bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I look at it a bit more simply. For a so-called expert he makes a hell of a lot of mistakes in his articles. He seems like a bit of a bluffer to me.Glad you pulled him up on that piece of disinformation. I saw it but was busy at work and intended to come back later but it had slipped my mind.
Meanwhile, here's my lengthy opinion of David Conn and his work that appeared about 1200 pages back on this very thread in June 2019. I like to think that the events of this week are proving me right.
[Conn] turned up to interview Franny for a north west business publication and said that the experience left him knowing that he'd been "talking to a businessman", as if it was the most pejorative label that could possibly be attached to an interviewee. What disgraceful temerity from Franny. Someone arrives to interview you for a business magazine and you talk about business. Conn's description of the episode sounds laughably juvenile.
He's knowledgeable but not to the degree a lot of people think. He has nothing like the level of insight that someone such as Stefan from the 93:20 pod does, but then Stefan is CEO of a public company and also their senior in-house lawyer, with a track record of having advised the boards of top football clubs in his past. Conn qualified as a solicitor but left the profession immediately after doing so. As someone who's supervised newly qualified solicitors and has been one, I can tell you that their ability to navigate complex legal issues such as this is really not all that. He's probably the most knowledgeable current British journalist about business issues in sport, but very much in an 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King' kind of way.
I gave my view of this latest piece by Conn in this thread last night, and at quite some length. It's possible he may be right, but if he is, it seems a senseless move from City's point of view. Yet if he's made any attempt to discern why City may be more confident of their case than he is, or what arguments we may put forward that distinguish the case from the precedent he refers to in his article, there's absolutely no sign of it. He may well have asked for a view from a sports law expert before writing, but the problem with that is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. I don't think I can be confident that he has.
More generally, Conn has shifted away from his usual subject matter when started out, which had a focus on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game. Then, he wrote for The Independent and produced two excellent books. In those days, I thought he was very good - and sometimes better than that. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as a self-appointed conscience of modern football. Beyond some half-baked fan ownership nonsense, never does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.
Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.
All these faults were fully evident in Richer Than God, which I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Like so many of his articles, the book merely served as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.
So sorry, those who profess admiration for him. You admire Conn if you want to. But put me down in the 'not a fan' camp.
Last edited: