Praising Fan Protest vs Club Owners (In General)

[QPR Report]

Guardian/Maria Hyde

Enter the Red Knights: why grassrootsy protests are now a 'Must'

This may go down as a watershed moment in many football fans' increasingly fractious relationships with the people who own their clubs

The intersections of American politics and English football have traditionally been on the rare side, unless you count Tony Crosland dragging Henry Kissinger to a couple of matches in 1976. The good doctor saw Grimsby Town play Gillingham, and Chelsea at home to Wolves, with Crosland vowing to take over the public address system at the latter game to pay lavish tribute to the soon-to-retire US secretary of state. There is, alas, no record of how the Stamford Bridge crowd reacted to a match build-up featuring the foreign secretary lauding this faintly polarising figure over a squeaky Tannoy, but the fact that many of us would prefer even that to listening to Richard Keys is a real testament to Sky's ability to push the envelope.

To the present day, though, and the impressive news that the Manchester United Supporters' Trust (Must) has engaged Blue State Digital, the internet strategy firm which masterminded Barack Obama's ground-breaking online campaign for the White House. For some, it might feel a little early to slap the irksome game-changer label on this development, despite Sunday's green-and-gold Carling Cup protest. But if the arrangement realises its potential, then the last week will go down as a watershed moment in many football fans' increasingly fractious relationships with the people who own their clubs.

Across the political and commercial spectrum, established orders are being rocked by grassrootsy movements who have the power to make life immensely difficult for those previously able to operate regardlessly, and there is no reason why football should not become a powerful example of this. Dissatisfaction with an owner is nothing new, naturally – but Must's decision acknowledges that for all their homespun charm, reactions like raging into a pint or painting the words "GLAZERS GO HOME" on an old sheet will only take you so far.

That Blue State Digital will grow Must's supporter base rapidly seems a gimme – but what was transformational about their management of the Obama campaign was less the number of people signed up, extraordinary though those figures were, and more the way in which they managed to connect, organise and mobilise that community to take real action.

Whether Must's campaign will be the start of English football's Tea Party movement is impossible to call, but it clearly seeks to effect more lasting change than getting Rage Against the Machine to outsell Joe McElderry. Must's long-term aim is nothing less than supporter ownership of Manchester United. Inevitably, the short-term outcome will be far less radical, even if those cringemakingly self-styled Red Knights do somehow mount a successful bid. But in retaining the services of gilt-edged political operators, this group of fans have taken a step which should trouble even the most hard-boiled of owners.

That said, neophobes will be glad that a bit of heritage politics is still being played. Must are planning to talk to Liverpool fans about a joint protest against their respective owners when the sides meet later this month – a striking example of Kissinger's fabled realpolitik, if ever there was one.

Forgive me. When last week I mentioned the demographic which only tunes in to sport for the kiss-and-tells and the apologies, I should obviously have stated that Fleet Street fulfils this unnecessary function better than anyone. And as if by magic, the Bridge/Terry handshake saga became a dry run for what can traditionally be expected during the World Cup, coaxing as it did a whole host of non-sporting commentators to cast Wry Glances at the usually infra dig business of football.

Ideally, come June, these expert interventions will be grouped under the banner "The View From Up Here", with those from whom we can expect to hear more when the tournament begins including the likes of the Evening Standard's Sam Leith, who appeared to think the Chelsea v Man City game had happened at night and seemed wholly unfamiliar with the practice of the club captain leading out two child mascots. My absolute favourite, though, was "body language expert" Judi James, who explained in the Sun that Wayne Bridge declining to shake John Terry's hand was a "rejection".

Thanking you, Judi. I'd had a lot of trouble parsing the gesture, eventually giving up on the conundrum as one for Bletchley Park. Let's hope Judi will be on hand for England's quarter-final exit, to explain that pictures of players weeping great snotty tears is a sign that they would have preferred to advance further in the competition.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/mar/04/red-knights-fans-protests-manchester-united

[QPR Report]

And When Saturday Comes (WSC) re Man Ut

Red Knights to the rescue?

2 March ~ It was reported this morning that a "group of high net worth individuals (known as the 'Red Knights')" are planning to put together a £1 billion bid for Manchester United. In the current issue of WSC, available now, Ashley Shaw looked at the fury caused by the Glazer family's attempt to load even more debt onto the club

There have been few more important documents in the history of Manchester United than the bond prospectus published last month. The admission that the Glazers have already taken out £22.9 million in loans and fees, and could suck a further £500m out of the club over the next seven years, means there can no longer be any pretence about the motivation for the 2005 takeover. The age of the football asset-stripper is at hand.

One chief side-effect has been to galvanise a dozing support, previously happy to accept the Americans at their word. There can be few sane supporters left who are now prepared to "wait and see". Nor can chief executive David Gill again claim that the switch from plc to private ownership has improved the club's chances in the transfer market when it took the sale of their most lucrative playing asset to keep the club's accounts in the black.

