A good friend of mine frequently advises me, when writing, to engage with principles rather than personalities. It is something I aspire to do although frequently it’s difficult to live up to. I do believe that our principles are enshrined in our personalities and are frequently demonstrated in our behaviour so are as difficult to separate as logic and emotion.
Also, there is no doubt that we are usually drawn to people with principles that are the same as our own – they are far more comfortable to be with for one thing.
So it is with the frequent spats between the so-called factions of Pompey fans. Arguments between people with fundamentally different principles can degenerate into arguments that become to be about personalities. There are occasions when they deteriorate into mud-slinging, tabloid style. Sometimes it seems they get to the point where some people would rather sacrifice their principle of supporting the club in order to see the other faction fail. Emotion takes over from logic, facts go out the window (such as they are in the mess we find ourselves in), and feelings run riot.
I would like to try to place our differences back in the arena of principles, and ask those that disagree with me to do the same. Of course there are those who agree on fundamental principles who disagree with the actions needed to achieve them – but that is the subject for another blog.
The fundamental difference in principles that I see in our current situation lies between those that see the private ownership model of football governance as one that is fundamentally flawed and those that believe for a club to be successful it is necessary to have a great deal of inward investment from such private owners.
There is no doubt that the former requires a more utilitarian view of spending than the latter and the latter has the attraction of the ‘go for glory at any cost’ excitement that we all enjoy when watching a match. Such inward investment comes at a high cost, but this is seen as being a necessary cost to be paid for a club that is run like a business, one where investment is for a return related to risk. Owners are felt to be entitled to get their money back from such an enterprise, just as are players who are contracted to that business expect to be paid the value of their contract. The difficulty we face is that the money to satisfy both these principles just is not there.
This difference is quite clearly enshrined in the two opposing bids in front of Trevor Birch. On one hand we have a fan-financed bid. This bid promises the slow development of a sustainable club placed at the heart of the community and run by the democratic will of the fans themselves, as enshrined in the Trust constitution. On the other hand we have a private owner, a man thought to have plenty of available money and who fans hope would make the club both sustainable and competitive.
Leaving aside the personality of Balram Chainrai, ownership by him could open the door for the inward investment from wealthy individuals, either Portpin or some other entity in the future. That investment that could quickly raise the club back to where we have got used to seeing it since 1983 – the top two divisions of the League and challenging more often than not. Almost 30 years of football at the top end of the game. That means there are a significant number of fans that don’t remember the days of the fourth division and all that lower league football implies. Status is important to many, losing it unpleasant, as Southampton fans are only too willing to point out to us in their quaint ways.
Now I happen to believe that the private ownership model is bust. My belief is based on what I see happening across the Leagues and what I read about football finance. I believe that Portsmouth Football Club is only one of many that have been driven into insolvency by management practices that have been unethical, illegal or ill-advised. It is unique, perhaps, in the WAY that has happened but not in the outcome. There is also the issue that we are the most expensive club that this has happened to, but only under Milan and Gaydamak has the club had a value that was outside the reach of a co-operative Supporters Trust, a value inflated by their ‘soft loans’ to the club.
Experts place the difficult barrier to Trusts initially taking over at £20m, and Pompey is currently worth far less than that.
I have argued in many places why I think the private ownership model is bad for clubs that should be at the heart of the community, that should be run in the interests of that community and not for the profit of people who have no care for or interest in that community. Those are my principles.
But how can I deny experiencing the excitement of the cup finals, the Premier League years and the glory that came with being a top-half club, even if at the same I time I was uncomfortable with the niggling feeling that all this was bought with money made out of the Angolan Civil War? It is difficult to give up the idea that this could not come easily again, if only we could find the right investor.
In the end we have to be pragmatic. We are what we are - a deeply indebted League 1 club on the brink of liquidation. A way out has to be found, if the club is to survive. There actually has to be a compromise between the community function and the business function. The club has to be professionally run with enough input to sustain a team and develop its infrastructure but it needs the community behind it to sustain it. In addition there has to be some negotiation between the two to settle its debts as far as is possible.
The Trust has money to put into the club to enable the process to start. It has done this by looking to incorporate ‘High Net Worth Individuals’ into its purchase plan. To me this is a compromise of principles, in that it will operate as a Community Interest Company rather than a true Co-operative, but it puts a business backbone into the bid that may make those who doubt the efficacy of community run businesses to take a closer look. The principle of fan ownership is not compromised and nor is that of democratic decision making as it is intended that community shareholders will be in the majority. Investment will be equity rather than loans. I think that promises a far more sustainable model.
To me, subjugating ourselves to the caprices of yet another period of ownership by someone who I do not know and cannot influence except by denying myself the pleasure of going to Fratton Park is just no longer acceptable when there is a clearly viable alternative. It is an alternative that accords pretty closely to my principles which is why it has my fullest support.
Pompey Supporters' Trust is still taking pledges to help the bid and will be releasing a share prospectus showing their business plan in the very near future. Details can be found here
The views of SJ Maskell are their own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial view of pompey-fans.com
Click here to sign up for an account and reserve your username! You can then post on the Forum and add your comments to articles