FC United thread

Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Wow, just hemorrhaging left right and centre on everything.....
Women's team, Academy, ground maintenance, even the community work!
At least the club is true to their word.... they have always stated they are a not for profit club.....
They simply can't sustain these figures and any financial institution (or the council) offering a loan or overdraft surely must be aware of the mess they are in??? Which begs the question why did they give them a loan or overdraft?
This is a club that has been run by egos who loved spending other people's money. Largely tax payers money and money from fans who have been mugged off by chancers who lined their own pockets behind fans' backs
Click to expand...


How can they do that to the people.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Wow, just hemorrhaging left right and centre on everything.....
Women's team, Academy, ground maintenance, even the community work!
At least the club is true to their word.... they have always stated they are a not for profit club.....
They simply can't sustain these figures and any financial institution (or the council) offering a loan or overdraft surely must be aware of the mess they are in??? Which begs the question why did they give them a loan or overdraft?
This is a club that has been run by egos who loved spending other people's money. Largely tax payers money and money from fans who have been mugged off by chancers who lined their own pockets behind fans' backs
Click to expand...

Agree with this. It's an appalling set of figures and you have to ask serious questions of those who were responsible for awarding the club public money.

The rationale behind those grants is that they'll enable facilities to be built which will be available for community use, meaning that the Council, in the long term, saves money that it would otherwise spend on community facilities. It's similar to the logic behind the funding of the conversion of heavy rail lines to Metrolink lines. The heavy rail services are subsidised but Metrolink isn't, so ultimately the public purse benefits from no longer having to pay the subsidies.

This is all very well, but when you're talking about the provision of a service to the public, then the public suffers if the organisation entrusted with the task isn't competent to carry it out. These latest figures show that the management of FC United has clearly been dysfunctional, meaning that the club simply isn't fit to receive grants of public money because it can't be relied on to have the competence to perform the obligations it's undertaken. Worse, if it goes bust (and that must be regarded as a real danger), the Council will either have to fund the community facilities it's already paid towards or those facilities will be non-operational, so the grant will have been completely wasted.

The thing is, this shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. They've posted poor financial figures in the past, and the club's claim that everything would be rosy when they had their own ground has been shown up as bollocks. As for their competence to operate community programmes, I'll cite the view a friend of mine who's an expert in the field and who, three or four years ago, spoke at a conference at which FC United representatives also gave a presentation. My friend credited the speakers with being sincere in their desire to create a high-quality community programme, but regarded them as basically naive to the point of cluelessness in terms of how to achieve that goal.

But then the City Council's desire to find FC United a ground within the Manchester boundaries was always about politics rather than logic. MCC has always been aggrieved that it derives limited benefit from the global renown of Manchester United because that club is located in Trafford and Gary James has, in the past, written about attempts to get United to use Eastlands before the deal was done for City to play there. Given that the real United aren't going to move any time soon, these fakes were seen as the next best option.

Can't recall the source, but I've either read or been told that Pat Karney was the prime mover behind their relocation to the city. He, or whoever else was involved, really should be held to account for that. But I have no faith that this will happen.
 
petrusha said:
Agree with this. It's an appalling set of figures and you have to ask serious questions of those who were responsible for awarding the club public money.

The rationale behind those grants is that they'll enable facilities to be built which will be available for community use, meaning that the Council, in the long term, saves money that it would otherwise spend on community facilities. It's similar to the logic behind the funding of the conversion of heavy rail lines to Metrolink lines. The heavy rail services are subsidised but Metrolink isn't, so ultimately the public purse benefits from no longer having to pay the subsidies.

This is all very well, but when you're talking about the provision of a service to the public, then the public suffers if the organisation entrusted with the task isn't competent to carry it out. These latest figures show that the management of FC United has clearly been dysfunctional, meaning that the club simply isn't fit to receive grants of public money because it can't be relied on to have the competence to perform the obligations it's undertaken. Worse, if it goes bust (and that must be regarded as a real danger), the Council will either have to fund the community facilities it's already paid towards or those facilities will be non-operational, so the grant will have been completely wasted.

