Questions for our fanbase

[DeeGee]

Heard about his ban. That's the club trying to clamp down on any dissent, in the manner of any true dictator. No need to ban him for that, it wasn't even a criminal act as not in the stadium. An indefinite ban is well out of order. Makes me hate the current ownership even more.
Incidentally, I wonder how such a ban (not a police ban) works. Would every turnstile operator have a picture of his face? Obviously he can never have a membership in his name, but I hope he still manages to get in to watch us.

Mate of mine was banned indefinitely and still managed to go every week. It's not enforceable. There are many ways around it.
The only way you would get caught is if there was a johnny eagle eye manning the snooping camera with a slow afternoon. The again, there are haircuts, shaves, hats, glasses and moustaches ( 4 nonces and grasses)

 

[Tottenham Sean]

I am pretty sure there was a serious attempt by Spurs to get Stratford, there was a good business case to move there, all the infrastructure was in place and all the compulsory purchase and planning work was done & dusted, of course ENIC were attracted. They also knew enough fans would follow if the football was of a decent standard and that we were still looking there or thereabouts for Champions League. They also could say that the move that Woolwich made was not much different to the one they were proposing for us.

It doesn't really matter now, what matters is that someone has a vision for the club and it is not all about trying to squeeze money out of the fans, it's not all about profit but some kind of investment in our long term.

In assessment of ENIC, they paid for our new training facility, which is pretty highly rated, they have a plan to develop NDP. The real concern boils down to 2 key things.

1. The ticketing price is still way too high (match day and season ticket), Spurs have massive revenue from TV rights and Sponsorship and they don't need to charge so much to get in to a match, they need to either lose the Category match pricing completely or change the pricing structuree. THe club know full well that a lot of money is going to be diverted in to the new ground and the least they can do is give better value for money and retain goodwill while that's going on.

2. The overall strategy of hiring management is inconsistent, we have gone through too many '5 year plans', new football management structures and of course, David Pleat... We have been through a lot of managers, some perhaps deserving more time & patience.

Take away the emotional and historic ties you have with a football club and moving to Stratford made perfect business sense.Thats why a football club can't be compared to other businesses

 

[Juicy Sushi]

I am pretty sure there was a serious attempt by Spurs to get Stratford, there was a good business case to move there, all the infrastructure was in place and all the compulsory purchase and planning work was done & dusted, of course ENIC were attracted. They also knew enough fans would follow if the football was of a decent standard and that we were still looking there or thereabouts for Champions League. They also could say that the move that Woolwich made was not much different to the one they were proposing for us.

It doesn't really matter now, what matters is that someone has a vision for the club and it is not all about trying to squeeze money out of the fans, it's not all about profit but some kind of investment in our long term.

In assessment of ENIC, they paid for our new training facility, which is pretty highly rated, they have a plan to develop NDP. The real concern boils down to 2 key things.

1. The ticketing price is still way too high (match day and season ticket), Spurs have massive revenue from TV rights and Sponsorship and they don't need to charge so much to get in to a match, they need to either lose the Category match pricing completely or change the pricing structuree. THe club know full well that a lot of money is going to be diverted in to the new ground and the least they can do is give better value for money and retain goodwill while that's going on.

2. The overall strategy of hiring management is inconsistent, we have gone through too many '5 year plans', new football management structures and of course, David Pleat... We have been through a lot of managers, some perhaps deserving more time & patience.

On 1, I get that fans may want cheaper tickets, but we won't have a hope at being competitive with lower revenue. We don't get enough from TV rights and sponsorship to make up for the shortfall in matchday revenue vs. our competition. To pull level with Woolwich on revenue, we'd need to approximately double matchday and commercial revenue.

The prices may stink, but they're not being spent on gin by the owners. It really does cost that much to fund Spurs.

 

[DeeGee]

Said this on another thread, but the loyal fanbase is still about. It's just that football is far too overpriced and less accessible.
Ticket prices are far too high due to large player salaries coupled with most clubs reduced capacity/all seating.

I did some analysis and come up with the stat that only 0.79% of the average annual wage in 1976 was needed to attend 19 home games, compared to almost 4% now.
In reality ticket prices should be about £10.

