, as yet un-named Asian business person would own the remainder.” So far, so vague. As per. But it soon seemed as if Mandaric had himself been “creating” his “own information. A week after the takeover announcement, the Raksriaksorns held a press briefing in Bangkok’s Pullman Hotel (prop: Vichai Raksriaksorn). And the Mercury’s second-hand account said: “Vichai Raksriaksorn is the mastermind behind the Asian Football Investments Corporation that took over City last week after buying a 100% stake in the club.” And the “mastermind” added that “he would reduce his 100% share in the club to 51% in the future by allowing co-investors”, plans he seemed rather more able to carry out than his “60%” stake suggested.

In the same report there was further confusion about one of the nuts and bolts of the deal – the transfer budget available to new manager Paulo Sousa. “Sources close to the deal” had suggested a figure of “£4-5m.” Vichai told his press briefing: “We will provide financial support…to buy new players…The Budget may be more than £10m.” And there was more. Vichai also said that “Paulo Sousa would be allowed to look for all his recruits,” an award of transfer market authority and autonomy which didn’t fit exactly with Aiyawatt’s later reported suggestion “that he (Aiyawatt) would have a say in which players would be signed.” Because, where better to look for advice on building a Football League Championship side than the mind of a 25-year-old Thai businessman with no previous involvement in the game?

So Mandaric, it seemed, had found kindred spirits. Because he was simultaneously back home “creating” some more information, claiming a hyper-inflationary increase in his financial contribution to the club during his tenure. At announcement time, he “said he had put more than £9m into the club” and that he “would make a loss when he came to sell.” By the end of this week, he was suggesting he “would probably get part of it back” after claiming he had “put at least £21m into the club.”

This figure was neither challenged nor broken down and accounted for. And it prompted one Mercury reader to comment: “If that greedy Mandaric invested £21m into City then I’m dating Kim Kardashian,” which, at my age, I have to assume is cynicism. More pertinently, it has emerged that the Football League are as partly and confusingly informed as the rest of us, which has become particularly important since August 4th, when its member clubs – Leicester City very much among them – voted in new “owners and directors” regulations.

These stipulate that considerable detail of any takeover’s protagonists and the source of their funding be related to the League in advance of any announcement of such a deal, even an announcement such as Leicester’s afore-mentioned 600-word allergy to facts. This clearly hasn’t happened, as the protagonists themselves don’t seem entirely sure. And Mandaric stated that the un-named “third man” in the deal would only “be named in the next few months,” and “has yet to formally sign up to the deal.”

In such circumstances, ratification is some way off. Under the new chairmanship of, fate would have it, a former Leicester director in Greg Clarke, the League have made a big play of transparency in takeover deals and ownership and finances in general. Clarke is not involved in the ratification process due to the obvious potential conflict of interest. But he would have been unlikely to let Leicester off lightly anyway. He became a “former” Leicester director in January 2007, a month before Mandaric’s own takeover and because he disagreed with it.

It’s an attitude which ought to lengthen his Christmas card list this year. But a worrying number of Leicester fans seem very trusting of Mandaric and his ilk. When the Leicester Supporters Trust, the ‘Foxes Trust’ called last month for fans to be better informed about takeover proceedings, they were met with hostility and opposition. And not just from those who were clearly asleep when Munto Finance ‘got involved’ at Notts County and consider their own Trust to be self-important, interfering busybodies. Another Mercury reader wrote: “Mandaric walked out at Pompey and made a cool £42m. If he does the same at LCFC well good on the bloke.”

Such people have been swayed by Mandaric’s persistent trumpeting of his own efforts at Leicester, and are willing to overlook his mediocre record (better than Hicks and Gillett, who took over Liverpool a week before Mandaric arrived at Leicester). And they focus less on Leicester’s considerable annual financial losses (£6m in 2009, £14m in 2008) than his claim, last March, that what money there is “is always coming out of my pocket, out of my money in America, what I work very hard to earn… and pay all my taxes on” (yes, he really said that).

Most concerning for everyone, though, is what has really got the Thai consortium involved. Mandaric had insisted on his partners being in it for the game rather than the money. The Raksriaksorns are certainly that and are more honourably motivated than the last Thai in English football – Thaksin Shinawatra at Manchester City. It’s just that, as Vichai openly admitted last week: “Many investors have already approached me to be shareholders in my consortium and we all have a similar goal – to build Thailand as a football academy for Asia in the future.” As a method of “building” Thai football, it’s a few notches above making Peter Reid national team boss. But Leicester, its own academy and all that “Premier League as soon as possible” stuff, is, quite possibly, just a means to an end. So maybe Mandaric was up-front and honest when he said that “The Leicester City fans would be the first ones to be told the truth.” Because, until now, no-one else has been.

Tweet This Post

Wednesday’s board have made so little progress in their recent search for new investment that they must have taken the summer off following all the takeover fuss which accompanied their last-day relegation from the Championship in May. After the considerable to-do over former chairman Lee Strafford’s resignation and the even more considerable to-do over American investors Club 9 Sports’ failed bid for the club, the board could have probably done with a rest. They appointed ancient Wednesday legend Howard Wilkinson as temporary chairman, so they must have been tired. Of course, Wednesday’s board have been around so long they might well have thought Sgt Bilko was still ‘cutting edge.’ And, more seriously, they’ve been around so long that their reluctance to give up the chains of office makes Tom Hicks and George Gillett at Liverpool seem transient. Chicago-based “sports and media advisors and investors” Club 9 Sports never quite took no for an answer when their May bid for Wednesday was quite rudely turned down. 

Stafford had been a driving force behind Club 9 getting involved. But he’d resigned over the investment stalemate (and – if his contribution to a debate at the June Supporters Direct conference is a guide – much, much more). So the remaining directors felt more comfortable saying “Foxtrot Oscar” to the Americans, especially as Club 9 were making no secret of the £400,000 “management fees” they would charge the club for their untested expertise. Club 9 came back with what they claimed was an improved offer in early July. Their original offer amounted to $5m invested in two tranches. Their improved offer did too. Spokesman Robert Beal, when faced with the obvious question, said there was “a confidential clause in the offer sent to the club which means there IS an increase.” But, of course, he couldn’t elucidate, because it was confidential. 