The thing is, this shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. They've posted poor financial figures in the past, and the club's claim that everything would be rosy when they had their own ground has been shown up as bollocks. As for their competence to operate community programmes, I'll cite the view a friend of mine who's an expert in the field and who, three or four years ago, spoke at a conference at which FC United representatives also gave a presentation. My friend credited the speakers with being sincere in their desire to create a high-quality community programme, but regarded them as basically naive to the point of cluelessness in terms of how to achieve that goal.

But then the City Council's desire to find FC United a ground within the Manchester boundaries was always about politics rather than logic. MCC has always been aggrieved that it derives limited benefit from the global renown of Manchester United because that club is located in Trafford and Gary James has, in the past, written about attempts to get United to use Eastlands before the deal was done for City to play there. Given that the real United aren't going to move any time soon, these fakes were seen as the next best option.

Can't recall the source, but I've either read or been told that Pat Karney was the prime mover behind their relocation to the city. He, or whoever else was involved, really should be held to account for that. But I have no faith that this will happen.
Click to expand...

Fantastically put as per usual Peter. So to be blunt, they needed extra funding from the stadium and blagged that money from the council while peddling what was essentially a pack of lies in terms of future returns. Someone at the council either fell for it or was aware all along that the projections were totally unrealistic but still decided to come up with the funding anyway. As such, that someone should get a rocket up their arse for signing it off, especially as it was during a period of austerity when the council were making serious cutbacks to staff and services.

Is that a fair enough summary? ;)
 
M18CTID said:
Fantastically put as per usual Peter. So to be blunt, they needed extra funding from the stadium and blagged that money from the council while peddling what was essentially a pack of lies in terms of future returns. Someone at the council either fell for it or was aware all along that the projections were totally unrealistic but still decided to come up with the funding anyway. As such, that someone should get a rocket up their arse for signing it off, especially as it was during a period of austerity when the council were making serious cutbacks to staff and services.

Is that a fair enough summary? ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks. You're pretty well there with the summary, though 'pack of lies' probably isn't a phrase I'd use. I'd go with something like 'significant overestimate of their capability to deliver' or something like that. ;)

My contention is that FC United have never really lived in the real world. They're a club with no identity of its own, but one they leech off a different club. And that identity is by a long way the biggest thing they have going for them. The size of the crowds they get, the favourable press and the sympathetic reception from local politicians is, in my view, down to the fact that they have Manchester United in their name and play in a kit with exactly the same highly distinctive colour combination. So basically what they are is a cheap rip-off brand that's prospered because they exploit the identity of one of the world's biggest and most famous football clubs.

When this venture started, I wondered whether proper United might take legal action to try and stop FC United from using a name and branding that was to close to the genuine club's own. They evidently decided not to, I presume because they wanted to show lofty disdain and feared that battling the minnows would somehow give them credibility or win them sympathy. But does anyone really think that with a less up-front MUFC connection (if, say, as a less overt nod to the heritage of MUFC, they played as Newton Heath with a green and gold kit), they'd have gained the same attention or support? I don't, not for a minute. They've gained the attention and support because some people see them as a way to be faithful to the spirit of Manchester United while dissociating themselves from the excesses of modern football, but really they're the footballing equivalent of a second-rate tribute band.

That's why, even when things looked a lot rosier for them, I've never held with the gushing praise they earn from the likes of David Conn when he used to hold them up as "the success story that proves what fans can achieve" (see his piece from just over 18 months ago here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/may/26/fc-united-manchester-benfica-united-fans). To me, all the successes he outlined are simply a result of exploiting a different club's identity. I don't think there's another English club other than United whose identity could be exploited in the same way with the same success, so it's ridiculous to hold them up as an example for the rest of football, IMO. But even if a bunch of City fans could realistically aspire to emulate them, I'd think any attempt to do so tawdry and somewhat fraudulent.