Then I came across this article today and was quite shocked.http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...fore-the-rupert-murdoch-billions-9864052.html

We need to get a grip. We also do not need to be held to ransom by the Liverpool fans who lost relatives. Hillsborough was a disaster but it could not be repeated with todays technology. You cannot get access to a ground without a valid card.
I also didn't see those same people now opposed to cheap standing calling for a ban on smoking in grounds after 56 deaths and 256 injuries in the Bradford tragedy.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Said this on another thread, but the loyal fanbase is still about. It's just that football is far too overpriced and less accessible.
Ticket prices are far too high due to large player salaries coupled with most clubs reduced capacity/all seating.

I did some analysis and come up with the stat that only 0.79% of the average annual wage in 76 was needed to attend 19 home games, compared to almost 4% now.

Then I came across this article today and was quite shocked.http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...fore-the-rupert-murdoch-billions-9864052.html

The facilities cost more as well. If you look at some of the stadiums of that era, they quite literally were death traps waiting for misfortune to strike.

 

[palmers_green_yid]

NDP was the preferred option until an alternative appeared because it may have been the only option. I think the fans are very naieve about just how bloody difficult it is to build something like a stadium in modern day London. Chelsea have been trying as long as we have to do the same thing. And they've had even less success.

Given the council's demands, you don't think ENIC/the club didn't try to talk them out of it? And the failure to get anywhere with that was what led to the strong interest in Stratford? You don't undertake that kind of a move unless you really don't have a choice, especially after buying up all the surrounding property you can around WHL in anticipation of building there.

It's pretty clear the plan was initially to improve WHL, which was later abandoned. Perhaps because they felt that they needed something bigger than was physically possible in a rebuild of WHL itself. They then started acquiring property around the area in anticipation of building a new stadium, which was not a rapid process. They started getting the planning permissions and what not, and did run into large demands from the local council and city. Those pushed up the cost of the new stadium project by a very significant margin. The Stratford option appears. Spurs indicate interest, perhaps initially due to the intransigence of the council, perhaps just due to the economic advantages. Fans begin to indicate their opposition, but the club keeps looking, perhaps because nothing was changing in Haringey. Fans get serious about resisting the idea. The club digs in. Alarm bells perhaps start ringing for all parties. Then we get the riots, and a newfound community-mindedness on the part of local government. Suddenly, the NDP becomes a much more viable project. At the same time, the Stratford option goes against the club. Back to the NDP, but a few years stalled. It may be easier, but it's still bloody hard to do, especially when you don't have all the land. Ultimately, we may never get that land, which would be a problem. If that happened, I don't know how they could do anything without just demolishing WHL in situ, and rebuilding from scratch. Which likely would be a lot longer than a year away.

I don't really see how ENIC are villans in this case though. They want to build a new stadium, and have good reasons for doing that. It's bloody tough to do that, and I think anyone who thought it was easy really didn't have a clue. I think everyone at the club has been rather traumatized by how much effort this has taken, and it's going to be a lot more trauma yet. But I really don't see how the actions of the club can be considered as being so ridiculous. They are responsible for looking out for their own interests as an ongoing entity. Haringey and the wider city of London haven't shown any concern about that, or about anything other than how much they can squeeze from the club.

To summarise.
Your position: Levy/ENIC are justified in doing whatever they want as long as it is their economic interest
My position: Levy/ENIC should put the identity of the club and the wishes of its die-hard fans over their economic interest.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

To summarise.
Your position: Levy/ENIC are justified in doing whatever they want as long as it is their economic interest
My position: Levy/ENIC should put the identity of the club and the wishes of its die-hard fans over their economic interest.

Not really, but whatever. ENIC have the right to do what they want with the property they own. Customers have the right to not buy tickets or shirts if they think what ENIC does is rubbish.

ENIC have spent over a decade trying to build a new stadium. It's proven to be a very complicated process. Fan claims that all fault lies with the club and other involved groups (in particular, local government) are blameless are factually incorrect.

 

[Joe Clash]

ENIC have the right to do what they want with the property they own.

Subject to planning permission

 

[palmers_green_yid]

Not really, but whatever. ENIC have the right to do what they want with the property they own. Customers have the right to not buy tickets or shirts if they think what ENIC does is rubbish.

ENIC have spent over a decade trying to build a new stadium. It's proven to be a very complicated process. Fan claims that all fault lies with the club and other involved groups (in particular, local government) are blameless are factually incorrect.

I just don't see it in that kind of capitalistic way. The club is more than a business which they owners can do what they like with. It's a community, a tribe, something we hold dear. It's not the same as Mac Donalds versus Burger King. If Woolwich's "product" is better than ours, then we're not going to go and watch them instead, are we? For me it's more like a love relationship. Spurs moving to Stratford is the equivalent of my girlfriend getting a sex change. Of course I'd still love her but it would be very difficult if not impossible to carry on with the relationship.