However, the offer quickly morphed into an “immediate balance sheet improvement of £9.5m,” with Club 9’s claim that Wednesday’s bankers Co-Op were living up to their name with a £6.5m write-off of the club’s £25-30m debt. Wednesday’s board, claiming they had the full backing of the Co-Op for their view, again rejected the offer, again quite rudely, accusing Club 9 of “making noises in the media…while we focus on negotiations with credible, long-term investment partners.” Curiously, they added that they couldn’t accept any offer of less than £5m up front, yet quite happily claimed they could carry on without any investment anyway. “I’m not sure how that works,” noted Club 9 “advisor” Dennis Hobson, a well-known Sheffield ‘personality’ to whom I shall return. “But where’s the winding-up petition from HM Revenue and Customs?” I hear you cry. Well, here it is. On July 23rd, Wednesday were served with a petition over £550,000 of unpaid taxes, an action described by local MP David Blunkett as “extremely unhelpful”, now that a Labour government was no longer the beneficiary. 

The inevitable transfer embargo followed. But Wednesday were still allowed to sell players, and did so in order to pay the bill before they were due in court on August 11th. Goalkeeper Lee Grant was immediately touted as the club’s fiscal salvation and eventually sold to Burnley for £1m. £300,000 of this was used to wipe out past PAYE debts, although by the time of the court hearing it was clear that Wednesday weren’t paying on-going PAYE (Pay-Sometime-After-You-Earn, if you like) and the £300,000 was downgraded from the whole debt to “a very substantial payment of the debt.” Wednesday also agreed to a staged payment of the £250,000 VAT owed and had successfully begged “other” creditors not to add their claims to HMRC’s petition. And Wednesday’s court representative, Hugh Groves, a barrister with Enterprise Chambers in Leeds and, handily, an insolvency expert added that “there are also very serious and advanced negotiations for the sale of the club” – effectively promising that PAYE and VAT would come to those who wait.

How “advanced” these negotiations are remains remorselessly unclear. How “serious” they have been is, sadly, less unclear. Having had their second offer for the club rejected, Club 9 went ballistic…and public. On July 30th, they told all in an open letter to “Wednesday Fans, Supporters, Allies and Interested Parties.” Having received an “oral commitment” from a board member (un-named) that “the board had agreed to accept our current offer, subject to substantiation of financial wherewithal”, Club 9 were most upset not to even receive the courtesy of a direct reply by the deadline they’d set. As a result of this and “the board’s…repeated failure to provide accurate disclosures pertaining to the details of our negotiations” Club 9 made their open letter decision. The accompanying press release was a damning indictment of what they saw as the Wednesday board’s strategy “to sell as many players as it takes (no matter what value they extract)” to pay their various bills/debts. “Rather than accept (our) offer…the board continues to dodge, detract and delay.”

The board had made repeated reference to other potential bidders, especially one un-named, apparently American party. Rob Waugh in the Yorkshire Post, the journalist who had done the most digging and exposing of past failed Wednesday bids, noted that “the board believes the would-be investor(s)’ unwillingness to court publicity – in contrast with other recent suitors – underlines the seriousness of their interest.” Club 9, having none of that, claimed: “There is no evidence of other ‘interested parties.’ By now, we suspect fans and supporters have grown tired of hearing about these proposed investors bringing pots of gold.” They set out in considerable detail what they were going to do, how much they would ‘invest’ doing it and when. And they directed supporters to their web-site, where further details awaited of how they were going to implement “the turnaround” in Wednesday’s fortunes and how they could justify management fees which were still part of the package.

The fees bit was relatively easy. Having scant regard for commercial confidentiality, Club 9 said “the current CEO of Sheffield Wednesday is believed to be paid £220,000 per annum, which is more than half the annual £400,000 annual management fee that (we) would receive.” And “the current CEO… has no past experience in sports, entertainment or venue management or marketing and no experience involving the sport of football,” in contrast to the, un-named, “executives that Club 9 will bring to (the club) who have worked with major league teams and venues in America and have deep (!) experience in corporate sponsorship, ticket sales, event production and…” so on, for a long list which included “corporate turnarounds.” The detail of Wednesday’s proposed turnaround, however, was chock full of the sort of management psychobabble which led to the ruination of many service-driven organisations in the 1980s and 1990s (he says, from the bitterest personal experiences). Amid some common sense, phrases such as “establish metrics to measure goals and integrate them into financials,” kept appearing – an interesting task for those involved in essential but non-money-making roles.

There would be an “organic approach” to player acquisitions “from outside Europe with a particular emphasis on the Americas.” A permanent seat license program” would be offered. Marketing would be “aggressive” subject to “incentive compensation.” And staff would be “eliminated” (ulp!) if they weren’t “the best… or willing to become their best.” “Their best” was defined in an utterly meaningless paragraph entitled “Institute culture of winning, success and leadership.” Among the gems here were “bad attitudes, bad work ethics and bad language are not welcome” (f**k off), “subterfuge, political games and disloyalty are unacceptable” (after all, we don’t do such things…er…) and the best: “failure is not an option,” which paid scant regard to the vagaries of promotion and relegation. All deals with such as “local media” and local “vendors/suppliers” would be “renegotiated” (i.e. “cut,” regardless of worth). The “mass discounting of ticket prices” would be “eliminated” because “discounting (i) devalues the ticket price (surely the point?), (ii) causes purchase delays (how?), (iii) eliminates a sense of urgency (answers on a postcard please) and (iv) should only apply to seniors, young children and (God Bless America) the military.” And a senior vice-president would be put in place to “oversee the day-to-day implementation of best practices from the US.” In other words, the American way – which is working so well throughout the world – or the highway (Gawd, I’m doing it now).

