Putting fans on boards is just a cynical election tool
ThERE is an episode of Veep in which vice-president Selina Meyer is troubled by a list of storm names newly allocated at the National hurricane Center. The next is to be called hurricane Selina. The vice-president frets about the negative association, while chief of staff Amy Brookheimer attempts to calm her down.
Brookheimer: People won’t equate you with a natural disaster, ma’am. meyer: really, Amy? ’Cause i’ve met some people. ok? real people. And i’ve got to tell you, a lot of them are f***ing idiots.
And they are. Not all of them, obviously. Probably not you. Don’t take this personally. But go to a football match and there could be 60,000 people in the ground. So, inescapably, some idiots. Certainly, you’ll disagree with them over the future of your club, the personnel, the policies.
Take Tottenham. There are fans who want to see them lift a trophy — any trophy. Others would surrender the FA Cup every year in return for a guaranteed top-four place.
Down the road, Arsenal fans who were divided over Arsene Wenger are no more unified on Unai Emery or Freddie Ljungberg. And up in Manchester, some would still ditch Ole Gunnar Solskjaer for Mauricio Pochettino, while there will be City fans who think Pep Guardiola has run his course. Unanimity is rare.
Yet to hear the shadow sports minister Rosena Allin- Khan speak, one would think football attracts a single homogenous group. ‘ Labour will put fans at the heart of football by giving them a far greater say over how their clubs are run,’ she said. ‘We will provide them a say over who their manager is...’ That will be interesting when Arsenal’s fans decide their manager should be Brendan Rodgers (below) and Leicester’s beg to differ. Whose fans are right? And, of course, the two lonely supporters Labour propose should sit on every board will speak for the other 50,000 with complete conviction because fans never disagree. That is why Arsenal Fan TV is full of solemn nodding approval and never degenerates into an unseemly shouting match. Labour has been desperately courting football fans since Jeremy Corbyn held a meeting with groups campaigning against Mike Ashley at Newcastle. The idea of inserting supporters trusts into boardrooms, however, is, like most populist ideas, shallow and ill-conceived. The trusts work efficiently as pressure groups and a wellmanaged club will take their views into account. That is very different from appointing the new manager, though; very different from deciding on policies that will be linked to budgets, strategies and long-term economic prospects. Just as the team should be the business of the coach, so business should be the business of the board of directors, particularly if there is owner investment.
Fans can be a part of any consultation process, but appointing the manager? Even Strictly Come
Dancing leaves the final call to the experts.
What is the point in having a director of football, or a technical director, or a sporting director, or of being an owner, if it is no longer your ship to steer? And while directors are not experts in the conventional sense, neither are fans. We’ve all heard phone-ins. We all heard the callers who, a few years ago, thought Jurgen Klopp had taken Liverpool as far as he could.
Labour’s plan is to allow accredited supporters trusts to purchase shares and swap in for at least two directors if a club changes owner. Yet how would that work? Manchester City’s recent share sale valued the club at £3.65billion. So what slice of that would have to be met by the
supporters trust? even one per cent of the club would require £36.5m. and what does one per cent give the fans, besides a tiny voice easily disregarded?
say there had been two cardiff fans on the board when Vincent tan decided to change the blue shirts to red. What real influence would they have had, given tan’s stake? Yes, they could have protested — but cardiff’s fans did that anyway, through the media and at the ground. tan can have been under no illusion that his was an unpopular decision.
so the change went ahead, was thoroughly rejected, and then reversed. the fans did their job without the empty window-dressing of a directors’ box seat.
if anything, their voice is louder this way. Money dictates boardroom power at football clubs. a tottenham supporters group might not have wanted Pochettino sacked but Joe Lewis and daniel Levy did. the supporters might not have appointed Jose Mourinho — another redundant stance if the owner and chairman disagreed.
no doubt these fantasies play well in newcastle where fans would be delighted at the thought of two of their number getting to shout at ashley during board meetings. the reality is, however, that he wouldn’t then turn up and they’d be marginalised and impotently calling out managing director Lee charnley instead. it’s all rather meaningless without the money to buy ashley’s share. the same with the Glazers at Manchester United. equally, the idea that fans would act as guardians against chicanery seems rather rose-tinted. Most rogue owners were initially welcomed as saviours, even Bury’s steve dale. Would seats on the board have made a difference at Gigg Lane? Or would the chosen fans have been taken in by promises and promotion just the same? supporters are paramount at any club. respecting their views is nothing more than best practice. Yet the chance to pick the manager or sign the centre forward sounds like another glib election promise. the strength of fans comes from the power of 50,000 voices, not two making their point through a mouthful of prawn sandwiches.