The astronomical levels of debt loaded on to the club are already having an impact on United's ability to attract and keep the best players. If it wasn't spelled out before, the events of January 2010 make it painfully obvious that Man Utd are officially skint, with every prospect of the crisis worsening. The publication of the prospectus could not have been better timed. As supporters looked back on a dominant past two decades, most now realise that they will struggle to match that success in the next ten years. The imminent retirement of a number of key personnel and an increased competitiveness at the top of the Premier League will surely lead to an extended period of "transition".

The Carling Cup semi-final against freshly minted rivals highlighted the lengths to which the nouveau riche in English football are catching up the Big Four. Despite United's victory, the gap between the teams has clearly narrowed to the extent that it is now City, rather than debt-laden, mismanaged Liverpool, who represent United's fiercest rivals. The intense atmosphere and festering subplots made for a soap opera cast of villains and heroes. This is clearly now the fiercest rivalry at the top of the English game.

Yet the crisis at the club remains misunderstood by many. The successful take-up of the £504m bond issue, sought to pay off senior (bank) debt, consigns United to a fate worse than administration in that it frees the club's owners from oversight, allowing them to suck yet more cash out. This isn't new money to improve the club but replacement debt for the original bank loan Malcolm Glazer took out to buy the club, attracting a higher interest rate but with fewer strings attached.

According to one expert, the covenants in the prospectus could allow the Glazers to take over £500m out of club coffers in the next seven years. This figure includes the £8m leaseback of Carrington, a total of £161m in dividends to the Glazers, an estimated £333m in interest payments and a potential £63m in management fees and "expenses" (from http://andersred.blogspot.com). All of which makes the £22.9m taken out in loans and fees since 2005 resemble the amuse-bouche ahead of a seven-course cash banquet.

When one considers the continuing plight of the Glazers' other businesses, principally First Allied Corporation, a holding company that, among other things, owns shopping malls in recession-hit small-town America, it seems likely that the family will seek to glean every cent available from United.

Falling ticket sales and tight player salaries have further hindered the Glazers' other sporting acquisition, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – a combination that led to them ending the season as the third-worst team in the entire league. Saved from relegation by the franchise system, the Buccs can look forward to a high draft pick and renewed hope for the season ahead.

The same could not be said should Alex Ferguson or his successor continue to be limited to low-rent signings in a market inflated by the arrival of mega-rich owners. Yet the money underpinning these plans is generated almost exclusively by United supporters, either via television rights, merchandising or ticket sales. An organised, meaningful protest would not be too late to disrupt an over-leveraged business that relies on on-field success to maintain it. On the contrary the Glazers appear more vulnerable now than they have been at any point during their reign.

The original 2005 protests failed because the vast majority of match-going Reds were not prepared to change the habit of a lifetime. The formation of FC United created a split in the support that the Glazers, Sir Alex Ferguson and certain fan groups enthusiastically exploited. From 2006 onwards dissent toward the ruling family was muted and, aside from the publication of the club's annual accounts, there was very little for sceptical fans to get their teeth into. Of course the trophies also kept on coming.

Five years on and a successful mass boycott seems the only feasible way to de-rail the Glazers' plans. Initially this would impact on the club and lead the owners to suck more key assets out of the club, with the sale and leaseback of the stadium (valued at £235m) top of the agenda, along with the disposal of remaining playing assets. In the longer term, however, it would surely disrupt the owners' plans.

For proof check out page 17 of the Glazer prospectus where they freely admit "We depend on our matchday supporters", continuing: "A reduction in matchday attendance could have a materially adverse effect on our matchday revenues and our overall business." The ball, as it has been since 2005, remains in the supporters' court. Put simply, every ticket sold props up the Glazer regime.

As it is the 2010 version of this campaign is still in its infancy and from the off it already seems more visible and media-friendly. In place of the riots that scarred the last attempt, supporters have taken up the green and gold colours of predecessor club Newton Heath which has seen the issue raised to a profile not enjoyed since the original takeover. What happens when the story moves on is a different matter.

Not that removing the Glazers will be quick or easy. In a 1989 interview with the Milwaukee Sentinel Malcolm Glazer said of his business interests: "Everything we have, we keep for 100 years. I don't sell many things. When I buy them, I keep them." Mr Glazer may be many things but he cannot be accused of stupidity. With a cash cow like United at his disposal and his other business interests hit by the recession, why would he sell?

As it is, a couple of high-profile signings, via the fearsome-sounding £75m "revolving credit facility", could yet pull the wool over mainstream supporters' eyes and the protests could peter out just as they did back in 2005. Here's hoping that the lessons of that campaign have been learned before there is nothing left of a once proud football club.
www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/4831/38/

[QPR Report]

Daily Mail/Richard Jolly

Manchester United fan thrown off MUTV for wearing green-and-gold scarf

Manchester United have been accused of behaving like a communist dictatorship after barring a fan wearing a green-and-gold scarf from appearing on the club' s in-house television station.

Lifelong supporter Steve Tilzey was thrown off the show Red Cafe on MUTV when he refused to take off the scarf, a symbol of the protests against the Glazer family's ownership.