But the current board weren’t dismissing Club 9 because of this headlong descent into w**kerdom. They were doing so simply because, as Club 9 themselves put it: “this board has no intentions of addressing the current and serious plight of the club if it means giving up control.” And in that psychobabble-less statement, Club 9 nailed it. Club 9 also had the backing of “prominent local businessman” the afore-mentioned Dennis Hobson, who was equally forthright in his assessment of Wednesday’s plight, couching it in terms which would resonate with any Owls fan: “Sheffield United have left us miles behind.” He added: “There isn’t enough money in the world to mend Sheffield Wednesday the way things are now. The problem is they think they just need more money. They (just) asked me what I could put in and said the football side takes care of itself and the boardroom is a separate entity. “I said: ‘If I had £100m do you think I would give it to you to spend at Wednesday?’ I think the board are oblivious to reality. They reject everyone who wants to come in but offer no change themselves. It’s a disgrace.”

Yet despite these undeniable truths, the board remain. Club 9 have far from won over the hearts and minds of fans, despite their wordy attempts to claim such a victory. One of their press releases said: “We have had extensive communication with Wednesday-ite (the supporters trust), which is supportive of new investment and are willing in principle to consult their membership by way of ballot on the basis of any legitimate offer which provides the prospect of a better future for the club.” Or, as Wednesday-ite themselves put it: “We have talked to a number of groups and individuals who might be interested in providing a solution at Sheffield Wednesday. (Club 9) are one of those. That’s as far as it’s gone at this stage.” Meanwhile, “the prospect of a better future for the club” could still involve former West Ham chairman Magnusson, who has been linked with the “mystery bidders” in the local press all month, and the national press this week. Amid the turmoil, manager Alan Irvine and his team have made a presentable start. What opportunity they will have to build on this, and who will give them that opportunity, remains as unclear now as it has for much of the last decade. The wait goes on… and on… and on.

Tweet This Post

If August is a time for optimism amongst football supporters the length and breadth of the nation, then Coventry supporters have more reason to enjoy the salad days of the new season than most. For three of the last four seasons they have led the Championship table during August, but in each of those seasons any early signs of their challenge have fallen away. Will this year, then, be any different? Such a recent history might explain why there is such a disappointing crowd – just over 13,000 – here today, and new manager Adrian Boothroyd, who replaced Chris Coleman at the end of last season, may have cause to wonder how he can arrest the torpor of the last few seasons. Coventry City sometimes give the impression of having fallen a little too comfortably into the role of being a mid-table Championship side.

Coventry have four points from their opening two matches so far this season, but even so they aren’t exactly firing on all cylinders. An opening day win against a Portsmouth team that seemed to still be getting to know each other was followed with a draw at Watford that needed a comeback from two goals down with just three minutes of the match left to play.  A weak performance, however, by an under-strength team at Morecambe in the first round of the League Cup saw them dumped out of that particular competition at the first hurdle. If confidence is brittle at the Richoh Stadium at present, Boothroyd needs his team to show some powers of recovery against Derby County this afternoon. Derby started the season with cautious optimism after an opening day win at Leeds United but they have been brought back to earth with two successive defeats since then, and they matched Coventry in also getting knocked out of the League Cup by League Two opposition, in the form of Crewe Alexandra.

Coventry start the match slowly, and after twenty-six minutes a poor clearance by goalkeeper Keiron Westwood almost allows Derby’s Paul Green to lift the ball over and into the goal – only some smart thinking by Ben Turner brings about a headed clearance. Coventry, though, make the best of their good fortune and take the lead six minutes later. A corner from the right-hand side falls for Carsley, but his shot is blocked on the goal-line by Gareth Roberts. Seconds later, though, Coventry have a penalty when Dean Leacock’s mis-timed tackle brings down Gary McSheffrey. Lukas Jutkiewicz’s penalty is too close to the dive of the Derby goalkeeper Stephen Bywater for comfort, but it squeezes through anyway. Encouraged by the goal, Coventry push forward in search of a second goal and Gary McSheffrey shins the ball wide of an almost open goal just before half-time, but the interval comes with the lead still at 1-0.

Seven minutes into the second half, though, Derby haul themselves level. Robbie Savage is playing his five hundredth league match this afternoon, and he sprays the ball wide for John Brayford. With the Coventry suddenly opened up, his low cross in from the right is turned in from seven yards out by Dean Moxey. As if to demonstrate how variable Coventry’s confidence is, this early goal turns the table and it is now Derby that look more likely to score. Indeed, they should manage this when more crisp passing finds Moxey unmarked in the penalty area and with only the goalkeeper to beat, but he screws his shot wide of the post when he should really have scored.

It’s a miss that turns out to be a costly one for Derby. Clive Platt’s flicked header is acrobatically turned around the post by Bywater, but it is only a stay of execution for them. They fail to clear the resulting corner from Gary McSheffrey on thr left-hand side and  the ball works its way out to the opposite wing, where Lee Carsley, himself a former Derby player, swings the ball over for Ben Turner to head in at the far post. There is still time for Derby to come painfully close to snatching an equaliser. More smart play on the right hand side from Derby, who have looked more fluid in attacking positions for much of the game, leads to a low cross that Moxey stretches for and reaches, but his shot is brilliantly tipped over the crossbar by Westwood, and in stoppage time a header from Leacock flashes wide of the post, but Coventry hold on for the three points that take them up to fourth place in the table.

It is likely that this match will be typical of the Championship this season. These were two evenly matched sides, either of whom, one suspects, could with a little luck push into the play-offs or, with a little bad luck, could yet find themselves looking nervously over their shoulders at the relegation places in the new year. Derby were unfortunate this afternoon, and deserved better than the nothing that they came away from the Ricoh Arena with. Coventry City, meanwhile, won this match without playing particularly well and, whilst this is a handy habit to get into, it can work both ways. There will be plenty of occasions throughout the rest of the season when they may not be as lucky defensively. Adrian Boothroyd is still tinkering with his team and they will put in more settled performances than this over the course of the rest of the season. Coventry supporters certainly know better than to get over-excited by a couple of wins in August, though.

Tweet This Post

The first inkling of what was going on at the club was released to the local newspaper, the Western Gazette, at the start of June with a statement crammed full of what can only be described as “marketing bullshit”. Fry’s public statement on the subject deserves to be reproduced in full:

Our aim is to create a Yeovil Town holding company which will enable the directors to focus specifically on the development of our football and Huish Park assets and facilitate the enhancement of our brand. The recent and current economic climate has made it considerably more challenging to secure the necessary interest in any potential club developments, and the professional advice received has indicated that it will be significantly easier to attract the appropriate investment if our property assets are separated from the football club.

