Francis Rizzo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 276
Dont like the title of the book, I doubt Roberto would also.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
David Conn book - Richer Than God: Manchester City.....
- Thread starter Mad Eyed Screamer
- Start date
Uwe Rosler's Grandad
Well-Known Member
There's a few things you need to understand about David Conn. Yes he is a blue but he is more than a little disillusioned with the business side of football (and for good reason too). Also, he writes for a paper with a particular political stance which mirrors (no pun intended) his own views.
Finally, like all newspaper hacks and book authors they have books and newspapers to sell, income to earn, mouths to feed etc etc etc. Writing a book or article saying everything is rosy, there's nothing to see here etc etc is not going to sell.
I haven't read or ordered the book but whilst I have some sympathy with the utopian world that David Conn aspires to, I live and work in the real world. Football clubs have been owned by wealthy owners for over a hundred years and during this time there have been good and bad owners. Dubious business practices continue to this day...a few from straight off the top of my head:-
Chelsea - bought by a Russian with limited business acumen or skill who became via political (and possible mafia) support very wealthy...no one knows for sure where his money came from
Portsmouth - multiple owners in recent times who appear to have used, abused, raped and pillaged the club
Rangers - another used and abused club that might fall by the wayside
Liverpool - club purchased to men suits looking for a profit (days from bankruptcy) and then sold to more men in suits looking to make a profit
I could go on but the above is the very sort of skullduggery that David Conn is famous for looking at in detail (and usually quite well).
Going back to my utopian world point, David's views (political ideology?) is that all clubs should be community owned club etc etc...and in a way I sympathise with that but it is far far far too late for that now. The proverbial cat is out of the bag has jumped on a train and is hundreds of miles away now. For clubs that are not already owned by its fans (Barcelona, Real Madris, Bayern Munich)...it is far far too late to put the cat in the bag now.
I'm going to make a revelation now...businesses, people, sports clubs, governments, politicians etc etc get up to no good on a regular basis. Bribery, corruption, fraud, illegal activites etc etc happens every day not just in the world of football...wake up David, Platini et al and everyone else who thinks that football is the last bastion of poor business deals, rip off merchants, fraud etc etc, it is not...man up and realise that please.
I think I've been going on too much so will come to the point over these closing paragraphs...football clubs (and every other type of business) are mis-managed and mis-used around the world everyday and action needs to be taken by authorities who are willing to step in before it is too late and the fans (customers), creditors, communities etc etc are affected. The FA (for example) have a fit and proper person process...and it does not take a professor to work out that unfit and unproper persons are still involved with owning and running football clubs right now. The current owner of Rangers was banned from acting as a director before he became owner but no one spotted that...that would have been easy to find out at the time but did anybody bother?...and if they did being banned as a director would have been one hell of a big f*cking red flag to say wooooaaahhh there, there is something wrong with this fella...let's look a little closer at him and his business plan, where he's got his money from etc etc.
Anyway, is there a point to this post...I hope so. When writing a book about Manchester City you have to remember that it (like many other businesses) have had it's fair share of being badly managed and had a dodgy owner or two (Shinawatra is a good example) but the reality is this...as far as I can see and know, UEFA finance fair play issues aside, City should be held up as a beacon of fresh hope to the fans, the footballing authorities etc etc...that a club can have good shareholders (who are true to their word and not in it for the raping and pillaging), can act responsibly and be good citizens in the community etc etc. Before jumping on the bash City bandwagon think about it a bit more first because I firmly believe we'll see big clubs enter into difficult times through mismanagement etc and treat their fans (customers), creditors (etc) and communities badly in the future (and I seriously doubt it will be City).
Finally, whilst reading David Conn's article I took exception to a bit of sensationalistic reporting that I would not have expected from him but clearly he has a book to sell and a political ideology to force on folk:-
David says "City had managed to tumble into that hapless predicament despite a gift of outrageous fortune: a new, 48,000-seat stadium, built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games with public money – £78m from the national lottery, £49m from Manchester city council – and converted at the public's expense." He makes it sound as if the stadium was given to City. Errrr City actually paid for part of it (by contributing Maine Road) and pays rent on the other part. What would have happened to the stadium if City had decided to stay at Maine Road?
David focuses on the money spent on players but there is something amiss here...Eriksson, Hughes and Mancini have all spent money on players to change the squad as they saw it. If City had had the same manager for the last five years I suspect the money spent on players would be nowhere near the sums spent in recent times.
