Richer Than God

B B

basokla

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
1,806
Location
Southbound 35
Apologies if there is already a thread about this somewhere – I could not find it.

I just finished reading the book a couple nights ago. Was an interesting read even though I was not expecting the tone of the book to be the way it developed. I wasn’t that familiar with Conn’s writings in general and I guess had I researched him a bit more I would have known what to expect.

My initial thoughts:

Liked the chapter that talked about the final day in 2012. Interesting narrative about the weeks leading up to the final day, the week of the final match, the day of the QPR match and even the day of the parade.

I especially liked the part where he talked about visiting the Maine Road site before the match. I will say however that I could have done without the section about the lady who was losing her job due to a lack of government funding – we get it David – you don’t like the fact that large sums of cash are going into football now when there are other parts of society that struggle.

I was not expecting the chapter that showed his infatuation with FC United. Just caught me off guard and seemed to go on too long.

After finishing the book, I also can’t escape the feeling that I’m playing the role of a very small cog in the machine that is ruining the game – or at least the “following City” part of the game – for him and other longtime fans. I’m really curious if there are a significant number of longtime supporters that do truly feel jaded about the money, the ticket prices, “glory hunters”, etc.

Anyway, I was wondering what a good follow-up read would be. Would like something that’s more historical and less observational.
 
Have had it on Kindle for the last three years and can't be arsed to read it after all the comments I have read about it, plus I think Conns now too far up himself
 
I'm not interested in lining his pockets but can relate to some of the sentiments you express. As a long time city supporter I might at some point in time consider the effect money is having on the sport, but that will only be after our achievements have eclipsed 'those cunts' ...and not a day before
 
I read the book a couple of years ago and enjoyed large parts of it. Whilst I can understand his wish to return to some kind of flat cap footballing utopia, it's never going to happen. like you i didnt expect him to end up where he did.

Having followed city for over 50 years, i would not swap where we are now for anything. best owners in football who are respectful of our history and imo the core fan base, world class squad, great stadium. Pep on his way.... season ticket prices reflect all of that but are not out of line with the premier league and are cheaper than many.
 
Picked it up-Put it down-Picked-it-up a few times. Didn't find it that engaging. Haven't given up on it, but reading Joe Abercrombie's trilogy now.
 
I read it a while ago.

I don't think it's a true reflection of our history.

Muddy playing fields aside, people with a deeper understanding of City in those days don't have much time for his writing, and I respect their knowledge of the club far more.

Bit's of it are interesting, but that's as far as it goes.
 
I read it on holiday about 3yrs ago, generally enjoyed it but skipped the FC United chapter as, amongst the obvious reasons, he'd mentioned them quite enough and did not need a whole chapter
 
It's not a bad read, Conn comes across as a bit of an old-fashioned romantic where football is concerned which rather colours his view of the takeover, and his insistence that he was "unaware" that football clubs had owners until well into adulthood is difficult to believe. It' s a pity really as he has written some very good articles in the past on the financial mismanagement in football, including the Glazers, it could have been a much better book but probably still worth a read if you can get a cheap copy.
 
Google his articles about mendes and the bebe transfer in the guardian. He may have issues with the money in football but not limited to city
 
lancs blue said:
his insistence that he was "unaware" that football clubs had owners until well into adulthood is difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
As soon as I reached that point in the book I genuinely stopped reading immediately, never to return. Whatever lingering respect I had for him vanished in an instant. Life's too short to spend any significant time reading the literary output of someone that you don't respect, even if they're writing about something you hold very dear.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
As soon as I reached that point in the book I genuinely stopped reading immediately, never to return. Whatever lingering respect I had for him vanished in an instant. Life's too short to spend any significant time reading the literary output of someone that you don't respect, even if they're writing about something you hold very dear.
Click to expand...

When Conn started out, he focused on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game and was very good. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as some sort of conscience of modern football. Rarely does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults are evident in Richer Than God, a book I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Nowhere is this more true than in his assessment of the Francis Lee takeover, which he characterises as purely a money-making exercise on Lee's part. I happened to be a junior solicitor in Manchester during FHL's stewardship of our club and was often called on to work on MCFC-related matters; his view is so simplistic, it's laughable. I don't know whether he's deliberately twisted events into a narrative to suit himself or whether his deductive skills are emotionally driven and thus deficient when it comes to a matter such as this. Either way, it's not a valid account.