If we get past the, cough, “facilitation of the enhancement of the brand” for a moment, the end of that statement makes for very interesting reading. “Professional advice” may well have “indicated that it will be significantly easier to attract the appropriate investment if our property assets are separated from the football club”, but such statements aren’t worth a bean unless they explain how or why this should be so. It can make sense for businesses to split their assets, particularly if, say, a company has two businesses, one of which is having difficulties and another which trades successfully but could be put at risk by the collapse of the other. In cases such as this, however, Huish Park should seem to be inextricably linked to the well-being of Yeovil Town FC.

Other clubs – Crystal Palace, Bournemouth, Stockport County, Rotherham United and Weymouth spring immediately to mind – have all done this varying degrees of disaster ensuing, but it would be unfair to immediately immediately cast Fry (and the other effective co-owner the club, Norman Hayward – the pair own 92% of shares between them) of anything nefarious. It has, however, been suggested in more than one quarter that the fact that South Somerset District Council is interested in spending £20m on a “Sportzone” in the town may well be the motivating factor behind such a transfer of assets. For now, though, the public face of the move seems to be using this sort of transfer of assets as beneficial because other clubs have followed this route:

“In recommending this action to our shareholders we are emulating a similar process to that already taken by a number of other football clubs who have sought to maintain the integrity of their assets. Realising the development potential of the site at Huish Park is absolutely essential for the club to generate new income streams to maintain its financial viability and become a force in League One. We need to attract the right investment partners and as part of this process we are now asking our shareholders to endorse and support the restructuring proposals.”

The feeling of suspicion surrounding what the motives of Fry and Hayward are amongst supporters has been further intensified over the last few weeks by several different factors, not least of which is the wall of silence that those calling for more clarity over the matter are facing. The Guardian’s Matt Scott (whose outstanding work in unravelling the truth behind the Notts County takeover last year pushed the true identity of those behind it out into the open) has also been trying to been trying to get to the bottom of it, but has been similarly blanked by the club. As he rightly points out, Fry and Hayward don’t have to answer to anybody – the vote is certain to go in favour of the proposal because of the fact that Fry and Hayward hold such an overwhelming majority of the shares – but the issues relating to, for example, whether Yeovil Town Football Club will be paying rent, effectively, to Fry and Hayward to continue playing at Huish Park and what valuation has been put upon the land that would be transferred out of the club’s name are serious ones, and it is entirely understandable that supporters are starting to fear the worst about their intentions.

Scott did at least get to the bottom of who the advisors were – the York-based solicitors Denison Till, and their Andrew Lindsay, has lodged a spirited defence of Fry and Hayward, stating that “These guys only want a better stadium and better facilities for Yeovil”, and that “they’re potty for the club and want it to do well”. None of this, however, explains why Fry and Hayward are transferring the club’s ground – its biggest saleable asset – into a separate company owned by themselves. Meanwhile, the Yeovil Town fan-site Ciderspace has pointed to the club’s “Customer Charter”, which Fry and Hayward seem to be in clear contravention of:

The Club consults supporters on a regular basis through public meetings organised by The Supporter Liaison Officer with all information being fed back through the Clubs Official Internet Site and Match Day Programme.

The Club has and will continue to develop ways of consulting with shareholders, sponsors, season ticket holders and other interested parties.

No matter how much Yeovil supporters want to believe that the action currently being taken by directors of their club is being done for its long-term well-being, the silence coming from the club only fuels the belief that nothing good will come of this situation. The truth of the matter is that the club has nothing to dissuade anybody of this opinion and they have had plenty of time to do so. What, though, can supporters of the club do about this? Protesting against it may seem futile in view of the nature of the forthcoming vote, but what alternative do they have? Well, the only alternative is to sit back, keep their fingers crossed and hope that whatever happens turns out in some way to be to the benefit of the club and that it doesn’t cost it its long-term stability, and if the club itself wants to avoid that scenario, it would be best advised to start being a little more open with its supporters. At the moment, it feels as if the club itself doesn’t care, and the only people that can put that right are Hayward and Fry themselves.

Tweet This Post

The registrar, a Mrs Registrar Derrett, had said that Cardiff resembled “a company unable to pay its debts as they fall due”, but they were allowed a stay of execution in order to pay off their debts nevertheless. However, after delays in making the payment the transfer embargo was placed upon the club again, this time until the debt was confirmed as having been paid. Another date was set at court, although this time the club managed to pay their debt back. That said, however, the amount owed to HMRC was a drop in the ocean when compared to the club’s total debt, which is understood to be in the region of £30m.

The new owners are attempting to restructure this debt, but other than that Cardiff got off relatively scot-free from their difficulties. They finally managed to rid themselves of Peter Ridsdale (although his legacy remains in the form of their remaining debt), avoided administration and managed to get themselves a couple of handy signings in the form of Jason Koumas and Seyi Olofinjana, both on season-long loans. They also turned down a £1m offer from Nottingham Forest for striker Peter Whittingham, even though Whittingham is out of contract at the end of this season and, unless a new contract can be agreed with Cardiff, will be a free agent by next summer, as well as a reported £2.5m offer from Ipswich Town for Michael Chopra.

Against this background, it is perhaps understandable that eyebrows were raised when Craig Bellamy signed for Cardiff on loan for six months. Since Bellamy was earning £90,000 per week, it seems unlikely to the point of preposterous that Cardiff would (or could) be covering a wage bill of that size. Bellamy may be having a proportion of his wages being paid by Manchester City, but he can’t have taken a wage cut – it’s not allowed under FA or PFA rules for loan players. He certainly said stated that family reasons were his primary motivating factors for returning to Cardiff, at least. There is definitely a perception on the part of the supporters of other clubs that perhaps Cardiff should be doing a little more towards paying their debts but, no matter how unseemly such a grand signing being made at this time might seem, they haven’t, as far we know, broken any rules in managing to persuade him to join them.