This is relevant because I believe that the nature of FC United and the positive media reception they've had down the years basically went to the heads of the people then running the club. The size of the support they won on the back of the Manchester United identity made it very easy for them to sail up the leagues ahead of opponents who attract tiny gates. Puff pieces in the press, I suspect, boosted their egos and gave them absolute faith in their ability to steer the ship. Their profile gave them a political clout to create opportnities that are almost always closed off to clubs of a similar size.

But they were never really confronted by the need to face reality. They made great play of their principles, and very laudable principles they were too. Ownership by and investment from the fans, not single powerful individuals or companies. Pay what you can afford to attend matches. Pay the staff a proper wage. Run a community programme. And so it goes on. But unfortunately, there's an overriding need to match spending and earning. And sometimes hard choices have to be made, a fact that seems to have been forgotten by Walsh and his mates among all the posturing about their ethics.
 
Great replies above
The thing with Andy Walsh is he began to believe the club was his.... he was untouchable and could walk on water.... he travelled the country attending breakfast meetings spewing the same rhetoric - meeting in, meeting out. He repeated himself so many times he actually began to believe it! And who was running the club when he was having free breakfasts around the country? (and more to the point, the club was paying his travel and wages!). Andy Walsh stopped promoting FCUM and began promoting himself....
With the new stadium, fans who had expertise in building, catering, finances, event planning and more all offered their experience and support - but Walsh turned them all away as he knew best and wanted full control of everything when having experience in nothing. And because he had the backing of the faithful they went along with him until one by one, the penny started to drop that here was a man leading the club to oblivion under a regime of nepotism among friends. The very man who spent 10 years of his life building the club up is the very man who has taken it to an inch of its death. Why would someone do that?
One member one vote? All members are equal, but some were more equal than others......
 
Last edited:
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Great replies above
The thing with Andy Walsh is he began to believe the club was his.... he was untouchable and could walk on water.... he travelled the country attending breakfast meetings spewing the same rhetoric - meeting in, meeting out. He repeated himself so many times he actually began to believe it! And who was running the club when he was having free breakfasts around the country? (and more to the point, the club was paying his travel and wages!). Andy Walsh stopped promoting FCUM and began promoting himself....
With the new stadium, fans who had expertise in building, catering, finances, event planning and more all offered their experience and support - but Walsh turned them all away as he knew best and wanted full control of everything when having experience in nothing. And because he had the backing of the faithful they went along with him until one by one, the penny started to drop that here was a man leading the club to oblivion under a regime of nepotism among friends. The very man who spent 10 years of his life building the club up is the very man who has taken it to an inch of its death. Why would someone do that?
One member one vote? All members are equal, but some were more equal than others......
Click to expand...

Yes, I think Walsh enjoyed all the publicity about the club offering something new that was a contrast to the sterile, corporate and overhyped nature of top-flight English football and him being the key man in that. And because the fanbase basically believed that as well, any criticism of him came from lone voices until far later than really should have been the case.

The more I read about Walsh's role in creating the current situation, the more I think of him as an FC United version of Swales. Sure, a different background and contrasting rhetoric, but there are very similar behaviour patterns: pursuing a rather, ahem, cavalier financial strategy; treating the club like his own personal fiefdom and bestowing favours on his mates; using his position for self-promotion (for Walsh, as above, while for Swales this involved his media appearances and FA role); and clinging to power like a limpet even as the shit really hit the fan.

