Yanks Go Home?

Last week’s goings-on at Arsenal revealed potential owner Stan Kroenke’s lucrative sideline as Bruce Forsyth’s wig-tester. Which is as relevant as his nationality to his ability to run Arsenal…

Coverage of recent Premiership takeovers echoed the insular, near-xenophobic attitude to Eriksson’s appointment as England manager, emphasising nationality over competence.

When the true-Brit sounding John Madejski spoke recently of ‘every’ football club being for sale – leaving aside the weak journalism which let him portray the Premiership as EVERY club – he was warning specifically against foreign ownership.

But every club following the company ownership model is permanently ‘for sale,’ despite the worthy pleas of anti-Glazer campaigners at Man United. Why Madejski warned against foreign owners and not irresponsible domestic ones (Michael Knighton, anyone?) wasn’t clear. Unless it really was the little Englander mentality so prevalent at UKIP rallies.

Others have fallen into the same trap. The Independent’s Sam Wallace, an otherwise sound if unspectacular commentator, claimed: “It is not racist or reactionary to say you feel concerned about the ownership of Premiership clubs by foreign investors.” So what exactly IS it, then?

Wallace added: “Can the sign ‘This is Anfield’ mean anything when the controlling power sits in an air-conditioned suite in the Gulf?” Why not? It probably meant less the day Vinny Jones scribbled ‘bovvered?’ underneath it prior to kick-off.
(Sue Mott in the Telegraph also bemoaned the situation, suggesting: “Be nice to Ken Bates, he may be the only British chairman left in football by 2010” like that’s in ANY way a good thing).

What have the Yanks etc got to beat?

Mohammed Fayed (note to sub-editors, that’s his name, the ‘Al’ is a meaningless affectation) has been borrowing extensively from within his own business empire to fund Fulham since he took over. For instance, £33m was charged to Fulham by Harrods (UK) one year for “payroll services and costs” (i.e. wages).

In 2003, he refused a takeover bid from Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra, who’d momentarily forgotten being a lifelong Liverpool fan. But loans from GE Capital, Registered European Football Finance and Gerling Insurance (regulars in football horror stories) have been required, secured on future TV profits and proceeds from player sales. As have sales of other assets and, shall we say, ‘beneficial taxation arrangements’ from registering his companies in the British Virgin Islands.

Fayed has covered losses of/loaned/invested (your choice) £120m by/to/in Fulham. This figure has steadily accumulated (£57m by 2001, £91m by 2004). And the soon-to-be-released latest accounts will continue the trend, if Fulham’s poor season is a guide.

Relegation may tell a bigger tale still. Fayed cannot bankroll Fulham indefinitely. And unless, against all odds, he’s another Abramovich, Fulham might need another Abramovich. Worse still if, against shorter odds, Fayed’s another Robert Maxwell.

Ken Bates, where to start? Easy. He bankrupted a BANK! Sort of. Investors in the Irish Trust Bank in 1972 (Bobby Charlton included) certainly felt so.

A pattern develops with Bates. Initial success, financial complications (and how!), ultimate failure. Looking familiar, Leeds fans?

Arthur Hopcraft’s excellent ‘The Football Man’ described Oldham chairman Bates in 1968 as “a young post-war tycoon, keenly aware of his acumen, bold in scope”  - contrasting him favourably with gentleman chairman of Arsenal, Dennis Hill-Wood. But Hopcraft’s timing was unfortunate. By 1971, Bates had gone, Oldham were in Division Four and Arsenal had won the ‘double.’

Bates had plenty of help with the bank, admittedly. And claimed plenty during his roller-coaster ride at Chelsea (although installing electric fences at Stamford Bridge in the hooligan-disfigured 80s was all his idea until, as David Conn memorably wrote, “the council didn’t, in the end, believe the Chelsea chairman’s custodial duties extended to electrocuting his customers”).

Feted for saving Stamford Bridge from property developers in 1991 (helped enormously by the developers going out of business), Bates’ plan for the ground – the infamous ‘Chelsea Village’ (CV) – was losing millions.

And CV’s complex ownership structure seemed in breach of FA rules – the same FA on whose executive committee Bates proudly sat.

The Financial Services Authority investigated, and couldn’t be sure that Bates exercised control of a large CV shareholding without (illegally) owning it – he certainly exercised enough control to get Roman Abramovich’s club-saving and Bates-saving offer accepted.

‘Private Eye’ were sure: “If it looks, sounds and smells like an elephant, then it is an elephant.”

An elephant would have run Wembley National Stadium Ltd better. Bates re-hashed his money-losing CV plans. The FA let him. And here we are, £760m later. Not to mention his less-than-transparent hiring of the infamously profligate ‘Multiplex’ for both projects.

AND he bankrupted a bank. Sort of.

Could Kroenke and co. be worse? Arsenal chairman Peter Hill-Wood was as off-the-mark as Hopcraft about Bates, with his ‘not the right sort’ comments about David Dein and Kroenke (or camouflaging his bitterness at selling Arsenal shares to Dein too cheaply, the year before football’s SKY-inspired boom).

But Dein’s recent promotion to “the best of modern football” has its own flaws. Plenty in recent papers, and what fortunate timing, of Dein’s role in Arsenal’s latest foreign acquisition, Carlos Vela.

Less about more suspect foreign ventures (Nicholas Anelka). Or the times he used his FA committee influence for Arsenal’s interests (payments to club’s for releasing players for internationals, Arsenal’s bid to buy Wembley). Or his relationship with agent Jerome Anderson, while publicly campaigning against agent’s influences. Or…you get the point.

Which nation do you blame for West Ham’s off-field tribulations? England’s Terence Brown for the deceit over Tevez and Mascherano? Or Iceland’s Eggert Magnusson, undertaking ‘due diligence’ (part of the bidding process) without the diligence to spot the deceit – a call to Harry Harris at the Express would have done.

Ownership nationality shouldn’t be an issue outside the mercifully narrow confines of far-right politics. Americans lead the latest Premiership club ‘rush’ but everyone is judging that worldwide market penetration will provide the relative profits SKY provided in 1992.

Right or wrong about that, future success will depend more on not being Ken Bates than being English.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Terms & Conditions | Contact Us