<ianjamesmurray> wrote:
He owns a company which owns the football league share, he will never own
the club. The club belongs to us.
http://footballmanagement.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/club-club-or-club-a-3cs-model/
Club', 'club' or 'club'??? A 3Cs model
by John Beech
The evidence submitted by the Premier League to the House of Commons Select
Committee prompts me to write again on the inherent ambiguity of the word
'club'. The evidence contains the following statement:
English football clubs are very resilient with 95% of the clubs in the
Football League in 1923 still in existence today and the vast majority
within two divisions of their 1923 position
How can you square this with the equally true statement that over half the
clubs in the top 92 have suffered insolvency events since 1990, with
frequent cases of Administration and a new company being formed by new
owners? The difference, of course, lies in what exactly is meant by the
word 'club'.
In one significant respect it is not a word that should, in any case, be
applied to today's 'clubs'. It dates from the nineteenth century when
football clubs were indeed members' clubs, run by and for their members,
associations of two or more people united by a common interest or goal, but
professionalisation of the game at the end of that century meant that the
formation of a limited company became the only practical way to operate. 'Members'
disappeared from the equation. The use of the word 'club' persists,
however, nearly always at least in the actual name of the company. A breach
of the Trades Description Act perhaps?
If we ignore the meaning 'members' clubs' then there are to me three
distinct meanings, and they are all too easily confused.
First there is the social construct. This is the 'club' that fans normally
think of as being the club. It doesn't actually exist in any formal sense,
but is incredibly 'real' to its supporters. It provokes the 'till I die'
element and the tattoos. It is built on heritage, culture, mentality and
mythology. To illustrate it, I have used in presentations a photo of the
famous John Portsmouth Football Club Westwood. It is notable indeed for its
longevity. It survives the disappearance and (later) resurrection of a
club, and often with slight changes in name - think Aldershot; think
Accrington Stanley. Or conversely, don't think Wimbledon and MK Dons - it
is precisely the construct of 'Wimbledon' that to some extent is still
contested, a fight over 'Whose Wimbledon is it anyway?'. (I'm sure readers
don't need telling the answer by the way!) This example serves well to show
how this social construct is also embedded in location and identity, which
gives it its permanence.
In short, it is the club as construct that fans support. There is no
inconsistency other than the use of the word 'club' when fans find
themselves in conflict with the owners of the 'club' (and, remember, there
are no longer members of the 'club'), to use a second meaning - the club as
company, a different meaning. My loyalty to Pompey - the club as
construct - does not in any way automatically transfer to a loyalty to
Messrs. Mandaric, Gaydamak, Al Fahim, Al Faraj, Chainrai or indeed Uncle Tom
Cobleyski. I doubt too that John Eastwood has been tempted to have any of
their faces as tattoos.
This distinction between club as construct and club as company is an
important one. In particular, it should be considered when desperate
directors call on fans to get the collecting boxes out to save the club.
fans will certainly want to save their club as construct, but want to think
twice about saving their club as current company, i.e. the current board of
directors.
The club as company does not show the longevity, or continuity, that club as
construct does. Frequently the inclusion of a bracketed year in the company's
name is an indication of discontinuity, for example, Middlesbrough Football
and Athletic Club (1986) Ltd., Wrexham Football Club (2006) Ltd. 95% of the
(football club) companies around in 1923 are most definitely not still in
existence!
The third version of club is the club as crew, in other words the players.
The crew has a continuity, but no consistency of membership over time. The
crew is a case of Trigger's broom, with players coming and going, and
sometimes reappearing in an opposition team. The days of one-club players
such as Jimmy Dickinson (Portsmouth) or Jack Charlton (Leeds) are long gone.
As fans we show them our loyalty, but the minute they leave our loyalty
tends to evaporate, as we perceive a lack of loyalty to the club as
construct on their part.
Three different meanings of the word 'club' with quite significant
difference in the loyalty we show them, in longevity and in continuity. Is
it just petty academic differences? I think not. For fans, it is the
construct that matters ultimately. Directors have been known to have no
concern for club as construct.
The important distinction to me is the fans' view of club as construct as
opposed to the directors' perspective of club as company. My blood boils
when directors use the club as construct to get fans to help them hold on to
power in the club as company. There are certainly situations when fans
might well be advised to not donate to collections, as this can just prolong
the mismanagement of their beloved club.
Mind you, confusing, at haste, club as construct with club as crew can be a
mistake to regret at leisure, as at least one Liverpool fan must now be
doing.
_______________________________________________
Leedslist mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
To unsubscribe, email [email protected]
PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
