An Olympian view

This is a distraction, I know, and has little to do with the main aim of this blog. But it has something to do with the thoughts of at least some of the directors of West Ham. And even a tentative post might help to clarify one's ideas.

As I understand it, there might be some benefit to West Ham from playing football at the Olympic Stadium. This of course would be quite different from the benefit to the directors (aka the shareholders) of being able to dispose of the present ground. They may even have already mentioned the idea to some of their business contacts, in a general sort of way, naturally, and nothing specific at this stage.

But how do Olympic Park and Upton Park compare?

Location
Upton Park (the station) is quite isolated if the District line is not running. Some years ago at the end of the game, the 500 m walk from the ground to the station coincided with the complete collapse of the railway service. And so began the great trek by refugee Hammers to West Ham station, over 2 km away, where the Jubilee line was still functioning.

Olympic Park is served by so many railway lines that only an international outrage of the most appalling kind would stop them all, and we certainly wouldn't be thinking of football, and probably of not much else either.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 0

Local amenities
Upton Park has had plenty of time to provide for all the (fairly) respectable needs of football fans, from food and drink to a sheltered fence if the call of nature becomes too urgent. Most fans do not expect much, and that is what they get - not much.

From the artists' illustrations, Olympic Park looks a little too civilised. Never mind. It will soon change as the fans do what fans have to do.

But there may be one problem. The cost of constructing Olympic Park will probably be reflected in the prices charged by franchisees for food, drink and entertainment.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 1

The atmosphere and the view of the football match
At Upton Park, they are reasonable in most parts of the ground, but the old ones will tell you that it is now nothing like as good as it used to be. But then, it probably never was.

Olympic Park has a problem. It is big, even if some bits are lopped off after the Olympic Games. The problem is not new and the cause is, whisper it, the athletics track.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 2

The effect of the weather
And I am not thinking of its effect on the pitch, where grass technology (always excepting any problems at Wembley) is much improved and heavy pitches amd footballs are virtually unknown now.

No, the spectator has got used to being offered protection from the worst of the elements. Only the effect of the cold if you are seated (and prevented from standing, like penguins, packed tightly together), is seriously unpleasant.

But I have been told, by someone who should know, that in the Olympic Stadium, only spectators right at the back in the top few rows will be protected adequately from driving rain. Perhaps this is not important in our summers, but at other times

a long way from the action, and

soaking wet, and

freezing cold?

No thank you!

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 3

The two sides in football

The private
In the West Ham programme for 9 May 2010, David Sullivan (Chairman) wrote:
'In a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

On the West Ham website (13 August 2010), we read that the club has raised £4m in new equity through a placing of shares, primarily with new investors. These include John Harris and Daniel Harris (father and son), and also Terence Brown (former Chairman of the club).

If necessary, readers will be able to find out a little of the background of Mr Brown by using their favourite search engine. The welcome given by West Ham fans to this news must have been fairly muted.

Daniel Harris has joined the board as a non-executive director while Terence Brown becomes an honorary life president.

In case you, and Mr Sullivan, have forgotten, 'in a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

But perhaps not ordinary supporters.

The public
This side was represented by Members of Parliament speaking on behalf of their constituents in the Adjournment Debate on 8 September 2010: (the) role of football supporters in the governance of professional football clubs.

The debate was well attended by MPs, both listening and speaking, and also by club supporters in the visitors' area.

It was opened by Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) who has the distinction of having two premiership clubs (Everton and Liverpool) in his constituency. The debate showed that MPs are well aware of both the importance of football in the life of their constituents and the nature of the problems which need to be tackled, particularly in connection with premiership clubs.

One gained the impression that MPs would be quite prepared to support the introduction of a legal requirement that supporters, if they wished, should be able to gain control of their clubs.

The bridge?
West Ham is currently owned by WH Holding Limited, a private limited company This structure is not appropriate for a large number of small shareholders.

But the most obvious alternative, a public limited company, would probably be unacceptable to the present owners.