Whoever is in charge of Spurs needs to know they can't fuck us over in that way. And if they try to, we need to be ready to protest, so that they think they will be hit where it hurts (financially).

Levy/ENIC need to treat the fans right because it is the right thing to do. There are certain morals, principles, values which people should live up to. If you just want to make money, you don't give a fuck about the fans or the identities of the clubs involved, stay away from this world. To say they can do what they like is the same as saying "rich corporations shouldn't have to pay tax" or "society has no obligation to help people who are dying and who are too poor to afford treatment" or (to take an extreme example) "if I am stronger than you it is my right to overpower you and take your possessions". No. This may sound over the top but it's true: for many of us THFC is our passion and our lives will be massively affected by the decisions these people make.

Yes, getting a new stadium is a complicated process. Yes, Haringey were difficult. But that does not excuse a permanent move to Stratford. As long as White Hart Lane is standing or there are other options, there is simply no excuse- ever- for trying to do that.

 

[Joe Clash]

Not really, but whatever. ENIC have the right to do what they want with the property they own. Customers have the right to not buy tickets or shirts if they think what ENIC does is rubbish.

ENIC have spent over a decade trying to build a new stadium. It's proven to be a very complicated process. Fan claims that all fault lies with the club and other involved groups (in particular, local government) are blameless are factually incorrect.

Do you think they have a right to disband the club and sell off WHL to the highest bidder?

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Subject to planning permission

And all the inadvertent satire thereof...

 

[Juicy Sushi]

I just don't see it in that kind of capitalistic way. The club is more than a business which they owners can do what they like with. It's a community, a tribe, something we hold dear. It's not the same as Mac Donalds versus Burger King. If Woolwich's "product" is better than ours, then we're not going to go and watch them instead, are we? For me it's more like a love relationship. Spurs moving to Stratford is the equivalent of my girlfriend getting a sex change. Of course I'd still love her but it would be very difficult if not impossible to carry on with the relationship.

We choose to put that emotion into it. We can talk about it being involuntary all we like, but at the fundamental level, we are paying money to watch football matches for our entertainment.

Whoever is in charge of Spurs needs to know they can't fuck us over in that way. And if they try to, we need to be ready to protest, so that they think they will be hit where it hurts (financially).

Levy/ENIC need to treat the fans right because it is the right thing to do.

There is no evidence that they've actually "fucked" anyone over. And as far as treating the fans right, what exactly would that be? There's no consensus among us about what we want out of the club, so exactly who are they supposed to be listening to? You? Me? The Supporter's Trust? They want happy customers. The people within the club are generally fans of it as well, so want to emotionally do the right thing, but exactly what that is depends very much on your particular viewpoint.

To say they can do what they like is the same as saying "rich corporations shouldn't have to pay tax" or "society has no obligation to help people who are dying and who are too poor to afford treatment" or (to take an extreme example) "if I am stronger than you it is my right to overpower you and take your possessions".

No, it isn't. This is a sports team we happen to support. It's not a fundamental pillar of human civilization. If Spurs the club dies, there are plenty of other clubs around, and we're free to start our own new one any time we like. The shareholders who own the club and who are undertaking all the financial risks for the running of the club are the ones who get to make the choices because it's their livelihood on the line, not ours. And by that I don't just mean ENIC, I mean everyone from Levy to the lunch lady. They all have significantly more skin in this game than we do.

No. This may sound over the top but it's true: for many of us THFC is our passion and our lives will be massively affected by the decisions these people make.

Indeed we will. But so will they. Accusing them of having nothing but bad intentions, and foaming at the mouth with accusations based on fear with no basis in actual facts though isn't really going to accomplish very much.

The club aren't going to find it worth their while to dialogue with us when the most intelligent thing we have to say is: "SPENDMOREMONEYLEVYYOUCUNTHOWDAREYOUMOVEUSTOSTRATFORD#NOTOMKYOUHAVENORIGHTTOMAKEANYDECISIONSITSNOTYOURCLUB"

That is about the level of discourse the fans and THST are managing to provide at the moment. I feel the club could do a much better job of explaining the decisions they're making, and in particular the why of the matter, but at the same time I understand how complicated the real world and major business decisions are, and don't expect instant answers, or that the answer will always be yes.

