City documentary 1981.

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Bernard Halford is the one link with all of the various regimes...... unfortunately he is still feasting at the table so very unlikely to be spilling the beans any time soon.
He did admit that the attendance for the FA Youth Cup final in 86 was 28,000 not 18,000 so he was aware of the gate fiddling going on (Bournemouth in 89 @ 30,000 for starters).
As an FA Councillor and whatever position he is at City, he is unlikely to be telling too many stories of the dodgy dealings that could implicate himself.

 

[Gary James]

[
Totally agree with all that spiny but did Swales actually sack Mercer?

In truth. I do not know.

I am not priviledged to such knowledge. I never had any contact with Swales or Lee nor have had any connection with City beyond being a supporter of many years, starting to watch at the scoreboard end.

In the 1980's I did have dealings and contacts with managers, owners and sponsors of other First Division Clubs on which to base my comparison, including some of the more successful of the period.

Maine Road had fallen well behind most grounds as a venue by this time.

No Swales did not sack Mercer and, to be frank, had very little to do with Mercer's departure and Allison's 'promotion'. It was the takeover guys who were responsible - Niven, Cussins, Muir, Horwich and Smith - for Mercer's departure. Swales was in the background but not a puppet master at the time of Mercer's departure. Eric Alexander was chairman at the time but, despite his best efforts, could not stop the progression of those desperate to take over a successful club and run it their way. A way which included treating Mercer like sh*t while they reaped the benefits. The year Mercer was pushed out they also brought in their club secretary Bernard Halford to replace Walter Griffiths and they tried to make the club theirs. Swales described himself as a peace maker in later years (disputed by those on the old board in recent years) and became chairman in oct 1973 after both mercer and Allison had moved on, but he was vice chairman before that.

Worth noting that many of those involved with the takeover were made honorary presidents of City and Bernard is today's Life President - an honour that fans kept pushing for Mercer to have in 80s and at each AGM Swales would say the club were in discussion with Mercer about having the role - that was a lie and Mercer (nor Allison for that matter) were awarded that title or ANY other. Unbelievable!

 

[crmcfc]

If only City was run like it was 1981. Instead Swales was stuck in the 1950’s with a style of management and lack of investment that saw unrest and the demise of swathes of British industry.

All the evidence points to Manchester City FC being run into the ground under Swales. During more than 20 years, ground improvements he instigated amounted to a new roof on the main stand plus recladding the exterior in painted steel and to build the underwhelming Umbro Stand. Hardly keeping up let alone investing for the future.

In the words of a poster respected for his insights into City finances. (I hope he doesnt mind)
“by Prestwich_Blue
Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:26 am
Peter Swales would have loved FFP as he would have seen it as keeping costs down and making more money for himself, while giving him an excuse not to put money in.“


I am not an accountant but I do know how businesses run. Please explain "Lee did not step down he was over thrown before he finished us off, we would have gone bankrupt". And with Swales?

When Lee took over, the cupboard was bare. Revenues were insufficient and had to increase in order to survive. Who knows what else was hidden in the accounts? Big investments had to be made, including building the new Kippax. This took priority over the playing side.

When Manchester was putting together the bid to host the Commonwealth Games, the opportunity to move to CoMS as a tenant was pursued by Lee with Barlow. It was a lifeline that would enable City to get a new ground with minimal capital investment compared with developing Maine Road and give a huge boost to potential revenue.

How can you fail to see the link to the Etihad? Are you aware of the “manifesto“ on which Peter Swales was appointed Chairman? No mention of his quotes or the circumstances. Why be selective?

My issue with your posts is the lack of knowledge and prejudice. Your comparison of the tenure between Swales and Lee is unsupported, disproportionate and without context so your sensational comments have no foundation. Perhaps you could enlighten us? Maybe you do not go back far enough? Your criticism of Francis Lee may be justified in isolation except in a comparison I cannot think of a single positive contribution of consequence made by Peter Swales during his tenure. Plenty of negatives and lots of bravado and gestures with little substance. It is not a matter of rewriting history but of stating fact.

Myself and others have explained why we disagree with you. By all means express your opinions but you cannot be taken seriously when you fail to substantiate them and reply by making even more contentious claims.


p.s. City did get to play at Ewan Fields. At least it was not at Boundary Park from a ground share or merger with Oldham Athletic as seemed more probable at the time.

I know City play at Hyde that is why I used the analogy, there was never the prospect of merging with Oldham Athletic either, the most sensational comment on the thread I think!! I cannot see anything tangible as why you disagree with the post, I'II give it another go....

In the final period of Lee's tenure the club survived on individual loans (similar to the Mike Ashley Rangers situation) the threat was to withdraw the loans unless Lee left the club - repayment of these loans would have put City into administration. Lee did not have the funds to repay the loans himself or the credibility to raise any capital so left.

Yes the cupboard was bare when Lee took over maybe it was the outlandish promises he made that irked me at the time. Of course Lee did due diligence as part of ( if you remember) quite a long takeover process so to think that Lee walked into City with his eyes shut to the financial situation is far fetched at best.

