How Peter Swales became City chairman

[Andrew Keenan]

I shall be watching this thread very closely for posthumous libel

That's okay, Swales never sued.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks. On a serious note, it's a shame that all the talk about the investment in the club from our current owner hasn't been put in the context of the disinvestment that occured during the Swales era.

Quite. I compared it to two people going into a top-end car showroom, one with a nearly-new model of the same car and the other with a 10-year old Ford Fiesta (or something similar). Both are looking to part-exchange and buy the same model but the former will put down far less than the latter to do that.

The clubs that capitalised on the financial boom years, from the 1980's onwards, were the former, while we were the latter.

 

[Andrew Keenan]

Quite. I compared it to two people going into a top-end car showroom, one with a nearly-new model of the same car and the other with a 10-year old Ford Fiesta (or something similar). Both are looking to part-exchange and buy the same model but the former will put down far less than the latter to do that.

The clubs that capitalised on the financial boom years, from the 1980's onwards, were the former, while we were the latter.

And now we've traded up from a Ford Fiesta to a Borg cube.

 

[aguero93:20]

The thing that intrigued me was the number of directions his hair went. Even Bobby Charlton's combover extended from one side to the other but Swales had combovers on his combovers.

He had to hide the pointy horns somehow.

 

[BringBackSwales]

That's okay, Swales never sued.

You don’t know the half of it, I sued 14 different wig makers

 

[guy debord]

I’ve noticed there have been a lot of threads about Peter Swales over the years, but none have provided the answers people are looking for.

I’m a former financial journalist and have been researching the Swales era for the last few years. Back in the day I created the Purely Man City blog, and have now relaunched it on Substack. I’m starting with a serialisation explaining how Swales become chairman. I’ve just published the first installment, which details a secret deed of covenant signed by City’s directors in 1964 that inadvertently paved the way for Swales’ rise to power.

It’s free to view via the link below:

https://mcfchistory.substack.com/p/how-peter-swales-became-city-chairman

Loved it. Subscribed

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

You don’t know the half of it, I sued 14 different wig makers

I'm assuming Shredded Wheat and Brillo escaped your legal shenanigans.

 

[Norman kneejerk]

I’ve noticed there have been a lot of threads about Peter Swales over the years, but none have provided the answers people are looking for.

I’m a former financial journalist and have been researching the Swales era for the last few years. Back in the day I created the Purely Man City blog, and have now relaunched it on Substack. I’m starting with a serialisation explaining how Swales become chairman. I’ve just published the first installment, which details a secret deed of covenant signed by City’s directors in 1964 that inadvertently paved the way for Swales’ rise to power.

It’s free to view via the link below:

https://mcfchistory.substack.com/p/how-peter-swales-became-city-chairman

Really enjoyed that. So the key point was you needed to become a Director or some si.ilar club official before you could become eligible to get hold of any existing shares.
Great read and fills in a few dots for me on when I first started following city but too young to be aware of the politics behind the scenes.
Thought it was a bit typical city ish that 3 shareholders died straightaway after this agreement was made ...!
Growing up my mates dad who was very clued up on city politics always said Joe Smith was very bad news so look forward to the next instalment !

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Aside from the slightly mysterious angle of three directors suddenly dying, (which sounds more Julius Caesar and Pelican Brief than Manchester City FC) my first thought was how the motives behind the potential takeover must have changed, from the original 1964 consortium to what eventually transpired in the early 70s.

In 1964, the club was arguably at its lowest ebb since the illegal payments scandal of 1905, and whilst potentially, we could still boast a huge grassroots support (less than 30 years since the huge crowds of the mid 30s) in reality, we were paying the price for twenty years of neglect, in stark contrast to the thousands of young kids all over the country, seemingly desperate to see the Busby Babes and subsequently Law, Charlton, and Best.

I'm sure that the original bidders were desperate and full of new ideas to restore some of City's former glory, yet strangely, the fans and the glory soon returned, and probably far quicker than anyone must have anticipated, thanks mainly to the inspired decision to appoint Joe Mercer and Malcolm Allison.

I think it's Alec Johnson's THE BATTLE FOR MANCHESTER CITY that quotes the irony of the 1970s consortium pledging WE WANT TO TURN MANCHESTER CITY INTO A GREAT CLUB, when the club was actually enjoying its greatest period of sustained success since WW2

Surely the motives must have changed and it was now more about power and vanity?

 

[Andrew Keenan]

Aside from the slightly mysterious angle of three directors suddenly dying, (which sounds more Julius Caesar and Pelican Brief than Manchester City FC) my first thought was how the motives behind the potential takeover must have changed, from the original 1964 consortium to what eventually transpired in the early 70s.

In 1964, the club was arguably at its lowest ebb since the illegal payments scandal of 1905, and whilst potentially, we could still boast a huge grassroots support (less than 30 years since the huge crowds of the mid 30s) in reality, we were paying the price for twenty years of neglect, in stark contrast to the thousands of young kids all over the country, seemingly desperate to see the Busby Babes and subsequently Law, Charlton, and Best.

I'm sure that the original bidders were desperate and full of new ideas to restore some of City's former glory, yet strangely, the fans and the glory soon returned, and probably far quicker than anyone must have anticipated, thanks mainly to the inspired decision to appoint Joe Mercer and Malcolm Allison.

I think it's Alec Johnson's THE BATTLE FOR MANCHESTER CITY that quotes the irony of the 1970s consortium pledging WE WANT TO TURN MANCHESTER CITY INTO A GREAT CLUB, when the club was actually enjoying its greatest period of sustained success since WW2

Surely the motives must have changed and it was now more about power and vanity?

Yes, the initial takeover attempt in 1964 was a reaction to the disastrous chairmanship of Alan Douglas. Donoghue’s motives were unclear though. Around the time of the bid a story broke that a City director (Johnson) had attempted to open talks with United about sharing Old Trafford. That idea most likely came from Donoghue. His bedsit empire was built on efficient utilisation of space, and as a councillor he tried to merge two Manchester colleges, claiming it was inefficient for them to have their own buildings. There was a suspicion that he wanted to redevelop the Maine Road site for housing, though he strongly denied this.

I think the three members of the takeover group who later became directros had different motives. Muir, I believe, just thought he’d do a good job. Simon Cussons, the heir to the Cussons soap family fortune, was a football fan who probably just liked the idea of being a club director. Joe Smith, in contrast, most likely saw an opportunity to make quick money.

I like to imagine a Kind Hearts and Coronets situation regarding the sudden deaths. Though in all seriousness, those three directors were all very old.