This is anecdotal so don't treat it as gospel, but I knew someone who had good knowledge of the Council's dealings with FC United over the stadium. I was told that the club took the attitude that it was a community club and the Council thus had a duty to give it support (a position some in MCC also seem to have been willing to adopt). There seemed no genuine recognition (beyond paying lip service and ) of the fact that we were in a time of austerity and budgets were being cut across the board, so maybe FC should show why the community would be better off if MCC grant funding, a council loan and a stadium site were to be diverted their way rather than spent on other things. If true, that kind of attitude usually comes from the top. I can well imagine that he genuinely believed it, but I don't believe that MCC asked all the questions they should have done.
 
petrusha said:
Yes, I think Walsh enjoyed all the publicity about the club offering something new that was a contrast to the sterile, corporate and overhyped nature of top-flight English football and him being the key man in that. And because the fanbase basically believed that as well, any criticism of him came from lone voices until far later than really should have been the case.

The more I read about Walsh's role in creating the current situation, the more I think of him as an FC United version of Swales. Sure, a different background and contrasting rhetoric, but there are very similar behaviour patterns: pursuing a rather, ahem, cavalier financial strategy; treating the club like his own personal fiefdom and bestowing favours on his mates; using his position for self-promotion (for Walsh, as above, while for Swales this involved his media appearances and FA role); and clinging to power like a limpet even as the shit really hit the fan.

This is anecdotal so don't treat it as gospel, but I knew someone who had good knowledge of the Council's dealings with FC United over the stadium. I was told that the club took the attitude that it was a community club and the Council thus had a duty to give it support (a position some in MCC also seem to have been willing to adopt). There seemed no genuine recognition (beyond paying lip service and ) of the fact that we were in a time of austerity and budgets were being cut across the board, so maybe FC should show why the community would be better off if MCC grant funding, a council loan and a stadium site were to be diverted their way rather than spent on other things. If true, that kind of attitude usually comes from the top. I can well imagine that he genuinely believed it, but I don't believe that MCC asked all the questions they should have done.
Click to expand...
Albeit a 'community' club and by association an asset, which effectively alienated at least half of the community by its branding.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Great replies above
The thing with Andy Walsh is he began to believe the club was his.... he was untouchable and could walk on water.... he travelled the country attending breakfast meetings spewing the same rhetoric - meeting in, meeting out. He repeated himself so many times he actually began to believe it! And who was running the club when he was having free breakfasts around the country? (and more to the point, the club was paying his travel and wages!). Andy Walsh stopped promoting FCUM and began promoting himself....
With the new stadium, fans who had expertise in building, catering, finances, event planning and more all offered their experience and support - but Walsh turned them all away as he knew best and wanted full control of everything when having experience in nothing. And because he had the backing of the faithful they went along with him until one by one, the penny started to drop that here was a man leading the club to oblivion under a regime of nepotism among friends. The very man who spent 10 years of his life building the club up is the very man who has taken it to an inch of its death. Why would someone do that?
One member one vote? All members are equal, but some were more equal than others......
Click to expand...

I'm sure with your extensive dealings with the Football Supporters Federation down the years that you're aware Walsh has been appointed by the FSF as their new "National game development officer"?

Anyway, I was at a FSF North West Division summit back in November which took place in Blackpool on the weekend when we had no fixture due to internationals. The subject matter was "Clubs In Crisis" and it was primarily focussed on Blackpool's plight with an excellent speech and presentation given by a representative of the Blackpool Supporters Trust. There were further presentations by fan reps of Bolton and Blackburn. At the end of the summit Walsh - who I didn't even realise had been in the room even though he was only sitting a few seats away from me - piped up with some spiel about who he was and who he works for, and if anyone wanted to talk to him they were free to do so. Now I know he has a gig at the FSF and maybe he felt he was just doing his job in introducing himself, etc, but I see absolutely no reason for him to have gotten involved at that point and it was almost like he was miffed about not being the centre of attention. The introduction was overseen by an Everton fan who is a top bloke, and the Blackpool, Blackburn, and Bolton fan reps did a great job in explaining what was going on at their respective clubs plus there was some very useful audience participation, particularly from one Blackpool fan who is also a solicitor and is obviously very well clued up on the legal side of things. The Everton guy closed the meeting and stated that he was keen to get the North West Division of the FSF back up and running and meeting on a regular basis. And that should've been that, yet Walsh had to come out with his little cameo. In any case, he didn't get much attention as most people were up out of their seats and were getting ready to leave the room!
 