What is needed is an intermediate body in which supporters could invest, and from which they could withdraw if necessary, sums of the order of £500 to £1 000 in absolute safety, until the money could be used to buy shares in the main company.

Finally, these members would be able, if they wished, to exchange the value of their investment for benefits of equal value provided by the main company, now the members' body.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow.

T. S. Eliot

John Sweeney's summer brake?

Which was the most significant of the footballing stories this summer? Not, I think, except for Spain and South Africa, one concerning the FIFA World Cup. It is true that there were other countries such as England, France and Holland who made the headlines but not, I fear, for their skills on the pitch.

No, my vote would go to an unlikely source - a Panorama television programme shown on BBC1 on Tuesday 8 July at the unpromising hour of 10.35 pm, just three days before the start of the World Cup.

John Sweeney, a reporter and Tranmere Rovers fan, had prepared a devastating indictment of English football, particularly of the Premier League where the total debt is now £3.4 billion. This is greater than the total for the rest of European football.

Supporters of Sweeney's case included:

Dave Boyle, Chief Executive of Supporters Direct, 'English football (is) groaning under the weight of unsustainable debt';
Andy Green, financial analyst, 'Glazer core business in USA got it absolutely wrong';
Dave Wheelan, Chairman, Wigan Athletic FC, 'Got to stop. Debt in Premiership is unsustainable. Wigan next season will break even. No more debt; what goes out must come in'.

Among the people and organisations who declined to appear (no great surprise!) were:

The Football Association, the Premier League, David Gill (Chief Executive, Manchester United), the Glazer family (father and six children), and Hugh Robertson (Minister for Sport) who was concentrating on our 2018 bid for the World Cup!

Football would probably not be top of the list of concerns for the politicians at the moment. But in the end, the solution to football's woes will probably have to be political. Most clubs are unlikely to volunteer to change. Few executives and directors are natural democrats. But change is needed if a financial catastrophe is to be avoided.

Next time
A political solution for football?

Struggling upwards

Is there a route to the top of the football club management mountain? Sometimes it seems that 'snakes and ladders' is the most appropriate metaphor for supporters on the uphill trail. In principle the path is simple, but in practice it is full of sharp turns, blind bends, precipitous drops and difficult junctions where the way ahead seems a bit of a lottery.

Is it worth it? After all, you don't usually have a stake in the company that makes the film or a vote in the management of the theatre. You don't often get worked up about the appointment of the players in an orchestra. But somehow, football is different.

Football audiences are often large, sometimes enormous. They participate. They can influence the outcome of the entertainment. They are involved. And they are sometimes taken for granted, even abused.

So how can you start the ascent of the mountain? Nothing could apparently be easier. Buy a share in the club. Or even several shares. But supposing the owners don't want to sell you any? If the company makes widgets, they would be pleased to have your financial assistance. If they only make dreams and hopes, then the door is probably shut in your face. 'Well,' you may say, 'fair enough. Lots of doors are shut in my face.'

Why are the directors apprehensive? Do they see shareholding supporters as an unwanted, unnecessary and expensive complication, a bit of a nuisance? Probably yes. The mob at the gates is a powerful and frightening force in history.

But here's a strange fact. One of the most successful football clubs in the world doesn't react like that. The President of FC Barcelona, Joan Laporta, and his fellow board members don't seem frightened or worried. If FC Barcelona doesn't need to shut the door, why does your club?

This blog is trying to get West Ham (and other clubs) to open the door. By all means re-form a Supporters Trust if you wish, but unless its main activity is building the financial resources to buy shares in the club. I believe it would be wasting its time and, worse, the supporters' money.

How much bettter it would be if, as a first step, West Ham decided to make shares available for purchase by supporters. In present circumstances, there might be no great rush to buy. But the gesture would be significant. It could mark a change from conflict to co-operation and the start of building an English club in the image of FC Barcelona.

Why not get involved? If you would like to be informed of developments or you are able to provide ideas and expertise, please get in touch.

Postscript

David Sullivan (Chairman of West Ham) has recently written that 'in a few months' time, we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club. Every penny raised would be used to pay off debts and buy new players.'

