David Conn book - Richer Than God: Manchester City.....

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Schindler Mk II.

There are some films where a sequel just doesn't feel right.

 

[Damocles]

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 ****.

Agree 100% with the first statement re URG but not with the second.

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.

To be more detailed; David Conn, like Colin Schindler, has a very unrealistic and xenophobic view of football ownership. They lack both historical and social context of football finance, and treat football as a special kind of business that should not have to play by the same rules.
They fail to understand how growth in football clubs has occurred historically, and fail to see how regulation will affect the game going forward.

The most annoying aspect of this, and the thing that spawned the middle class wanker comments, is that they find money distasteful. They are like those twats who are always worried about what the working classes will do without actually asking them. They both contend that football would be better off if everybody was a local lad, the players, the owners, etc.

With all due respect to you Col, if I had a choice between sat in eleventh under the ownership of the Supporters Trust, or fighting for every major honour under the ownership of a single owner from Abu Dhabi then its a no brainer. In your heart of hearts, could you in the Supporters Trust ever have provided us with this type of experience?

He is pissed that there are people in the market with seemingly unlimited funding. He fails to realise that that is just how economies work, there's always a wealth gap at the top in a capitalist system. If the world of football were to kowtow to their demands of fan ownership in FFP, there would still be an unsurmountable wealth gap at the top.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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 ****.

Agree 100% with the first statement re URG but not with the second.

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.

To be more detailed; David Conn, like Colin Schindler, has a very unrealistic and xenophobic view of football ownership. They lack both historical and social context of football finance, and treat football as a special kind of business that should not have to play by the same rules.
They fail to understand how growth in football clubs has occurred historically, and fail to see how regulation will affect the game going forward.

The most annoying aspect of this, and the thing that spawned the middle class wanker comments, is that they find money distasteful. They are like those twats who are always worried about what the working classes will do without actually asking them. They both contend that football would be better off if everybody was a local lad, the players, the owners, etc.

With all due respect to you Col, if I had a choice between sat in eleventh under the ownership of the Supporters Trust, or fighting for every major honour under the ownership of a single owner from Abu Dhabi then its a no brainer. In your heart of hearts, could you in the Supporters Trust ever have provided us with this type of experience?

He is pissed that there are people in the market with seemingly unlimited funding. He fails to realise that that is just how economies work, there's always a wealth gap at the top in a capitalist system. If the world of football were to kowtow to their demands of fan ownership in FFP, there would still be an unsurmountable wealth gap at the top.

Exactly. Also can you imagine anything ever getting done if the club was ran by a Supporters Trust? It would be about as dynamic as Albania under Enver Hoxha:

"So we move to the next item on the agenda: what type of lawnmowers to cut the grass with. I don't expect this discussion to take anymore than a couple of days."

 

[Berkovic_blue]

Well I won't be buying the book. I read the guardian article and as well as having inaccurate figures the whole thing seems to be geared towards slating the club

 

[aj93]

Hi there blues, if anyone fancies reading my review on Conn's book then here is the link

<a class="postlink" href="http://theskyblueview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/richer-than-god-manchester-city-modern.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://theskyblueview.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... odern.html</a>

Trust me, it isn't as bad as what you all might think - quality read and he definitely is a fan of Sheikh mansour and Khaldoon!

 

[Blue82]

I remember Conn saying he was finished with city when Frank became the owner. Fuck off Conn, stay away then.

I think you're referring to his Guardian colleague (and boyhod pal) Simon Hattenstone.

 

[isab23502]

Good book I just read - written after 1997/98 relegation season and goes back to mid 70's season by season - called Bleak and Blue. Great to compare this and where we are now! Is the author on this site by the way? Good work mate if you are. For me 79/80 (the year I started secondary school) was the dream year, when I thought something magical was gonna happen (surely mal know what he was up to?) Didn't think I would be waiting until now!

 

[LongsightM13]

With 'friends' in the media like Shindler, Hattenstone and Conn, who needs enemies?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Looking forward to this book.

 

[Bavaria Blue]

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 ****.

Agree 100% with the first statement re URG but not with the second.

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.

To be more detailed; David Conn, like Colin Schindler, has a very unrealistic and xenophobic view of football ownership. They lack both historical and social context of football finance, and treat football as a special kind of business that should not have to play by the same rules.
They fail to understand how growth in football clubs has occurred historically, and fail to see how regulation will affect the game going forward.

The most annoying aspect of this, and the thing that spawned the middle class wanker comments, is that they find money distasteful. They are like those twats who are always worried about what the working classes will do without actually asking them. They both contend that football would be better off if everybody was a local lad, the players, the owners, etc.

(...)

He is pissed that there are people in the market with seemingly unlimited funding. He fails to realise that that is just how economies work, there's always a wealth gap at the top in a capitalist system. If the world of football were to kowtow to their demands of fan ownership in FFP, there would still be an unsurmountable wealth gap at the top.

Defo going to buy that book. I can't see why you label David's views on ownership as xenophobic. And I certainly agree with him that football should NOT be regarded as any other business. If that's your opinion how do you argue against the total commercialisation of the game? Do you agree that teams should change their colours if the owner thinks they should? And finally: there are plenty of examples (not only in the world of football) when this capiatlist logic does not work and great clubs (and companies) are going down because of poor decisions of managements and a lack of regulation in terms of ownership. Hedge funds and that sort of stuff.
I know that the title of the book will cause some eye-rolling and I was also a bit disappointed when I first heard of it, but well it's his angle. We can like it or not, but it is certainly one exploring - not only with regards to City.