Yes, getting a new stadium is a complicated process. Yes, Haringey were difficult. But that does not excuse a permanent move to Stratford. As long as White Hart Lane is standing or there are other options, there is simply no excuse- ever- for trying to do that.

Yes, there is. It's called the real world, and the dollars and cents of running a business. Because that is what Spurs are. We can surround that with as much rhetoric as we want, but for the last century Tottenham Hotspur have always been a business devoted to getting you to give them money in return for staging football matches for you to watch. That's it. The amounts of money involved have changed, but the crux of the matter has always been that exchange. And if Haringey put up restrictions which make it impossible for Spurs to actually do that, why should they not move elsewhere? In the end, they haven't. And Spurs aren't moving. But the scenario remains.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Do you think they have a right to disband the club and sell off WHL to the highest bidder?

Under the law of the land, probably yes. Would it be a very smart idea? No, as you wouldn't make very much money. The value is in the entity as a whole, not its component parts.

Martin Cloake made one interesting point during the pod which was that up until a certain date, English clubs were not allowed to be run for profit, by law. Scholar's listing of Spurs changed that when the FA stop him. He'd apparently asked if he could do that, and the FA didn't reply, so he went ahead and did it.

I would be very interested in knowing if that actual law had existed, or had been subsequently changed. If not, the legal basis for fan ownership gets quite strong.

 

[Joe Clash]

Under the law of the land, probably yes. Would it be a very smart idea? No, as you wouldn't make very much money. The value is in the entity as a whole, not its component parts.

Martin Cloake made one interesting point during the pod which was that up until a certain date, English clubs were not allowed to be run for profit, by law. Scholar's listing of Spurs changed that when the FA stop him. He'd apparently asked if he could do that, and the FA didn't reply, so he went ahead and did it.

I would be very interested in knowing if that actual law had existed, or had been subsequently changed. If not, the legal basis for fan ownership gets quite strong.

There was no law of the land - it was an FA rule.

From an article by David Conn: Follow the Money.

In 1892, the FA permitted Preston North End, football’s first great power, to convert itself from a members’ club into a limited company. Preston had, years earlier, been the first to break the rules against professionalism, paying good players from Scotland to come to the club at a time when paying players was still illicit. The club’s application to form a company was partly to raise new money, partly to limit its members’ personal liability for the increased operating expenses. The FA decreed in 1892 that a club could make itself into a company, but that dividends to shareholders must be restricted. Here was the basis for football’s future development: the clubs became businesses, which could pay players, build grounds, charge supporters for entry, and form themselves into companies. But the FA insisted they remain clubs in their culture. The supporter’s gut feeling that the club is a collective endeavour, an organisation he belongs to, not a company seeking profit for shareholders, was embedded in the regulations. Rule 34, requiring football club-companies to be run essentially as non-profit organisations, with their directors serving as ‘custodians’, was in the FA handbook until the late 1990s.


Tottenham Hotspur was the first football club to be floated, in 1983. I asked the FA why it had allowed Spurs to form a holding company. It hadn’t been an issue, I was told. The top clubs’ appetite for money was growing, while the FA, struggling for direction under its old amateur constitution, had lost confidence in its ability to govern the modern game. Manchester United was next to float, in 1991, immediately making £6 million for Martin Edwards, the majority shareholder, who sold a slice of the shares that had originally cost him and his father about £600,000. United were anticipating the windfall to come the following year, when the rights to broadcast Football League matches on television would be up for renewal.

Full article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n16/david-conn/follow-the-money

 

[Juicy Sushi]

There was no law of the land - it was an FA rule.

From an article by David Conn: Follow the Money.

In 1892, the FA permitted Preston North End, football’s first great power, to convert itself from a members’ club into a limited company. Preston had, years earlier, been the first to break the rules against professionalism, paying good players from Scotland to come to the club at a time when paying players was still illicit. The club’s application to form a company was partly to raise new money, partly to limit its members’ personal liability for the increased operating expenses. The FA decreed in 1892 that a club could make itself into a company, but that dividends to shareholders must be restricted. Here was the basis for football’s future development: the clubs became businesses, which could pay players, build grounds, charge supporters for entry, and form themselves into companies. But the FA insisted they remain clubs in their culture. The supporter’s gut feeling that the club is a collective endeavour, an organisation he belongs to, not a company seeking profit for shareholders, was embedded in the regulations. Rule 34, requiring football club-companies to be run essentially as non-profit organisations, with their directors serving as ‘custodians’, was in the FA handbook until the late 1990s.