WHAM! welcomes this encouraging development and looks forward to further details of the proposal.

Steadily down?

In retrospect, 2003 was a peak year at West Ham; not on the playing side (where they were relegated from the Premiership), but for supporter involvement in the management of the club.

Some long-term shareholders had decided to decrease the size of their holdings and these shares became available for purchase by supporters. This trend was not altogether welcomed by the directors who increasingly found themselves having to account for their decisions. As many of the new shareholders only owned a single share and took advantage of their right to attend general meetings, these events became less cosy and predictable. Especially so as some of those present were not always certain of the procedures to be followed. But they were cetainly liveley and interesting gatherings!

The opportunity for the ordinary supporter to be a shareholder disappeared at the end of 2006.

West Ham United Supporters Trust was formed in late 2001 and at its peak in 2003 had some 300 members. As previously mentioned on this site, it had its problems and only really flourished in a crisis. Its last recorded gasp was in January 2005. It must be admitted that there does not at the moment appear to be any great desire to build a long-term body to represent West Ham supporters.

Also at this time, the Hammers Bond Company (an unincorporated association of bondholders of West Ham United plc) was active. In November 1991, the Hammers Bond had been offered for sale in connection with obtaining finance for the development of the Boleyn ground. Although only 808 bonds were sold, the Bond Company became mainly a social organisation which could communicate the views of the bondholders to the football club management. Not perfect, but it certainly seemed to be effective.

Sadly, after the AGM in May 2008, nothing has been heard of the Bond Company. Letters and phone calls to West Ham have so far proved fruitless.

At the end of 2003, 'Whistle' appeared on the scene but after publication of the infamous 180 questions sent to the West Ham chairman, Terence Brown, in April 2004, the writs began to fly which, from the company's point of view, had the desired effect. 'Whistle' was silenced.

In the year ending 31 May 2006, the total emoluments paid to Terence Brown were over £1 million, about twice as much as might have been paid to the Chairman of a FTSE 100 company at the time.

On 21 Novemeber 2006, the sale of West Ham United plc to Eggert Magnusson and Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson for £85m was agreed. On 13 December 2007, Gudmundsson bought out Magnusson's holding. In June 2009, ownership passed to CB Holding, which was controlled by the Icelandic bank, Straumur.

In January 2010, David Gold and David Sullivan bought a 50% interest in the club, with an option to buy the remaining 50% in four years' time. The company was valued at £105 million including debt.

So not a very encouraging decade. But at least Premiership status has been retained, even if ordinary supporter ownership seems further away than ever. Perhaps this is the dark cloud before the silver lining.

Why did West Ham United Supporters Trust fail?

West Ham United Supporters Trust (referred to as WHUST) is the trading name of West Ham Supporters' Society Limited, IP29300R, first registered on 24 October 2001 and now dormant.

These notes are based on the only documents (no longer available) which could be found on the web. The information provides an insight into the likely reasons why WHUST has not survived. This is of obvious importance to WHAM! who would not wish to repeat any mistakes made by WHUST.

At the WHUST AGM in September 2003, it was made clear that the Trust "could not veer from its pro-fan agenda and therefore could never join the anti-Brown campaign".

It is likely that the fate of WHUST was sealed from that date as the West Ham Board, and the fans, realised that the 'revolutionary' forces did not have enough votes and the support of major shareholders to bring about change.

Weaknesses of WHUST revealed in the documents available

1. A shortage of active members
Amanda Matthews (who re-appears later in connection with the "Stand up, sit down" campaign) says that, of the original members, only two remain. On 15 January 2004, she appeals for more help for the 8 active members.

2. A lack of focus
It can't make up its mind if its main purpose is to raise funds to buy shares so that it can influence the football club or to act as a forum for the whole range of opinions you can expect from football fans.

3. Poor use of the resources it does have
Much effort is spent in replying to every point raised by fans on the website.

4. Some dotty ideas
These probably appear as a consequence of other weaknesses. For example 'we do have a healthy amount in the bank at our disposal, which we have earmarked to use to double our membership, in doing so will then be able to invest in more shares'.
But supposing this does not produce any new members? Or very few? What then, with no funds, is the future of the trust?