It was Manchester City council who approached the club regarding taking over the tenancy, the council had been worried that the commonwealth stadium would become a "white elephant" without a permanent tenant. Barlow and Lee held a weak negotiating position because of the state of Maine Road as you mention, and the original agreement with the club and the council meant that we hardly made a penny on match days so it not quite without Franny there would be no Etihad as is being suggested. It was in spite of Lee.

I'm giving a balance to the discussion as fans who do not remember would get a disproportionate view reading the posts

Both Lee and Swales probably did have City at heart but neither could run a football club, the "Lee is good, Swales is bad" theory is muddled thinking as the points show.

If Lee had not had a fantastic playing career for City and was "A.N Other business man" he would be still be hated by some fans for what he did as Swales seems to be. I hate neither by the way.

If fans want to look at Lee through rose tinted glasses that is fair enough if that is how you think of him having seem him play or whatever then go with it. In the annuls of time neither Swales or Lee should be looked back at with any credit for how they run the club.

 

[Gary James]

It was Manchester City council who approached the club regarding taking over the tenancy, the council had been worried that the commonwealth stadium would become a "white elephant" without a permanent tenant. Barlow and Lee held a weak negotiating position because of the state of Maine Road as you mention, and the original agreement with the club and the council meant that we hardly made a penny on match days so it not quite without Franny there would be no Etihad as is being suggested. It was in spite of Lee.

I'm giving a balance to the discussion as fans who do not remember would get a disproportionate view reading the posts

As you say, it's not as simple as some believe. I've interviewed all the key figures in the Lee takeover and the stadium negotiations including Lee, Swales, the 2 Bernsteins, Bird, Mackintosh, Stringer etc. It's not something that can be simply documented here, but a few points that should not be overlooked:

- The first talk of City moving to a new stadium came c.1988 when Swales said he'd like to move City to the new stadium being proposed for the Olympics (as documented in my 1st book "From Maine Men To Banana Citizens, published 1989). Of course the olympic bid got nowhere!
- Several sports teams could have become anchor tenants at the new stadium and Manchester council did offer it to Manchester United (key figs went on record in the 2nd edition of my book "Manchester A Football History")
- United turned down the move (full story in my book as mentioned above).
- City were in a strong negotiating position because... Manchester needed an anchor tenant to guarantee some funding and the stadium's viability; Maine Road was, regardless of what may be written now, still a major stadium with 2 stands that had been constructed within the 9 years prior to the Games (one of these contained the best hospitality facilities at a sports ground in the region with one lounge, the Millennium Suite, having a capacity of 1000 which was not matched at the new stadium); City could have stayed at Maine Road, like other clubs such as Villa, LFC etc. and expanded; Francis Lee had a plan to turn it into a 50,000 capacity stadium which was achievable and even if the council had blocked it, City did not have to move, Maine Road was not falling down (parts were shabby, but the investment Lee had made in his brief period in charge had significantly improved matters - simply compare Swales' plan to seat the Kippax by bolting plastic seats on to the old terracing with what Lee actually did to the stand.
-Lee wanted a 50-60,000 capacity stadium for City
- Lee did the preliminary negotiations but the deal and actual agreement wasn't made until after Lee had gone. The agreement to move was signed in 1999 by Bernstein.
- Bird & Bernstein, plus others, were the people who did the serious negotiations and agreed to move the club but none of this could be finalised until 1999. In fact had City not been promoted in 1999 then it's probably that the stadium we now know would not have been built to this size and status. A plan was in place which would have seen a pemanent stand of about 10,000 built with temporary seating to bring a capacity of about 30,000 for the Games and leave afterwards a permanent venue of 10,000 capacity for athletics etc. City would have stayed at Maine Road.
- Once City won promotion the deal could be made, and that deal was absolutely in City's favour at that time. The specifics probably appear elsewhere on this site, but the club basically gave Maine Road, valued at about £30m, spent about £25m on fitting out the new stadium, and only had to pay the council a rental fee for crowds in excess of Maine Road's capacity (it was a bit more complicated than that, but roughly works like this) and then it was only a percentage. So City got a new stadium and only had to pay a percentage of receipts over Maine Rd's capacity.
- When City's average was 39,000 in 2006-07 the council must have wondered why they'd negotiated such a deal!
- The council also had Maine Rd which they then believed they could rent out to a rugby club like Sale Sharks, or even Stockport County, but ultimately they couldn't find a tenant and the venue that had cost them £35m in effect was demolished.

The key point of all this is that Lee did a damn site more than Swales to safeguard City's future off the pitch. On the pitch we all know what happened, but off the pitch Lee tried to set up opportunities for City to grow - the exact opposite of his predecessor and his supporting directors etc.

 

[gazworrall78]

Who remembers a documentary out round 1987 can't seem to find a copy any where.

 

[hateutd]

i was here when we were shit....