I see this book merely as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.
 
petrusha said:
When Conn started out, he focused on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game and was very good. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as some sort of conscience of modern football. Rarely does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults are evident in Richer Than God, a book I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Nowhere is this more true than in his assessment of the Francis Lee takeover, which he characterises as purely a money-making exercise on Lee's part. I happened to be a junior solicitor in Manchester during FHL's stewardship of our club and was often called on to work on MCFC-related matters; his view is so simplistic, it's laughable. I don't know whether he's deliberately twisted events into a narrative to suit himself or whether his deductive skills are emotionally driven and thus deficient when it comes to a matter such as this. Either way, it's not a valid account.

I see this book merely as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.
Click to expand...
I agree with so much in this post, based on the portion of the book that I managed to endure. As you say, his sententious outpourings are sinfully tedious and at times he displays staggering levels of naivety. Rather than make him endearing, that naivety merely served to present him as more than a little pathetic, especially against the backdrop of his dreary pontificating. Being a bore is one thing, but lecturing others when you palpably don't know how the world works is more than faintly ridiculous. You are entirely right that football has always had a venal streak running through its core: money, egos and testosterone create a poisonous cocktail. It has always been a honeypot for sociopathic businessmen to showcase themselves. That he seems unable to grasp this, means to me that he doesn't understand much about human nature. Another reason to not take his writing seriously.

Ultimately his reasoning is wholly flawed and on that basis it's difficult to view his literary output as much different in substance from conspiracy nuts who are utterly convinced that man never went to the moon. He's made his mind up and moulded the 'evidence' around that postulation, which means he's not my type of bloke.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I agree with so much in this post, based on the portion of the book that I managed to endure. As you say, his sententious outpourings are sinfully tedious and at times he displays staggering levels of naivety. Rather than make him endearing, that naivety merely served to present him as more than a little pathetic, especially against the backdrop of his dreary pontificating. Being a bore is one thing, but lecturing others when you palpably don't know how the world works is more than faintly ridiculous. You are entirely right that football has always had a venal streak running through its core: money, egos and testosterone create a poisonous cocktail. It has always been a honeypot for sociopathic businessmen to showcase themselves. That he seems unable to grasp this, means to me that he doesn't understand much about human nature. Another reason to not take his writing seriously.

Ultimately his reasoning is wholly flawed and on that basis it's difficult to view his literary output as much different in substance from conspiracy nuts who are utterly convinced that man never went to the moon. He's made his mind up and moulded the 'evidence' around that postulation, which means he's not my type of bloke.
Click to expand...

Yet he speaks very highly of you...
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I agree with so much in this post, based on the portion of the book that I managed to endure. As you say, his sententious outpourings are sinfully tedious and at times he displays staggering levels of naivety. Rather than make him endearing, that naivety merely served to present him as more than a little pathetic, especially against the backdrop of his dreary pontificating. Being a bore is one thing, but lecturing others when you palpably don't know how the world works is more than faintly ridiculous. You are entirely right that football has always had a venal streak running through its core: money, egos and testosterone create a poisonous cocktail. It has always been a honeypot for sociopathic businessmen to showcase themselves. That he seems unable to grasp this, means to me that he doesn't understand much about human nature. Another reason to not take his writing seriously.

Ultimately his reasoning is wholly flawed and on that basis it's difficult to view his literary output as much different in substance from conspiracy nuts who are utterly convinced that man never went to the moon. He's made his mind up and moulded the 'evidence' around that postulation, which means he's not my type of bloke.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, as well. Isn't mutual admiration a great thing! ;)

Actually, Conn's stuff reminds me of my own sixth-form politics essays. I was quite left-wing then (I'm still broadly speaking left of centre but a lot more pragmatic) and in those days used to write these long analyses that amounted to little more than 1,500 words saying, "But it's just not fair!" The thing is, I've moved on, but he hasn't.

I spoke a couple of years ago to a journalist who'd worked with Conn in the past. This guy was emphatic about how he found tiresome Conn's constant insinuations that anyone who generates money from a business venture is inherently a bad person.

Not for me, I'm afraid. Read Richer Than Good and you'll know less of the truth about MCFC than you did when you started.
 