John Boyle, the chairman of SPL club Motherwell, however, evidently feels differently. His club chose today to issue a public statement regarding a sum of £175,000 that Cardiff still owe them over the sale of right-back Paul Quinn, £100,000 of which fell due in January, with a further £75,000 falling due during the summer. The club’s chief executive, Leeann Dempster’s words couldn’t have been any clearer:

“It is critical that clubs work constructively with each other to ensure we can manage a very difficult financial climate for the game. We have given Cardiff every chance to do the right thing. The board now believe that Cardiff’s position is untenable given their activity in the transfer market acquiring Jason Koumas, Tom Heaton, Danny Drinkwater, Seyi Olofinjana, Martin John and, today, the loan signing of Manchester City’s Craig Bellamy. Given all these circumstances and with legal and moral weight behind us, Motherwell FC have no option but to immediately pursue all legal routes to ensure this significant sum paid to us as quickly as possible. These may include issuing a winding-up order, arresting assets or sending bailiffs to their ground on match day to take possession of cash. Every option will be fully considered and implemented as soon as possible.”

Motherwell’s use of the phrase “moral weight” is an interesting one, considering that they themselves have had a spell in adminstration in 2002, but the actual legalities of a dispute between a Scottish club and a Welsh club (playing in the English league system) are also worthy of our time here. Scotland has different laws for these matters, and this complicates the issue of what enforcement action could be taken against Cardiff through the court system. It would depend upon the specifics of the case heard (and it is not as if Cardiff are disputing the debt), but the case was heard at Hamilton Sheriffs Court on Friday (Cardiff didn’t provide representation) and, as such, any decree awarded at the hearing would need to be transferred to England or Wales to be enforced. A certificate to do this has to be issued by the awarding court, and the application to the court requires to be made by affidavit, requiring the services of a notary will be required, if only for the notarization of the deed itself.

Presuming the court agrees to provide the certificate, the matter will then be transferred to the High Court in London and High Court Enforcement Officers become involved. They can act more quickly than ordinary bailiffs and their charges are higher, but defendants in such cases can still apply for stays of execution and the powers of a High Court Enforcement Officer are no greater than those of an ordinary bailiff. What we can say with a degree of certainty in this case is that, in view of the potential legal pitfalls facing Motherwell in this particular case, it is highly unlikely that bailiffs are going to turn up at Cardiff’s ground taking away bin bags of cash. The aim of what has happened so far was, presumably, to embarrass Cardiff into addressing the matter at hand and it seems to have worked. The Cardiff chief executive Gethin Jenkins stated this afternoon that, “”Our lawyers have been in communication with them and it will be resolved within the next seven days”.

As, effectively, a foreign club, Motherwell aren’t covered by FA rules stating that football creditors have to be paid in full. If Cardiff were to enter into administration (not, we should point out, that there is at the moment), they would be lumped in with other creditors in a proposed CVA, as they are not covered by the “preferred creditor” status and, to give an idea of scale, Motherwell’s entire annual turnover for the 2007/08 season was £4.65m. Set against these facts, £175,000 is money that they can ill afford to lose. The route that they took in order to force Cardiff’s hand was heavy-handed, but perhaps we will see more of this sort of behaviour in the future, and it may not even be such a bad thing if it pushes clubs into addressing obligations that they may otherwise have put on the back burner.

As for Cardiff, there can be little doubt that they have been lucky in obtaining the services of a player of the calibre of Craig Bellamy, and these are exciting times to be a Cardiff supporter. Whether they can get promoted this season remains to be seen, but even if the club is only paying, say, £25,000 per week towards Bellamy’s salary, that is an extra expense that will put even greater strain on their wage budget. Attempts to restructure their existing debt notwithstanding, the issue of the £30m that they already owe to various creditors hasn’t gone away and Cardiff supporters would be best advised to keep asking what are often difficult questions because the long-term future of the club has to be more important than a massive gamble on promotion, however tempting that may seem in the first flourish of the new season.

Tweet This Post

Bates turned up once, revelling in his two favourite scenarios. He was the centre of attention, the press photo pack focusing on him rather than Kevin Hitchcock for some strange reason. And he was conning people. A tabloid newspaper was involved in some Chelsea-related sponsorship. And Bates was in his seat, proudly reading his copy… or at least looking at the pictures. But, of course, he wasn’t reading the paper at all. Tucked inside the paper was another publication entirely, the magazine he was actually reading. He was fooling them all and he was loving it. But Bates wasn’t making any point to anyone else, at least anyone else important in his scheme of things. The only people sat behind him were the directors’ box stewards (myself and two others) and Kingstonian’s PA announcer, a chap called Brendan Frawley who had a life so could care not a jot for what Bates was up to. Bates was deceiving everyone, purely for his own gratification. It was one way he got his “kicks.”

The Daily Mail’s Des Kelly recently drew a similar conclusion from his experience of the man. In a wide-ranging but occasionally quite odd feature on Bates, Kelly got to the questions of the ownership of Leeds United, including the obvious one: “Who?” It is not a question answered in any meaningful way by the “Ownership Statement” on the club’s website which the Football League has recently made a requirement for its member clubs, in an attempt to institutionalise greater transparency. And Kelly believes that Bates’ refusal to identify people who are technically his bosses is explained away as “(keeping) everyone guessing and at arm’s length” because “he just likes to be mysterious.” “Why? I’ve no idea,” Kelly concludes, his investigative journalistic faculties temporarily elsewhere.

The Mail’s headline writers didn’t see Leeds’ ownership as the story, preferring to concentrate on Bates’ typically disparaging comments on foreign ownership of English clubs. Through the usual bluster, these comments were revealing. Unfortunately, what they revealed most of all was Bates’ pig ignorance. It says plenty about Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett that you could read Bates’ wild swipes at their integrity and ability and not feel any sympathy for them. But otherwise, Bates was some distance wide of the mark on an issue where his criticism ought to resonate. “Most of the clubs who are in the ***t,” he opined (he has to swear, he’s controversial), “are, or were recently, in foreign ownership.” But, on the verge of a good point, he ***ked up (hey, this ‘controversial’ stuff is easy). “Look at them,” he adds. “Hull City, Derby County, West Ham, Notts County, Portsmouth and Cardiff.”