Making a stand: United fans wearing green and gold protest at the Glazer family
He said: 'This is censorship. It's symbolic of what is happening at the club and it is bang out of order. It's like being told to leave by the secret police or the Stasi. But this isn't Tianaman Square, it's a peaceful protest.'

Former United players answer questions from supporters on the programme and Tilzey is often a member of the audience.
He added: 'I have been going on it regularly for about 18 months. About 20 minutes into the programme during an advertising break, suddenly I got a tap on my shoulder and there were two or three security guards saying: "You have to take that off or leave." I said: "I will never take the scarf off but I am prepared to leave."

'I don't blame the producer or the floor manager. They got a call and they were told to get me off. Another man was wearing a green-and-gold scarf but he chose to take his off. He must have felt intimidated.

Grounds for concern: United fans stage a protest at Old Trafford
'I went to the bar and people, the crew, the security guards, were coming up to me and saying: "That is so, so wrong".

"I don't wear it to wind people up. I wear it because it's my club. I have been wearing it for the last five or six weeks. I wore it at work and in town and I didn't even think about it when I went to the show with it on. I wore it on the Red Cafe about three weeks ago and no one said a thing. This is the first time the club has gone into press censorship. It's not acceptable.'

And Tilzey said the club's heavy-handed treatment was needless – because he wasn't using the show to ask awkward questions.

He added: 'I had put my name down to ask a question. I wanted to ask Lee Martin, one of the ex-players, about the 1991 European campaign. It wasn't a political statement.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1255291/Manchester-United-fan-thrown-MUTV-wearing-green-gold-scarf.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0hBtMnush

[ingham]

It is remarkable how simplistic the view of 'investors' in football has been. Yet we hear constantly in the media from businesses large and small that the only principle they recognise - and certainly the most overriding one - is giving value to shareholders.

Put them anywhere near a football Club, and suddenly we can only think of them as dewy-eyed with sentiment and interested in nothing but the welfare of others, as if they were 19th century philanthropists endowing orphanages, libraries, or hospitals for the poor at their own expense.

And even if their motives are doubted, it is still almost proverbial that there is no way they CAN make money from Clubs big or small, even though a very small outfit like QPR loses millions every year, but there is little or no evidence that football club investors lose anything.

Remember Bates bankrupting Chelsea and pocketing £18 million for his achievement in doing so?

Control of the holding company doesn't enable a berk to make the Club successful, but it gives him every opportunity of using the Club's assets, money, resources, support, name, status and potential as a League - and therefore potential Premiership and Champions League - Club to line his pockets in every way imaginable.

Inflating the value of his own shareholding by running up vast debts on the Club's tab. Forcing the Club to pay for the shares which he owns. Dumping the cost of buying out his predecessor on the Club. Separating the Club's major asset - its ground - from the Club's ownership. Often on the basis of the losses that he and his predecessors have engineered. And, in some cases, adding insult to injury by renting or leasing it back.

And generally by picking and choosing deals which will benefit himself. The vast army of rubbish players we've signed over the years. They certainly haven't been acquired on the basis that their track record and price would make money or even financial sense for the Club, but they must be making financial sense for someone because vast sums pour into someone's pockets and out of the Club's every year.

But when they're asked, we get the sort of rubbish the press ascribe to Bhatia. They're not getting the Club further into debt, and it will live within its means, but they're pouring enormous sums in - including loans. Perhaps they'll soon be telling us, like Noades, that they are 'not asset strippers'.

Maybe their PR is unravelling at last, although it is scarcely news, and certainly not surprising, that the Glazers - £22 million already, and the prospect of lining their pockets to the tune of half a billion in 7 years - are squeezing United for as much as they can get.

But the blinkers, generally speaking, are still on. It wasn't the Glazers who pocketed £650 million when United was sold, it was their predecessors. And the size of the losses at Chelsea, Fulham and even Arsenal are still greeted complacently.

perhaps that is because those Clubs are perennial losers, so the relative improvement in their fortunes was so long overdue, and such a relief, that the critical faculty has closed down.

Whereas United and Liverpool, as the Arsenal chairman noted pointedly to Abramovich's poodle at Stamford Bridge, are the only two BIG Clubs. They've seen sustained success before, without the looting, without the crippling losses, without the soaring long term debt.

Based on talent. Not spending all the Club's money for the next 10 years on a single squad.

Investors have every opportunity to profit. When stadium deals are announced, the competing contractors offer inducements. To whom? When they want to make themselves some money by doing a big of moneylending, they can set the interest rate and terms to suit themselves.

Consultancy fees, fees for facilitating the deals, broker deals for arranging finance. Not to mention all those player deals. The Clubs certainly don't benefit when they sign players whose earning power is vastly overshadowed by their cost.

So who does?

And they are able to provide themselves with instruments by which they can act against the Clubs' interests. At QPR, for instance, when the Board put a resolution to the vote authorising Board members to actively pursue interests which conflict with those of the Club, to keep such conflicts secret, and to keep their earnings from such conflicts secret.