Welcome to today’s daily Leeds United comment column, where we expand the Guardian’s 5 questions with another 5.
To say Clarkeonenil is supportive of the Guardian’s tenacity to exposing the secrecy of the ownership structure at Leeds United is to put it mildly. We are proud to have been perhaps the only Leeds United medium outside of LLHB to consistently bash on about this. Not for us the selective use of memory or the childish mantra of “club can do no wrong”. We always believed that the Bates centric web would untangle one day, and so it will (it might not be imminent but it is closer).
However even on days like today when the tide is in favour you still have to ask the awkward questions, not only of Bates, his cohorts, those in the local media that give him a easy ride, but also ourselves, the so called supporters groups, even Love Leeds Hate Bates. These additional questions are designed to put people on the spot to ensure we don’t find the story buried again in 3 months on the back of promotion (or not as the case may be). Whatever some of you think about the timing of all this, you should be asking why has it taken over 5 years, via administration, points deductions and Thorp Arch debacles, to get to this initial stage?
Contained within the additional 5 questions I pose is a understated theme, that of nailing colours to the mast. No more can there be a middle ground between “Bates Out” and “We love Ken”, if you’re not in the former by definition you become part of the latter. Intellectual gymnastics and calls to reason are bunkum, this is a defining period, neutrality or indifference are as unacceptable as not paying taxes, there is no moral integrity in such cowardice. Better to kiss Ken’s arse and be public about it than cower under the cover “just want to get out of this division”.
Question 1: When will the distaste for Bates and cohorts be reflected in the chants at games?
This question is also really, when is enough, enough? This week we have had Bates exposed for using his programme notes to postulate extremist nonsense, harmful and dangerous extremist nonsense. He has also proposed season ticket price increases that not only beggar belief given the level they are at but also it isn’t even coherent (the “we will tell you the price later” element for those buying new season tickets or coming back after a break is a classic example of the business incompetence of the club). Add in the sheer contempt shown by the club towards supporters with the “beneficial owners” stuff and if you didn’t have 40+ years of experience you’d think the support would be in open revolt by now.
A season ticket boycott is probably too difficult to organise, given that 10k people have held their nose for the last 4 seasons and renewed it perhaps would take something more significant than today to get that off the ground. However there are ways to affect Bates that will make an impact. Remember the Yorkshire Radio farce from 2007, where it was part of the club when it suited but not when administration came. Well let’s take that to its logical conclusion, we can boycott Yorkshire Radio (well I always have), leading to a downturn in its revenue leading to Bates and that stations owners (who are probably a mystery also) to take a hit that we know doesn’t affect the club! Personally I would take that further, a boycott of LUTV would send a clear message to the cohorts that they can’t price the real fans out and expect us to keep funding via an amateur cash cow. The next stage is to boycott the programme until we find out who pays for all his libels (another recent issue brushed under the carpet, do you think Bates has paid up the £2m in lawyers’ fees from the Levi stupidity out of his own pocket? No neither do I) and even if we do carry on not buying it until he shuts the frig up.
Question 2: What is the point of Leeds United Supporters Trust (lust)?
This story has been running a while now, most players in the Leeds United spectrum of support have made some contribution to the debate, but not (at the time of writing) lust. I trying to be careful here because I have tried to give the 4th incarnation of this group a chance to settle in but there comes a time where you expect some kind of action, that was around this, it doesn’t seem to have happened. What is even more galling is that being a “ust” opens doors other organisations might not get through, with Portsmouth’s Chester City’s, Southend United’s, even Manchester United’s all being able to do something high profile but not somehow the Leeds United version.
