Andrew Keenan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2021
- Messages
- 50
- Team supported
- Manchester City
This has turned into a really fascinating thread. So the answer to the question I posed in the title does appear to be “No”, though we were certainly at the forefront of change.
In regards to who was responsible for Saunders' sacking, it's important to note that the decision was made at a board meeting that followed the meeting with players, and would have gone to a vote from the nine directors.
Swales was still in a precarious position at this time. He only owned 11.5% of the club, compared to Joe Smith's 31.0% and Eric Alexander's 18.3%, while vice-chairman Simon Cussons had a 10.5% stake. Smith had described Malcolm Allison as “the greatest man in football” and was most probably hoping that Saunders' sacking would result in the return of his hero. If it was Smith who was pushing for Saunders to be sacked then I don't think Swales would have dared oppose him, as Smith had enough shares to forge an alliance with Alexander or Cussons that could have resulted in Swales being removed from the chairmanship at the Annual General Meeting.
Three days after Saunders was sacked there were reports of a plot to replace Swales as chairman with former vice-chairman Sidney Rose, and Swales' position appeared to be under threat for a while longer.
By 1979 Swales had acquired a 36% stake and Cussons 27%, so all he had to worry about was keeping his vice-chairman sweet. It was only then that the full destructive power of Swales was unleashed.
In regards to who was responsible for Saunders' sacking, it's important to note that the decision was made at a board meeting that followed the meeting with players, and would have gone to a vote from the nine directors.
Swales was still in a precarious position at this time. He only owned 11.5% of the club, compared to Joe Smith's 31.0% and Eric Alexander's 18.3%, while vice-chairman Simon Cussons had a 10.5% stake. Smith had described Malcolm Allison as “the greatest man in football” and was most probably hoping that Saunders' sacking would result in the return of his hero. If it was Smith who was pushing for Saunders to be sacked then I don't think Swales would have dared oppose him, as Smith had enough shares to forge an alliance with Alexander or Cussons that could have resulted in Swales being removed from the chairmanship at the Annual General Meeting.
Three days after Saunders was sacked there were reports of a plot to replace Swales as chairman with former vice-chairman Sidney Rose, and Swales' position appeared to be under threat for a while longer.
By 1979 Swales had acquired a 36% stake and Cussons 27%, so all he had to worry about was keeping his vice-chairman sweet. It was only then that the full destructive power of Swales was unleashed.