5. A lack of financial control
There is no indication that priorities have been properly assessed and finances directed accordingly, in other words having a plan with a realistic budget.

6. A lack of influence
As someone pointed out (18 September 2003), with just over 300 members at £20 each for each of the two years the Trust has been running, the total raised equals £12 000. Spending just half of that could have bought (21 May 2003), at £3 a share (including dealing costs), 2 000 shares. The Trust had 200!

Every effort has been made to ensure that the facts in this analysis are accurate and that the comment is fair. If you would like to discuss the matters raised, please respond, either on this site or by direct communication.

Update

The West Ham world has turned on its axis since my last post. The club has new owners and there is a desperate struggle to avoid relegation. The manager is the subject of speculation, the players lack the confidence to show their ability and the directors are accused of making unhelpful comments.

But hang on a moment! All that does sound dreadfully familiar. The fundamentals have not changed. The club is still far away from the ideals of FC Barcelona, both in playing ability and in corporate structure.

So what has happened to WHAM! in the last six months?

Taking the advice given by Supporters Direct, the time has been used to assess the level of interest in, and possible support for, the project.

Using information available on the internet, a list of the names of about a hundred declared celebrity West Ham fans was obtained. Further investigation soon revealed that some celebrities can have a very elastic definition of a football fan! So the list was reduced to 40 names where the attachment to West Ham could be shown to be sufficiently strong. David Gold, then Chairman of Birmingham City FC plc, was included. A letter explaining the nature of the project was sent to each name, with the following results:

• 6 MPs, 6 replies. Very impressive!
• 6 former West Ham shareholders, 1 reply.
• 14 media people, 2 replies.
• 14 others, 2 replies.

A letter inviting their support was also sent to the twenty-nine West Ham United plc shareholders who were on the 2007 register and had addresses in the BR postal area. This provided a representative and convenient sample. One reply.

Letters were sent to the Chairman and to the Secretary of The Hammers Bond Company. There has been no response.

A letter was also sent to Scott Duxbury, then Chief Executive Officer, West Ham United plc. An acknowledgement was received.

Where does this leave WHAM!? Still trying to gain supporters for the cause? Most definitely. Exploring possibilities? Certainly. Talking to West Ham directors? Perhaps. Giving up? Never!

The philosophical background

When considering football, many, if not all, fans inhabit a fantasy world where the activity is to talk about football, shout about football, complain about football and, sadly, occasionally fight about football.

All too rarely do they think about football and are thus vulnerable to another side of football, the financial side.

The modern game, particularly at the highest level, has been invaded by people who have exploited the fans for commercial gain. This has involved the clubs, the league (especially the Premier League), the players and their agents, some television companies and even some of the game's governing bodies such as the FA and FIFA.

This project is a small (some might say ambitious) attempt to fight back and to persuade enough fans to support the cause financially. This will not be easy and it may be that, in the end, the only way is to start again with non-league clubs and encourage their growth.

But most of us do not have the time or the patience to wait for this growth. So let's see if the alternative can be made to work.

The task is to create a structure which can satisfy the two distinct groups which are present in most football clubs. It may be useful to draw an analogy with the housing market; those who by nature or circumstance prefer to rent and those who prefer to buy.

Housing has two separate markets; football historically has had only one which has given it a valuable social cohesion. Can the unity of football fans be maintained in the modern world?

That is the aim of this project. Can a scheme be devised and, more importantly, proceed to a successful conclusion? Yes. Can it accommodate the fans who prefer to pay by the match or by the season and those who, with suitable encouragement, might be willing to provide the funds to buy the club and give it financial stability? Yes again. And still stick to one member, one vote? Yes once more. So let's make it work!

What? No guarantee of football success? No, and never can be. Over the years, West Ham has supplied more than its fair share of players for England, including the current team. That is the measure of its success and we should be proud of it.