Tottenham Hotspur was the first football club to be floated, in 1983. I asked the FA why it had allowed Spurs to form a holding company. It hadn’t been an issue, I was told. The top clubs’ appetite for money was growing, while the FA, struggling for direction under its old amateur constitution, had lost confidence in its ability to govern the modern game. Manchester United was next to float, in 1991, immediately making £6 million for Martin Edwards, the majority shareholder, who sold a slice of the shares that had originally cost him and his father about £600,000. United were anticipating the windfall to come the following year, when the rights to broadcast Football League matches on television would be up for renewal.

Full article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n16/david-conn/follow-the-money

Thanks, definitely a good read.

 

[palmers_green_yid]

There is no evidence that they've actually "fucked" anyone over. And as far as treating the fans right, what exactly would that be? There's no consensus among us about what we want out of the club, so exactly who are they supposed to be listening to? You? Me? The Supporter's Trust? They want happy customers. The people within the club are generally fans of it as well, so want to emotionally do the right thing, but exactly what that is depends very much on your particular viewpoint.

Selling our identity down the river is what I was referring to by fucking us over. No it didn't happen but they wanted it to.
You're right, we all want the club to do the right thing but we disagree on what that is. At the very least they should have a vote on something as important as moving to Stratford, with all members who attend games regularly allowed to vote. Those who had been attending games regularly for 10+ years could have more than one vote. I would still encourage a protest to show that if people voted for us to move, they would be losing a large amount of our most passionate fans.

No, it isn't. This is a sports team we happen to support. It's not a fundamental pillar of human civilization. If Spurs the club dies, there are plenty of other clubs around, and we're free to start our own new one any time we like.

Couldn't disagree more. Football clubs are a fundamental pillar of British society. If Spurs the club dies, no we couldn't just pick another one. It don't work like that.

The shareholders who own the club and who are undertaking all the financial risks for the running of the club are the ones who get to make the choices because it's their livelihood on the line, not ours. And by that I don't just mean ENIC, I mean everyone from Levy to the lunch lady. They all have significantly more skin in this game than we do.
.

Why? Why is the money of people who are already very rich more important than the passion of people who are largely not very rich? It's true that people's jobs are affected. But it's not like if we didn't move to Stratford Levy et al were all going to be lining up at the Jobcentre. And the lunch lady will keep her job just the same in Tottenham ;-)

Indeed we will. But so will they. Accusing them of having nothing but bad intentions, and foaming at the mouth with accusations based on fear with no basis in actual facts though isn't really going to accomplish very much.

The club aren't going to find it worth their while to dialogue with us when the most intelligent thing we have to say is: "SPENDMOREMONEYLEVYYOUCUNTHOWDAREYOUMOVEUSTOSTRATFORD#NOTOMKYOUHAVENORIGHTTOMAKEANYDECISIONSITSNOTYOURCLUB"

That is about the level of discourse the fans and THST are managing to provide at the moment. I feel the club could do a much better job of explaining the decisions they're making, and in particular the why of the matter, but at the same time I understand how complicated the real world and major business decisions are, and don't expect instant answers, or that the answer will always be yes.

I'm not accusing them of anything that wasn't a cold fact. They were going to take us to Stratford! That is a fact.
I think THST are very reasonable and diplomatic and in the way their present themselves. If anything they are not radical enough (IMO).
Other than THST there are no channels available to communicate with the club. Venting on a forum like this does not constitute communicating with the club. When the Stratford debacle was going on, I wrote them a very reasonable, polite letter...and received no reply.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If there is no way of communicating with the club and the club aren't interested in forming this, then protest, songs, stickers etc. is the only way of showing how we feel. I don't honestly know what we could do to have a more diplomatic exchange with the club. Even if we did have this, why would they listen to us?

Yes, there is. It's called the real world, and the dollars and cents of running a business. Because that is what Spurs are. We can surround that with as much rhetoric as we want, but for the last century Tottenham Hotspur have always been a business devoted to getting you to give them money in return for staging football matches for you to watch. That's it. The amounts of money involved have changed, but the crux of the matter has always been that exchange. And if Haringey put up restrictions which make it impossible for Spurs to actually do that, why should they not move elsewhere? In the end, they haven't. And Spurs aren't moving. But the scenario remains.

This comes back to the same argument. My position is that a football club is more than just a business, and the owners have a moral right to respect this. Yours is that it is a business so they are morally free to do as they please as they own that business. Agree to disagree?

