StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,096
- Team supported
- City
It's well over forty years ago now and it's hard to sort the fact from the fiction and to analyse the precise roles played by individuals. At the time some seemed larger than life but as time passed seemed rather like pygmies out of their depth. We tend to see Swales as the first and most notorious of the chairmen etc who ruined their club by trying to buy success in one mad rush. He could not, of course, have done it without the support of others', one of whom was Big Mal.
The fees paid for some players were scandalous but, in my opinion, even more scandalous was the way some really top players were literally kicked out of the club for Big Mal's rebuilding. Some of the players brought in were very promising (others not so) but the scale of the transformation never gave them a chance and some of them admitted they simply could not understand what Mal wanted them to do. I got the impression that Mal enjoyed the limelight all the big spending brought and when things didn't go right he would meet criticism by hinting broadly that the critic was too stupid to see that City would soon be playing the same way Cruyff's Ajax had played, only better. This was "vacuum football" and "suction tactics" and if you couldn't discuss them intelligently just shut up and listen! Mal loved the champagne, cigar and big spending limelight. Whether Swales liked his place in the shadows is less sure.
Things were not looking good when Mal's time ran out. In came John Bond. John could spend with the best of them and he and Swales bought two million pound footballers! Unfortunately the more promising young players were allowed to leave. I don't go for the argument that things were just about to go well when Mal was sacked and that if only... but City certainly lacked consistency of policy and the man at the top must shoulder the blame. Our club was crippled financially until, arguably, the advent of Sheikh Mansour because it spent not wisely but far too well. It all shows that spending cannot necessarily buy success but it can certainly buy failure. But isn't it good to know Peter made a fortune when he sold his shares.
The fees paid for some players were scandalous but, in my opinion, even more scandalous was the way some really top players were literally kicked out of the club for Big Mal's rebuilding. Some of the players brought in were very promising (others not so) but the scale of the transformation never gave them a chance and some of them admitted they simply could not understand what Mal wanted them to do. I got the impression that Mal enjoyed the limelight all the big spending brought and when things didn't go right he would meet criticism by hinting broadly that the critic was too stupid to see that City would soon be playing the same way Cruyff's Ajax had played, only better. This was "vacuum football" and "suction tactics" and if you couldn't discuss them intelligently just shut up and listen! Mal loved the champagne, cigar and big spending limelight. Whether Swales liked his place in the shadows is less sure.
Things were not looking good when Mal's time ran out. In came John Bond. John could spend with the best of them and he and Swales bought two million pound footballers! Unfortunately the more promising young players were allowed to leave. I don't go for the argument that things were just about to go well when Mal was sacked and that if only... but City certainly lacked consistency of policy and the man at the top must shoulder the blame. Our club was crippled financially until, arguably, the advent of Sheikh Mansour because it spent not wisely but far too well. It all shows that spending cannot necessarily buy success but it can certainly buy failure. But isn't it good to know Peter made a fortune when he sold his shares.