David makes a comment about the dodgy ownership of Tevez...errr yes that is right but absolutely nothing to do with City. The Scum and Wet Sham were all over that arrangement until City bought the player etc. You can't hit City with that stick.
David makes a comment about Hughes being sacked and suggesting the fans are now hard nosed and expectant etc. Errr what actually happened is that a new owner supported the old owner's manager, gave him money and set him a target and when he didn't meet that target he was sacked. That happens in real life too...companies change owners and the board or managers etc don't always perform and they are made redundant. There is no real story around Hughes' sacking...he was supported throughout and didn't quite meet performance expectations.
And finally, suggesting that Edin Dzeko is another Lee Badbury is a poor poor shot. That comment was made purely to make it look as if City don't care about the money thrown around at players who don't make the grade. That happens at every club in the world (not on the same financial scale but it is all relative). Dzeko (at City) 39 starts and 25 goals. Bradbury 40 starts and 10 goals. No comparison.
Finally, like all newspaper hacks and book authors they have books and newspapers to sell, income to earn, mouths to feed etc etc etc. Writing a book or article saying everything is rosy, there's nothing to see here etc etc is not going to sell.
I haven't read or ordered the book but whilst I have some sympathy with the utopian world that David Conn aspires to, I live and work in the real world. Football clubs have been owned by wealthy owners for over a hundred years and during this time there have been good and bad owners. Dubious business practices continue to this day...a few from straight off the top of my head:-
Chelsea - bought by a Russian with limited business acumen or skill who became via political (and possible mafia) support very wealthy...no one knows for sure where his money came from
Portsmouth - multiple owners in recent times who appear to have used, abused, raped and pillaged the club
Rangers - another used and abused club that might fall by the wayside
Liverpool - club purchased to men suits looking for a profit (days from bankruptcy) and then sold to more men in suits looking to make a profit
I could go on but the above is the very sort of skullduggery that David Conn is famous for looking at in detail (and usually quite well).
Going back to my utopian world point, David's views (political ideology?) is that all clubs should be community owned club etc etc...and in a way I sympathise with that but it is far far far too late for that now. The proverbial cat is out of the bag has jumped on a train and is hundreds of miles away now. For clubs that are not already owned by its fans (Barcelona, Real Madris, Bayern Munich)...it is far far too late to put the cat in the bag now.
I'm going to make a revelation now...businesses, people, sports clubs, governments, politicians etc etc get up to no good on a regular basis. Bribery, corruption, fraud, illegal activites etc etc happens every day not just in the world of football...wake up David, Platini et al and everyone else who thinks that football is the last bastion of poor business deals, rip off merchants, fraud etc etc, it is not...man up and realise that please.
I think I've been going on too much so will come to the point over these closing paragraphs...football clubs (and every other type of business) are mis-managed and mis-used around the world everyday and action needs to be taken by authorities who are willing to step in before it is too late and the fans (customers), creditors, communities etc etc are affected. The FA (for example) have a fit and proper person process...and it does not take a professor to work out that unfit and unproper persons are still involved with owning and running football clubs right now. The current owner of Rangers was banned from acting as a director before he became owner but no one spotted that...that would have been easy to find out at the time but did anybody bother?...and if they did being banned as a director would have been one hell of a big f*cking red flag to say wooooaaahhh there, there is something wrong with this fella...let's look a little closer at him and his business plan, where he's got his money from etc etc.
Anyway, is there a point to this post...I hope so. When writing a book about Manchester City you have to remember that it (like many other businesses) have had it's fair share of being badly managed and had a dodgy owner or two (Shinawatra is a good example) but the reality is this...as far as I can see and know, UEFA finance fair play issues aside, City should be held up as a beacon of fresh hope to the fans, the footballing authorities etc etc...that a club can have good shareholders (who are true to their word and not in it for the raping and pillaging), can act responsibly and be good citizens in the community etc etc. Before jumping on the bash City bandwagon think about it a bit more first because I firmly believe we'll see big clubs enter into difficult times through mismanagement etc and treat their fans (customers), creditors (etc) and communities badly in the future (and I seriously doubt it will be City).
Finally, whilst reading David Conn's article I took exception to a bit of sensationalistic reporting that I would not have expected from him but clearly he has a book to sell and a political ideology to force on folk:-
David says "City had managed to tumble into that hapless predicament despite a gift of outrageous fortune: a new, 48,000-seat stadium, built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games with public money – £78m from the national lottery, £49m from Manchester city council – and converted at the public's expense." He makes it sound as if the stadium was given to City. Errrr City actually paid for part of it (by contributing Maine Road) and pays rent on the other part. What would have happened to the stadium if City had decided to stay at Maine Road?