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Selling our identity down the river is what I was referring to by fucking us over. No it didn't happen but they wanted it to.
You're right, we all want the club to do the right thing but we disagree on what that is. At the very least they should have a vote on something as important as moving to Stratford, with all members who attend games regularly allowed to vote. Those who had been attending games regularly for 10+ years could have more than one vote. I would still encourage a protest to show that if people voted for us to move, they would be losing a large amount of our most passionate fans.

Couldn't disagree more. Football clubs are a fundamental pillar of British society. If Spurs the club dies, no we couldn't just pick another one. It don't work like that.


Why? Why is the money of people who are already very rich more important than the passion of people who are largely not very rich? It's true that people's jobs are affected. But it's not like if we didn't move to Stratford Levy et al were all going to be lining up at the Jobcentre. And the lunch lady will keep her job just the same in Tottenham ;-)
I'm not accusing them of anything that wasn't a cold fact. They were going to take us to Stratford! That is a fact.
I think THST are very reasonable and diplomatic and in the way their present themselves. If anything they are not radical enough (IMO).
Other than THST there are no channels available to communicate with the club. Venting on a forum like this does not constitute communicating with the club. When the Stratford debacle was going on, I wrote them a very reasonable, polite letter...and received no reply.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If there is no way of communicating with the club and the club aren't interested in forming this, then protest, songs, stickers etc. is the only way of showing how we feel. I don't honestly know what we could do to have a more diplomatic exchange with the club. Even if we did have this, why would they listen to us?

This comes back to the same argument. My position is that a football club is more than just a business, and the owners have a moral right to respect this. Yours is that it is a business so they are morally free to do as they please as they own that business. Agree to disagree?

Yes, we shall have to with virtual beers all around.

 

[Joe Clash]

No, it isn't. This is a sports team we happen to support. It's not a fundamental pillar of human civilization. If Spurs the club dies, there are plenty of other clubs around, and we're free to start our own new one any time we like.

It's not as simple as that. Mr Hopcraft explains it better than I ever could.

"The point about football in Britain is that it is not just a sport people take to, like cricket or tennis or running long distances. It is inherent in the people. It is built into the urban psyche. It is not a phenomenon; it is an everyday matter. There is more eccentricity in deliberately disregarding it than in devoting a life to it. Its sudden withdrawal from the people would bring deeper disconsolation than to deprive them of television. The way we play the game, organise it and reward it reflects the kind of community we are."

Arthur Hopcraft - 1968

 

[Tottenham Sean]

There was no law of the land - it was an FA rule.

From an article by David Conn: Follow the Money.

In 1892, the FA permitted Preston North End, football’s first great power, to convert itself from a members’ club into a limited company. Preston had, years earlier, been the first to break the rules against professionalism, paying good players from Scotland to come to the club at a time when paying players was still illicit. The club’s application to form a company was partly to raise new money, partly to limit its members’ personal liability for the increased operating expenses. The FA decreed in 1892 that a club could make itself into a company, but that dividends to shareholders must be restricted. Here was the basis for football’s future development: the clubs became businesses, which could pay players, build grounds, charge supporters for entry, and form themselves into companies. But the FA insisted they remain clubs in their culture. The supporter’s gut feeling that the club is a collective endeavour, an organisation he belongs to, not a company seeking profit for shareholders, was embedded in the regulations. Rule 34, requiring football club-companies to be run essentially as non-profit organisations, with their directors serving as ‘custodians’, was in the FA handbook until the late 1990s.


Tottenham Hotspur was the first football club to be floated, in 1983. I asked the FA why it had allowed Spurs to form a holding company. It hadn’t been an issue, I was told. The top clubs’ appetite for money was growing, while the FA, struggling for direction under its old amateur constitution, had lost confidence in its ability to govern the modern game. Manchester United was next to float, in 1991, immediately making £6 million for Martin Edwards, the majority shareholder, who sold a slice of the shares that had originally cost him and his father about £600,000. United were anticipating the windfall to come the following year, when the rights to broadcast Football League matches on television would be up for renewal.

Full article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n16/david-conn/follow-the-money

Good read that.interesting about preston paying good players from Scotland.We were forced to turn professional because we bought a player a pair of boots! So god knows how they got away with actually paying players a wage

 

[Joe Clash]

Good read that.interesting about preston paying good players from Scotland.We were forced to turn professional because we bought a player a pair of boots! So god knows how they got away with actually paying players a wage

I heard they played the directors at snooker after the match for a fiver - the directors never won.