Manchester City - A Fan's Eye View

Manchester City have dominated the football agenda recently, with the proposed take-over by an Abu Dhabi based group, seemingly with limitless millions to spend. Nothing could seem further from the ethos of supporter ownership of football clubs and the concepts of sustainability and accountability. One post bemoaned the fact that the Trust movement seemed inert.

However the story of those who believe in clubs belonging to their communities and who are also City supporters has been an interesting but frustrating one over the last few years.

A couple of years ago, a group of fans irritated by the manner in which the club seemed to be moving further away from them started the process of setting up a Supporters' Trust. One of those fans takes up the story. "We weren't seen as fans; we were customers and there was no serious attempt to engage with us. Also anyone with a reasonable knowledge of accounts could see that the club was heading ever closer to financial oblivion but the board assured us there was nothing wrong and our debts were manageable, despite the fact that we made a loss even before interest and capital were payable."

The group approached Supporters Direct and started building up their list of contacts. As a result, they were able to secure the promise of financial backing from a wealthy supporter who believed in the communal ownership model. This backing enabled them to approach BSkyB, who held just under 10% of the club's shares (which were listed on PlusMarket along with Arsenal and Glasgow Rangers).

However it wasn't quite as easy approaching their club. "We naively assumed that the club would want to engage with us but we were baulked at every opportunity. The irony was that City was one of the few top flight clubs to have had a fan on the board, although this ended in acrimony."

Eventually the group agreed a verbal deal with Sky and also had pledges of support from other significant shareholders. They believed they could have direct or indirect influence over a substantial block of shares on behalf of the fans and could possibly get their appointees on the board.

"We were very clear weren't looking to force ourselves on the board and we would only have nominated someone who we felt could genuinely add value. But it amazed us how many influential people, some with large shareholdings, agreed with our analysis and objectives. Nor were we put off by the myth that fans shouldn't get involved with the running of clubs. There were a number of high profile City fans with top notch business experience, who would have graced any company board. "

However, as the deal was on the verge of being concluded the club got wind and declared themselves to be in takeover talks (when it now seems clear they weren't) in order to buy time. Not unnaturally Sky, who had previously been only too glad to get rid at any price, put the deal on hold sensing a better return. It was deeply frustrating to be so close yet so far and the strain took its toll.

"We were subjected to vicious personal and collective attacks not just from the club but also from a large number of our fellow fans. One of the few positives was the help and support we received from many of those in the Trust movement. However, it was frustrating that so few of our fellow fans seemed to share our vision."

It was also clear that City simply didn't want fans sticking their noses in. "This is high finance, we were told, so leave it to the professionals. The same professionals that didn't seem to think it was a bad thing to consistently spend £10m a year more than you earned!"

Eventually the club were approached and taken over by Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Thai Prime Minister. The putative Trust was then effectively dead in the water.

"A few saw through him from the start and some were opposed on moral and ethical grounds, following criticism of him by Human Rights Watch but many welcomed him unconditionally. The pound signs in people's eyes over-rode the concerns that some had."

However it soon became clear that the takeover was "smoke and mirrors". Very little money had been put into the club, spending was out of control and borrowings were increasing. Former chairman John Wardle had to lend the club money on a few occasions to tide them over cash-flow difficulties. The situation appears to have got to the point where, just a few weeks ago there were reliable stories that instalments on players transfer fees couldn't be met and administration seemed a possibility.

"Despite the battering that we had previously had, some of us prepared to mobilise again and had started looking at the possibility of copying the Share Liverpool scheme. No one wanted to the club to fail but we were determined that, if it did, this time the fans would try to get control."

Eventually, by sacrificing much of the next two years Sky income, the club raised enough finance to stave off its creditors and soon after, the Abu Dhabi group moved in and not only was the club saved but seems assured of a stellar future.

"As a City fan for many years, part of me is delighted and can barely believe what is happening but another part of me is deeply saddened. The unimaginable spending power of Chelsea (and now City) dwarfs even that of the other three "Big Four" clubs. Should City translate that money into success in the Premiership by breaking into the top 4, then one of the existing clubs will lose the income stream that keeps it where it is and could well do a Leeds."

The inflation of wages and fees started by Chelsea and the "global branding" of the big Premiership clubs will mean that even the finances of relatively successful Premiership clubs outside the Top 4 will be stretched further and further. Soon they will surely snap. The majority of the Premiership clubs must be at risk to a greater or lesser degree. We are already seeing players being sold behind their managers' backs to balance the books and two of those managers (Curbishley & Keegan) have had enough. But even though City's problems seem to be behind them for the moment there is a word of caution.

"I don't care whether my club is the biggest in Thailand or the Middle East, when working people are being priced out of watching the clubs they have supported for years. It may be that after 32 years without a major trophy, we actually win something meaningful but there does seem to be a number of fans who would see that as a somewhat hollow triumph. Sadly, many won't, justifying it on the grounds that we deserve our good fortune as so many fallow years."

It would be more bearable if some of this money trickled down to the lower leagues, as it used to years ago when smaller clubs sold their best, home-developed, players to the top flight teams, but this no longer happens. Most of the talent is imported, partly due to the more lenient payment terms for foreign-based players. Not only have the authorities not protected the footballing eco-system, they seem to have positively encouraged and sought out every opportunity to tear it apart.

So are trusts really inert in the face of overwhelming spending power of clubs like Manchester City?

"I've attended a number of SD events and so admire the dedication and commitment of people running Trusts like Stockport County and others I've encountered. At least the futures of your clubs are in your own hands whereas ours is passed from one owner who has no concept of the relationship between football and its local community to another. One day, maybe sooner than you think and inspired by your example, football at the top level will start to return to its true and rightful custodians. The best thing you can do is to keep on doing what you are doing now and showing the football world that supporter involvement does work."

Leave a comment »

AddThis