I know David (thought I'd get that one in GDM) and I'd agree he is somewhat naive in some ways, which is a little strange and even endearing given all the things he's written on the dodgy side of football. He really is the only person who has written consistently about the dark side of the game, when most other journalists churn out the usual agenda-driven drivel or just plain lies. I suspect that despite all the evidence to the contrary, he has a touching belief in the innate decency in people. We've more than once discussed FFP, when he's dismissed my view that it was a secret quid pro quo for the disbanding of the G-14. To me it's an obvious linkage but he just can't bring himself (even knowing the depths of venality to which bodies like FIFA and UEFA care capable of) to agree that there might be some foundation to it.

I also understand his statement about not realising clubs were actually companies. No one could accuse me of being ignorant of that fact these days yet at the time of the Lee takeover I just thought Swales "gave" the club to Lee. It was only later that I appreciated in full how it all worked.
 
petrusha said:
I agree with this, as well. Isn't mutual admiration a great thing! ;)

Actually, Conn's stuff reminds me of my own sixth-form politics essays. I was quite left-wing then (I'm still broadly speaking left of centre but a lot more pragmatic) and in those days used to write these long analyses that amounted to little more than 1,500 words saying, "But it's just not fair!" The thing is, I've moved on, but he hasn't.

I spoke a couple of years ago to a journalist who'd worked with Conn in the past. This guy was emphatic about how he found tiresome Conn's constant insinuations that anyone who generates money from a business venture is inherently a bad person.

Not for me, I'm afraid. Read Richer Than Good and you'll know less of the truth about MCFC than you did when you started.
Click to expand...
I think the one point that many people who write about how football is now a business completely misunderstand is that it has been like that since before our club was reformed to be MCFC in 1894. Many, many, many teams in the 19th and early 20th century were set up for profit purposes - obvious examples are Liverpool and Chelsea who were established by a man who owned a ground to ensure he made money from his ground (or beer sales!). They weren't set up as community clubs or by a group of working class lads who fancied a kick about. They were set up by businessmen who wanted to make money. Clubs like City and Utd were profitable (City more so than Utd) and they paid dividends to shareholders. In fact the Football League and professionalism of the game was all about making money for individuals. So, once that's understood then everything that follows has to be considered within that context. Is football more commercial now than ever before? Well it has a higher profile and has more money attached to it, but in truth it's not more of a business now than it was. Does football look after its community less now than before? Well in City's case CITC and other initiatives are much more significant than anything the club did prior to about 1985 (possibly prior to 2008 depending on your view). Do shareholders pay themselves dividends more now than in early 1900s? Depends on the club, but overall I'd say no.

I could go on but if anyone doubts about football being a business then look into LFC and CFC and into clubs like New Brighton, Glossop, Huddersfield Town, Arsenal (of course) etc.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I know David (thought I'd get that one in GDM) and I'd agree he is somewhat naive in some ways, which is a little strange and even endearing given all the things he's written on the dodgy side of football. He really is the only person who has written consistently about the dark side of the game, when most other journalists churn out the usual agenda-driven drivel or just plain lies. I suspect that despite all the evidence to the contrary, he has a touching belief in the innate decency in people. We've more than once discussed FFP, when he's dismissed my view that it was a secret quid pro quo for the disbanding of the G-14. To me it's an obvious linkage but he just can't bring himself (even knowing the depths of venality to which bodies like FIFA and UEFA care capable of) to agree that there might be some foundation to it.

I also understand his statement about not realising clubs were actually companies. No one could accuse me of being ignorant of that fact these days yet at the time of the Lee takeover I just thought Swales "gave" the club to Lee. It was only later that I appreciated in full how it all worked.
Click to expand...

Hadn't he qualified as a solicitor by the time of the Lee takeover? If that's correct, I really wouldn't be inclined to buy that he was unaware of the fact that the club was a limited company with shareholders. However, it's not really important.

I bumped this thread just to give credit where credit's due. While I've had a go at him earlier in the thread for what I regard as the worst aspects of his work (as exemplified by his embracing of those clownish wannabes at FC United and his silence over their current off-field problems), the Hillsborough inquest has shown how good he can be at exposing wrongdoing in the game. I have great respect for his work on that matter, and if he writes a book about Hillsborough in due course, I'm sure it will be excellent.
 
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