It will be news to Hull City that they are under foreign ownership, especially to Hull owner Russell Bartlett, unless Bates considers Essex to be another country. Derby County were landed in the sticky brown stuff by some very British gentlemen. Of the four jailed for various frauds and money-laundering, only one was not based in these isles. And he was “Monaco-based”, which made him about as “foreign” as… er… Ken Bates. And the whole point about Notts County’s tribulations last season was that the owners were NOT foreign at all but people such as Russell King and others who were using a foreign veneer to give their plans some shine.

Bates could not have been more wrong and inappropriate if he’d followed up his list by suggesting that “the trouble is people come into the game and think they can make a fast buck”, a field in which, as older Oldham Athletic fans will readily testify, Bates was something of a trend-setter. Kelly let these errors pass, even though they fatally undermined the point Bates was trying to make. Naturally, he wasn’t going to get any decent access to Bates unless the feature was some sort of hagiography. But Kelly should have helped him out here. Kelly was quick to establish his anti-Bates credentials, pointing out very early on that he’s been “banned for life’ (“twice”) in previous incarnations. But there was no danger of a hat-trick. 

Bates’ involvement in the set up of the Premier League and its grab for all the major TV money was listed as an “achievement”, alongside his involvement in the rebuilding of Wembley Stadium. And introducing CCTV at football grounds was, apparently, a “landmark” worth claiming. Kelly said less about Bates’ contemporaneous idea of electric fences at football grounds which, David Conn once memorably noted, the local council rejected because it “did not believe the Chelsea chairman’s custodian duties extended to electrocuting his customers.” And Bates was allowed to repeat, without challenge, his criticism of potential football club investors who “always disappear” when asked for proof of identity and funding. This was Ken Bates saying this. Kelly was unable, or unwilling, to point out the irony.

Much of the feature was based around Bates’ ambitious building plans for the land surrounding Leeds United. Kelly eventually identified them as a form of “Chelsea Village 2.” But again he refused to make the obvious point that Chelsea Village took Chelsea Football Club to the edge of financial collapse before a certain rich Russian saved the day. Instead Bates suggested, without challenge, that while “everyone took the ***s out of Chelsea Village, pretty soon everyone was copying the idea.” Here is where the interview lurched into the arena of the odd. Kelly was taken around the afore-mentioned building sites and noted that “workmen scurry to look busy or simply run for cover as we approach, tipped off the chairman is about to make a snap inspection by covert calls from the main office.”

Kelly, I’m kindly assuming, was just trying to portray Bates as a feared figure. But what came across was a workforce not doing a jot of work if Bates wasn’t coming around…and one with an early warning system to avoid this laziness being exposed – although the “covert” calls weren’t covert enough to overcome Kelly’s investigative journalistic faculties, timeously restored. All the time, Kelly referred to the plans as “his” – Bates’. None of it is, of course. Bates is just the club chairman working for faceless companies many miles off our shores. But that’s not how he walks and talks.

Who is Bates answerable to? Kelly asks, during his brief brush with the real issue. “My shareholders,” Bates replies. And Bates talks down potential investors as “the cousin or a brother of some sheikh or sultan who plans to bring ME untold millions.” No mere chairman talks like that, unless they’re the owner too, as Kelly eventually acknowledged. But he failed to consider the consequence of his admission that “the idea that Bates would ever put himself in a position where he is answerable to others seems laughable – he has spent his entire life ensuring he has control.” Laughable or not, Bates has told the Football League that he IS “answerable to others.” Kelly was still unable, or unwilling, to point out the irony.

It remains a live issue because Bates’ takeover – controversial, naturally – of Leeds in 2007 was predicated on he having no connection with anyone involved with Leeds’ debts at anytime ever. Without reiterating the detail here, it is far, far from certain that Bates would have had the necessary support for his CVA proposals if, as Kelly said: “My guess is that Leeds United are owned by Bates and another couple of business backers that he has known for years” (this is probably based on Patrick Murrin and Peter Boardman’s names appearing in paragraph 94 of Leeds’s ownership ‘clarification’ statement – Murrin is a long-time “associate” of Bates). But if Kelly’s conclusions are correct, Bates can only be secretive for two reasons. And it can’t be because Bates has something to hide because nothing of the sort has ever been proven, despite financial regulators’ and investigators’ best endeavours down the decades.

So we must conclude that Bates is doing it all for the same reasons he pretended to read that tabloid newspaper at Kingstonian all those years ago. He simply gets personal and private gratification from the meaningless deception of those around him. Add that to the vanity and ignorance which permeated Kelly’s feature and you are not left with anything pleasant or admirable. A true Master Bates, in fact.

Tweet This Post

A former colleague once related that on her way to watch Southampton play Ajax she was cut up by another motorist. Far from being upset by this she bore the assailant no ill-will as she believed that the car was ferrying new-owner and club saviour Markus Liebherr to his first game; the driver no doubt unfamiliar with the city and the vagaries of its traffic lanes. The car may or may not have contained Mr Liebherr however, the story says much about the esteem fans held for the new owner.

Leibherr emerged after a dark summer where the club, now celebrating its 125th year stared into oblivion. Torn apart by boardroom infighting the club, long proud of its Premier League status, had been relegated the third tier, was in receivership and if that was not enough faced the added burden of starting the new season with a 10 point penalty. Fans had turned to the man credited with single handedly maintaining that hallowed Premier League status during the 1990s Matt Le Tissier. However, despite saving the club on-pitch time and time again off-pitch was a different matter. The consortium he was involved in crumbled away to dust just as the last few grains of sand were trickling through the neck of the egg-timer. Enter Liebherr the Swiss-based, business magnate.

This was an astonishing turnaround of events. Like an action movie the club had been plummeting freefall to the ground when just before the moment of impact it was scooped up, cradled in the heroes arms, and on a trajectory skyward. The club had entered a new era with Liebherr and his newly installed chairman Nicola Cortese boosting their already God-like status (previously only held by Le Tissier) at the club by promising future success within a solid framework of financial prudence. The clubs supporters rejoiced.

The new administration was quick to make changes and set itself the task of overhauling procedures across the entire club. Moves brought in such as making sure all club staff received an invite to the Christmas party welcomingly progressive and commitment to developing facilities for training and youth development meeting with universal approval  however, other moves proved more controversial. Mark Wotte the manager who had held the squad together during the chaos of the summer was sacked the day after the take-over.

Though this move surprised supporters who had some sympathy for Wotte, the success of his replacement Alan Pardew went a long way to mitigating the decisive action of the incoming bosses. A spat with the local newspaper the Daily Echo overshadowed part of last season; the paper being issued with a ban by chairman Nicola Cortese who recently generated fresh controversy by barring press photographers from the ground arguing that the action was required to protect the clubs revenues and image rights.

Throughout these events supporters have remained vocally loyal to the club administration. The level of support is unsurprising given the events of the summer of 2009 and the fact that Liebherr and Cortese have presided over subsequent on-field success; the team missing out on the play-offs by a wafer thin margin in spite of a 10 point penalty and celebrating its first piece of silverware since 1976. Indeed, the future looks bright for the once beleaguered club now tipped for a return to the Championship. Almost all of this, including the fact that Southampton FC still exists, is owed to Markus Liebherr.

The image used for this article is reproduced courtesy of Flickr user Ingy The Wingy under a Creative Commons 2.0 Licence.

Tweet This Post

No official announcement has been yet over whether Exeter’s match at Dagenham on Saturday will go ahead. Whether to go ahead with the match or not under such circumstances is always a difficult judgement call to make, but perhaps the best tribute that can be laid on by the players is to out on Saturday afternoon and play their hearts out for his memory. Supporters’ tributes have, of course, already started to arrive at St James Park. Significantly, there have also been fulsome and heartfelt tributes left on the forums of other clubs. To lose an athlete, until recently presumed to be in the fullest of health, in such an arbitary seeming way is a loss for us all and serves as a timely reminder that we, as supporters, have been in common than we do between us. It is, let us never forget, only a game.

Our thoughts are with his family and friends, and also with everybody connected with Exeter City FC – players, officials and supporters – at this difficult time. Anybody wishing to leave a message of condolence may do so here.

***A quick update on the 12th August – It has been confirmed that Exeter’s match at Dagenham & Redbridge has been postponed.

Tweet This Post

The battle to keep the club alive was finally won last week, but the balloons from this particular party were starting to fall somewhat limp by late on Saturday afternoon, by which time some degree of the scale of the task facing new manager had been made clear by a fairly comprehensive 2-0 defeat in their opening match of the season in the Championship at the hands of Coventry City, during which the shortcomings in the squad brought out by the necessity of their administration were lain bare. Good support and good intentions can only get a football club so far, and the smell of dry rot still hung over Portsmouth on Saturday.

Stevenage Borough, meanwhile, won the Blue Square Premier against the expectations of most, upsetting the widely held opinion that last season’s fifth division would be a straight two-horse race between Luton Town and Oxford United. Oxford squeezed their way back into the Football League through the play-offs, but Luton remain a non-league club for another season, at least. Stevenage lopped the “Borough” off their name during the summer and they remain, on account of their manager, Graham Westley, difficult to love, but there can be little questioning the scale of their achievement. They have earnt their place in the Football League, and matches like this are part of their reward. They started off their league season with a home draw against Macclesfield Town on Saturday. It wasn’t a result that set the world alight, but a late equaliser to tie the match at 2-2 will have given them a degree of confidence ahead of this evening’s match.

The football season doesn’t begin with a bang any more. The start of the season is too staggered – Manchester United and Chelsea, after all, were playing a superannuated pre-season friendly yesterday, a full day after Stevenage and Portsmouth had completed their first league matches, and the almost over-saturated lush green pitch and bright red paintwork of Broadhall Way grant the surroundings the feeling of being somewhere between a friendly match and a cup tie. Stevenage start confidently, pushing the ball around as the Portsmouth midfield cedes control of the centre of the pitch to them. This Stevenage team isn’t, of course, a team of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers pushed into the harsh glare of the big time. They were a professional club last season too, after all.

We can see as much when David Nugent breaks through only to see his shot blocked by the Stevenage goalkeeper Chris Day. There were high hopes for Day, who was thirty-five a couple of weeks ago. A decade and a half ago while he was on the books of Tottenham Hotspur. He played five times for the England under-21 team before transferring to Crystal Palace, and went on to play for Watford, Queens Park Rangers, Lincoln City, Preston North End, Oldham Athletic and Millwall before pitching up at Millwall. All of his experience can’t save Stevenage from the resulting corner, though. The resulting corner, from the right hand side, is swung towards the near post. Nadir Ciftci drifts towards the ball and glances it tidly across the face of the goal and in with the Stevenage defence still in warm up mode.

Stevenage’s response is commendable and a demonstration in itself of their potential. They push straight back into an attacking position as if the Portsmouth goal simply hasn’t happened, and within ten minutes they are level when a twenty yard shot from Darren Murphy skids straight through a crowded defence and into the bottom corner. With the scores level, the match soon arrives at an agreeable rhythm, and the difference between the sides isn’t immediately noticeable. Stevenage push forward, but the clear opportunities to score seem evenly distributed between the two teams, with Joel Byrom shooting narrowly wide for Stevenage and Nadir Ciftci shooting over from twelve yards when he should really have scored after some nifty play on the left-hand side. With nine minutes to play of the half, though, Portsmouth retake the lead, and it’s slightly slack defending from Stevenage that is responsible when Michael Brown heads in a deep, looping cross from the right-hand side. It’s reasonably comfortable until half-time for Portsmouth, although Stevenage continue to press, and the match is far from over at half-time.

The sky has been darkening throughout the first half as dusk turns to night, and with the floodlights come the feeling that this is a cup tie. The exhortations of the crowd become more urgent and the managers become more animated with their instructions. Portsmouth, however, feel in control. It’s not a Premier League club playing a non-league club (Portsmouth are still allowing Stevenage a little too much possession and space for it to feel one-sided), but it does feel like a Championship club playing a League Two club, with the degree of comfort that this confers. The differences are subtle, but the visiting defence just feels that degree better organised and more composed. Stevenage find themselves in handy attacking positions before conceding possession or playing The Wrong Ball more than once, but they may only need to find The Right Ball once to haul themselves back into the match.

