It’s a strange, poorly written article. I don’t really understand what point (if any) he is trying to make.
That's because it's an entirely false narrative.
In order for this article to make any sense a false reality has to be constructed to accommodate it, one
where a fans attachment to a club is underpinned by wider considerations, considerations that Stockwood believes are self evident, paramount, universal and unquestionable. Without this false reality the central premise of the argument folds, that's why you and I struggle to understand what point he's making.
It's not so much the point he's making is nonsensical, assuming one can discern what it is, it's that it can only exist in Stockwood's alternate reality.
This is the sort of narrative employed when the actualité is at variance with the writer's ideology.
To disguise the unreality, Stockwood tries to hoodwink the reader with a bit of history and a dollop of terrace cred, before making a clumsy dash for his political point by way of Greek mythology and gobbledegook...
"If an object’s constituent parts are completely replaced, does it retain its original essence and continuity?
Although there may not be a definitive answer to the question of what endures, it appears that the threads guiding us through the labyrinth of time are either weakened or strengthened based on our alignment with our own identity and values. As the physical infrastructure of a football club undergoes upgrades and changes, it becomes increasingly challenging to establish a direct line connecting today’s achievements with the club’s past. It is crucial to recognise that while our relationship with a club is rooted in a shared story and collective memories, there is also a need to align with our present-day values and that is where ownership plays a significant role."
"crucial"...."need"...."align with our present day values"
The big flaws in his argument, such as it is, are easy to spot. Stockwood makes no attempt to explain why any of the above is "crucial", beyond his confection of nostalgic whimsy and references to Greek fairy tales, and as a consequence "need" falls off the table, and as for ""align with our present day values", the question arises why?
Why should my support be conditional on Sheikh Mansour's values being aligned with "present day values"? Values left mysteriously undefined. One suspects that was quite deliberate, because what Stockwood means is his values, liberal western values, The Guardian's values, the values everyone should aspire to, you know, the only ones that count.
Sounds like a retread of the white man's burden to me.