David focuses on the money spent on players but there is something amiss here...Eriksson, Hughes and Mancini have all spent money on players to change the squad as they saw it. If City had had the same manager for the last five years I suspect the money spent on players would be nowhere near the sums spent in recent times.
David makes a comment about the dodgy ownership of Tevez...errr yes that is right but absolutely nothing to do with City. The Scum and Wet Sham were all over that arrangement until City bought the player etc. You can't hit City with that stick.
David makes a comment about Hughes being sacked and suggesting the fans are now hard nosed and expectant etc. Errr what actually happened is that a new owner supported the old owner's manager, gave him money and set him a target and when he didn't meet that target he was sacked. That happens in real life too...companies change owners and the board or managers etc don't always perform and they are made redundant. There is no real story around Hughes' sacking...he was supported throughout and didn't quite meet performance expectations.
And finally, suggesting that Edin Dzeko is another Lee Badbury is a poor poor shot. That comment was made purely to make it look as if City don't care about the money thrown around at players who don't make the grade. That happens at every club in the world (not on the same financial scale but it is all relative). Dzeko (at City) 39 starts and 25 goals. Bradbury 40 starts and 10 goals. No comparison.
chesterbells
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 23,347
Francis Rizzo said:Dont like the title of the book, I doubt Roberto would also.
Agreed. Very provocative; probably doing it to maximise publicity>sales - I'm sure he'd agree money is king.
For a fan he hasn't half been critical of the club in his media appearances I've heard on radio over the last 5 years. Seems to me like a fan on city circa 70s/80s more than anything else.
Won't be buying / reading it.
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
He had an anti-City article out earlier this year/late last and I heard him interviewed twice in the same week about it. He bare-faced lied/contracdicted himself about it in the second interview to paint us in a bad light and him in a good light. He can fuck off.
Dave S
Well-Known Member
Nor will I.
gaudinho's stolen car
Well-Known Member
Schindler Mk II.
True_Blue69
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 4,273
Funny how as soon as we win the league he is releasing his book trying to make a few quid. Seriously some of his articles over the past few years have left me fuming inside, you expect it off non blue journalists but when one of our own is at it it's sickening. Can't believe he's got the cheek to write a book presumably expecting city fans to buy it.
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
Uwe Rosler's Grandad said:David says "City had managed to tumble into that hapless predicament despite a gift of outrageous fortune: a new, 48,000-seat stadium, built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games with public money – £78m from the national lottery, £49m from Manchester city council – and converted at the public's expense." He makes it sound as if the stadium was given to City. Errrr City actually paid for part of it (by contributing Maine Road) and pays rent on the other part. What would have happened to the stadium if City had decided to stay at Maine Road?
It was always my understanding bud (and last time I mentioned it on here quite a few others agreed) was that had City not agreed to take over the stadium after the Commonwealth games, it was highly unlikely we'd have built and hosted it in the first place, so again I think he needs to be a bit more accurate on this point.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Agree 100% with the first statement re URG but not with the second.Damocles said:URG!!! You're back, you legend!
On topic, Conn is a one trick pony full of middle class rage and idiotic stances on football administration. I wouldn't line a birdcage with his book, let alone buy it. A Schlinder level ****.
Shindler and Conn are not the same. Despite much the same family background, David is a serious and valuable journalist who I have complete respect for. He specialises in the seamy side of football ownership though, which I believe colours his view sometimes. His book "The Beautiful Game?" should be required reading for all football fans and reduced me nearly to tears at some points. However I'm surprised at the inaccuracy around the stadium financing as he and I had a long and detailed conversation about this very subject about 6 months ago, when I was writing an article for King of the Kippax. We were both wrong on some aspects of it but between us got to what we believed were the right figures.
I know for a fact he's happy about where City are right now but that doesn't stop him questioning the whole fabric of a game which appears to have spun out of control and which could easily have seen us go the other way, into administration and down the leagues again.
Shindler on the other hand writes about his own life as set against a backdrop of City (& Lancashire Cricket Club). He makes no claims to historical accuracy as far as I know & Gary James has already said his work about Mercer & Allison was full of factual inaccuracies. What irks me (and the rest of us) about Shindler is that he is publicly quite disrespectful to the club, its owners and those fans who have endured the bleak years and now want to enjoy the good ones.