The difference with Swales was it was essentially his whereas with Walsh the whole premise of the Club was that it belonged to the fans.

The decision making at MCC also seems suspect given at exactly the same time Salford CC were in serious hot water over the new stadium built for Salford City Reds (a situation in which I had some professional involvement). A very similar story with council money going in to a very murky pot all on the basis of the provision of community service and supporting an ‘iconic Salford institution’ and helping to keep it in the right boundary! That deal was as a shocker and it was only the stupidity of Mr Koukash that bailed them out (and probably some creative accounting). Seems mad that 1 GM authority would do a deal while another was in a right mess over an almost carbon copy!


PS grant money goes in with clawback provisions and usually needs some form of security. This could get messy as there will be no Koukash figure this time.
 
Troubles are continuing at FC United of Manchester, the rebel club set up in protest at the Glazer ownership of Manchester United in 2005.

Now in National League North, FC United moved into their own stadium in 2015 but in November 2016 said they were in a "worrying" financial position.

An operational review of the supporter-owned club has been undertaken by their new chief executive Damian Chadwick, which has led to fears of redundancies.

Now, seven former board members, who resigned in acrimonious circumstances in 2016, including founding member Adam Brown, have issued a statement outlining their concerns.

"We are totally dismayed, disappointed and shocked at the rumoured redundancies," they said.

"There is no acceptance of liability for the current situation the club finds itself in by the current board."
Click to expand...
 

It does look like the previous incumbents are washing their hands of all that has gone on (the shit bags!)

I won't be crying into my Shiraz tonight....
 
A bit more detail here :

STATEMENT FROM FORMER BOARD MEMBERS OF FC UNITED ON CURRENT FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AT THE CLUB
Posted on January 27, 2017


broadhurst4.jpg


This statement is by all the following former FC United board members in alphabetical order: Adam Brown, Des Lynch, John Nicholson, Phil Sheeran, Mike Sherrard, Tom Stott and Alison Watt.

As former board members of FC United of Manchester, we are totally dismayed, disappointed and shocked at the rumoured redundancies of long-standing dedicated staff at the club. In this context we feel that we have to clarify a number of matters for members.

In April last year, a number of us took the decision to stand down from the board following an orchestrated campaign against the board, the staff, the club collectively and against some of us individually.

Debate at the club back then was increasingly being conducted in a fashion that was not acceptable, including unjustified personalised attacks on some staff, volunteers and individual board members. We warned then that this was not good for the future of the club and that it would lead to problems further down the line. We take no pleasure in noting that these problems now seem to be manifesting themselves in FC United having to make swingeing staff cuts, presumably as a result of the current board’s financial problems.

We want to place on record a number of facts that need to be understood as background and context to the current situation in which the club finds itself.

1. The overwhelming reason for the financial problems at FC United is the decline in members of around 1,500, the loss of over 500 season ticket holders and the huge amount of income associated with those declines, a loss of at least £65,000 and probably more. This has been exacerbated by the loss of a lot of long-standing volunteers, many of whom who have left in disgust due to the viciousness and rancour of the last 18 months.

2. Despite the current board’s claim to the contrary, the financial plan for Broadhurst Park was robust and extremely well researched. There were no reasons at the time why the financial targets should not have been achievable. It was scrutinised in detail by a wide range of organisations that supported the development including Manchester City Council, Sport England, Football Foundation and FC United’s own independent auditors. The business plan and its assumptions were also made available to members to scrutinise on numerous occasions; and a summary is still available on the club’s website.