The Right Ball doesn’t come for Stevenage. Indeed, with Portsmouth soaking up their attacks with greater and greater confidence and pushing balls through on the break, it starts to feel as if they are at least as likely to extend their lead as lose it. With eight minutes to go, David Nugent is put through but extravagantly overhits his second touch, allowing Day to rush out and smother the ball. Ciftci shoots narrowly over, and John Utaka has a run to the byline but can’t squeeze the ball across the face of goal. It feels as though Portsmouth are actually starting to enjoy their football – a feeling that has been all too rare over the last twelve months of purgatory. As the clock ticks over ninety minutes Stevenage have what may turn out to be the most half-hearted appeal for a penalty of the season turned down, but it has been that sort of night for them. Portsmouth have won comfortably – certainly more comfortably than the scoreline would suggest.

The first few weeks of this season will be a steep learning curve for Stevenage FC but, on the evidence of this evening, they should be comfortable in League Two this season. They didn’t quite carry enough about them to seriously worry Portsmouth after the visitors retook the lead early in the second half, but in the somewhat more mundane surroundings of League Two there is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to hold their own as they adjust to their new surroundings. They had, after all, been a Football Conference side for a long time. Portsmouth, meanwhile, might earn themselves some money from the next round of the competition, but this last few days (as the next few weeks will also be) have been about restoring something approaching a sense of normality to the club. The first win of the season should help this process to some extent, at least.

Tweet This Post

The consequences of yesterday’s decision don’t just put the past into focus – they affect the future, as well. It has been reported that Balram Chainrai will be given ownership of the club free of charge in return for paying off the amount agreed by the CVA. We shall have to wait and see whether he chooses to take this up and, if he does, whether he will pay off the club’s CVA debt in one go or not, but it would mean that a newly-debt free Portsmouth would not even have their parachute payments from the Premier League affected by their misbehaviour. They would, in this scenario, have got away with it and such is the size of those parachute payments that the club may even consider starting to spend money again to get back into the Premier League at the first attempt.

There was a feeble attempt at contrition on behalf of the club after the hearing yesterday. One of Portsmouth’s co-administrators, Peter Kubik, stated that, “”I am sympathetic to all people who won’t get paid in full. Unfortunately, that’s not my battle to fight”. He is right in one respect. He is the administrator, and nothing more. However, it was Portsmouth’s battle to fight and it was a battle that has left an extremely sour taste in the mouth. The question of exactly how a football club could be allowed to take on this level of debt has never satisfactorily answered. A quick look into the archives shows their debt in around October 2008 as being in the region of £50m-£60m. How did this rise to £130m (including secured creditors and football debts) in a year and a half or so? No-one has ever been brought to account for what has happened at Portsmouth, and it is highly likely that no-one ever will be.

This, of course, is where Portsmouth’s supporters come in. They must ensure that the wretched cretins that ran their club to the point of extinction are never forgotten. That their incompetence and avarice doesn’t get swept to one side is now primarily the responsibility of Portsmouth supporters, however easy it might be to cast aside such concerns now that they are out of any serious danger. No-one with any sense would seek to blame the club’s supporters for anything that has happened at Fratton Park over the last couple of years, but they remain the vocal face of their club. They have a duty, for the sake of decency if nothing else, to not start campaigning for tens of millions of pounds to be poured into the team in the pursuit of some perceived notion of “glory” and to continue to agitate for responsible ownership of football clubs. They are very, very lucky to still have their club and they are fooling themselves if they believe otherwise.

Moving away from the issue of Portsmouth specifically, football has had a bad week. Recent events have largely undermined any sense of the logic behind football clubs’ continued status as “preferred creditors” in the case of insolvency events occurring. The stated reasoning behind this rule, that it protects football clubs from each other’s financial shenanigans, looks morally untenable when lined up against the wider issues that the collapse of a football club causes. Indeed, it starts to feel like something of a straw man, when we consider that many of the authorities that make these rules are the same people that benefit from action their status as “protected” creditors. Voting to abolish it would be the morally right thing to do, but it would also be like very plump turkeys voting for Christmas. They’re welcome to prove us wrong, but holding one’s breath in anticipation of it coming to pass feels as if it will be a fruitless exercise. Football, however, remains in its bubble of unreality. Consider Sam Allardyce’s comments in a recent interview:

Most of the time it boils down to net salaries that people are asking for and the 50% tax bracket in this country. If Cameron is listening, drop the tax bracket will you? Then we can get the best players in the world to play in the best league in the world.

It’s probably for the best not to dwell for too long upon how moronic this statement is, but it does demonstrate just how out of touch Allardyce is with the real world, and it is unlikely that there would be many people in football that would disagree with him. Similarly, no-one within the game seems to be questioning the moral aspect of whether it is right to use image rights payments as a means of tax avoidance. When faced with such a moral vacuum, we are left with little alternative but to shrug our shoulders when they get into trouble. As for the supporters of those clubs, well, it’s a shame for them but it has happened before and it will happen again. Ultimately, they are the club, and they will find a way to start again if the worst ever comes to the worst.

Not that serious trouble is likely to be an issue for that many clubs in the near future. If buy-now-pay-never Portsmouth can survive all of this, then just about anyone can. Without the will to change from within the game (and, for all of the fine talk about reform, the game hasn’t really reformed anywhere near as much as it should do), it will require a change in the law to grant HMRC preferred creditor status again. We can bet a pound to a penny that, should any such move be made, bodies within the game will start lobbying for it to not happen. Again, whether there would be any will on the part of the new government to change the law in this respect is very much open to question. The result of this inertia is that little will change and the narrow shaves will continue.

To an extent, Portsmouth are merely one of the most extreme representations of the craziness and moral vacuum of twenty-first century British football. However, their reputation is tarnished and how they will be perceived from now on will depend on how they – and that means everybody associated with the club, from the owners to the supporters – act from now on. Meanwhile, some sort of resolution to the issue of how to save British football from itself feels further away than ever. All we can do is keep stating the case and hope that somebody is listening.

Tweet This Post