3. In many areas, the first season at Broadhurst Park (2015-16) was ahead of the business plan. The number of season ticket holders (2,200) was well in excess of target and so were match attendances (the business plan was based on 2,700 and the club’s average in its first season was 3,400), but retention of these numbers appears much lower than should have been expected after such initial success.

In some areas the club was short on its projections – first year function room bookings particularly – but this was largely due to a number of factors including:

a) the delay getting into the ground meaning the club couldn’t take bookings until we knew we were in;
b) the collapse of the contractors meaning we had to take on snagging work and costs; and c) the amount of time taken up dealing with the ramifications of the campaign against the board.

4. The biggest single financial setback in the year was the loss of the Power to Change (PTC) funding to develop the space under the St Mary’s Road end of the ground as a revenue generating space under the stand on a match day and non-match day.

It is important to note the following facts with regard to this funding bid:

– The then board secured an offer from PTC of £250,000 grant and £173,000 community share funding in February 2016;

– This offer was on the point of signing in March 2016;

– Power to Change understandably had to put the offer on hold due to the malicious and baseless campaign conducted by some members and others associated with FC United, who astoundingly lobbied against the award being granted. It was this act of self-destruction that led to the offer being withdrawn and the development not happening in the summer of 2016. Without this destructive campaign, the funding would have been secured and the facility developed by late summer, leading to significant revenues throughout this season;

– The Power to Change bid was fully costed with a business plan showing increased income of £160,910 for the year, which is revenue lost to the club. Recent claims that there were no financial projections are wrong;

– Both the former and current bid are further undermined by people attacking the community business model on which they are based;

– The current board recently misrepresented the first Power to Change bid, claiming that the club contribution was £173,000. It was not – that £173,000 was proposed equity investment by PTC in the form of community shares.

5. A solution to the current problems at FC United cannot happen without a recognition by the current board of the destructive campaign waged leading to the loss of years’ of experience at board level; and apologies to those whose reputations have been unjustifiably traduced.

6. Unfortunately the opposite seems to be happening, with a continued campaign against current and past employees, board members and volunteers, a context in which the proposed redundancies must be viewed. There is no acceptance of liability for the current situation the club finds itself in by the current board and nine months on it continues to spend large amounts of its time attempting to smear the people involved in leading the club from its small beginnings to its newly built £6m facility in Moston, Manchester. This disillusions members and supporters and is wrecking the club’s prospects.

7. We would like to make clear that none of us have any desire or intention to go back to being involved at board level. However, we began the FCUM journey in 2005 believing wholeheartedly in the club, its aims and objectives, its democratic position and its desire to play affordable family football alongside the many thousands over the years who have also stood and watched and believed. We still do. FC United is a shining star of fan success and opportunity; it must not become just another football club. Together with members, our whole approach was always to try and ensure just that. But we felt that making some of these facts clear to the current membership and those who are still looking in from the outside, will enable them to be more aware and take steps to ensure that the club’s future is safe and that it is run in an open, honest and democratic fashion to protect the many achievements it has secured.

This statement is by all the following former FC United board members in alphabetical order: Adam Brown, Des Lynch, John Nicholson, Phil Sheeran, Mike Sherrard, Tom Stott and Alison Watt.
 
Tueartsoverhead kick said:
The number of season ticket holders (2,200) was well in excess of target and so were match attendances (the business plan was based on 2,700 and the club’s average in its first season was 3,400), but retention of these numbers appears much lower than should have been expected after such initial success."
Click to expand...
Or in plain English, "the novelty wore off". What a lot of self-important, entitled bullshitters.
 
lancs blue said:
Or in plain English, "the novelty wore off". What a lot of self-important, entitled bullshitters.
Click to expand...
First season syndrome as with any new stadium. More 'curious' home fans, more away fans ticking it off their list. No big surprise and anyone thinking crowds would have gone up this season (unless the club were really going for it at the top) are deluded.

Should be fun and games tomorrow as the Moston Rag Socks v The Crass of 92.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top