It isn’t difficult to work out what the problem is. It is to do with them; they choose a “friendly engagement” tactic with the club, which replicates the “useful engagement” strategy from incarnation 3, which replicates the “constructive engagement” strategy of incarnation 2. When you choose club premises for your AGM and “meet the board” night you not only sending a signal to anti Bates supporters you’re not wanted but your leaving yourself open to being seen as too close (do you think they paid market rate for the rooms? No neither do I). If this story was about any other club the “ust” would have been integral from the beginning. Conn knows that the “st” element of lust is a irritant rather than ingrained principle of the main players in incarnation 4 and that is why no-one is asking them and no-one is listening to them. 2 months ago they asked on some forums what fans wanted then to communicate with the club about, they choose to ignore all suggestions about transparency and ownership, that is why they remain sidelined and irrelevant until they take sides. I’m not holding my breath.
Question 3: Where is the local leadership on Leeds United issues?
Watching the various football clubs in trouble has shown that elsewhere, outside of the City of Leeds, lives political leadership prepared to show support and resources to help those bringing integrity and openness back to their clubs. Members of Parliament and Council Leaders have been seen doing the right thing in Portsmouth, Chester and across a wide range of clubs where co-operation and community leadership are needed. So what is different in Leeds? Firstly the council are too close to Bates, through the Thorp Arch debacle, the 2018 arrangements (boy is that going to bite us on the bum soon) and through land ownership. Even the incompetent Conservative/Lib-Dem leadership balked at the secrecy over the beneficial ownership of the club but only when legal advice pointed out to them the consequences of not doing so. The other element that restrains local leadership is how those who have made previous relevant interjections got very little in support. Both Colin Burgon and Phil Willis have ploughed the furrow only to find indifference from those who should be looking more closely at all this. Elections are due locally, whilst little might change in parliamentary seats some change at local council level could be on the cards, a change of regime at the Civic Hall might help in the long term.
Question 4: What should follow after Bates and cohorts go?
The problem with this question is it has to be in two parts, the first part is what to you want? The second part is what do you realistically expect? The gap between the two is frightening. Everyone should be able to agree that regardless of nationality, deepness of pockets (god I hate the idea all club owners have to be stupid billionaires prepared to waste millions every season just to finish mid-table, why can’t they just be good at running a football club?) or even the depth of their affection for Leeds United what we want is open and honest owners. Of course it would be a first for us to get both, but progress towards is no bad thing.
The second part of the equation is really worrying, what if the secret owners stay in place post Bates and simply promote Harvey or even worse Lorimer? This is why we need to break the secrecy once and for all. Bates provides the world with a useful lightening rod by which to direct distaste for it all, once he goes (and he is not immortal) the confusion around who owns what gets even more bizarre. Talk of supporters ownership is just pipedream (especially with LUSC, lust and others in disarray) but always going to be around but equally expecting people to invest in a club without a owed ground, a owned training complex and a byzantine financial structure is ridiculous. As much as I’d like to give a positive answer to this question the truth is it might be even more complex and worrying than the last 10 years, mainly because we have let people run amok during that time!
Question 5: Will the Guardian take this to the end-game?
As much as we all appreciate the Guardian’s efforts they do tend to come back to this in 3 monthly cycles when what is needed is a consistent campaign, like that used against the Glazers and Hicks/Gillett. David Conn covers a lot of ground in a lot of clubs in the day job and isn’t a Leeds fan, but others working for them are. We need a clear commitment from the Guardian to pursue this with vigour and constantly until the important principles of openness and transparency have been met, we should be the cause celebre. Let’s have some reassurance on that please. The other national media outlets might want to consider that perhaps they have neglected the issues too much and put that right. There is however also (related to Question 4) the regional/local media to consider. It is time the YEP and YP dropped the voluntary gagging order they placed on themselves in order to get back in to report on matches and if they are not prepared to do that to expect the local support to show their contempt the lack of investigative journalism by not purchasing the rags. Like all eventually successful exposures of secrecy it needs persistence or in the case of the YEP, starting to smell the coffee.
The above five questions don’t in themselves solve nothing. Clarkeonenil, LLHB, Square Ball with the Visit Beeston front et al don’t guarantee we will remove the glorified fund manager and his cohorts any day soon, they do however keep the pressure on until the day the scourge is gone. Between now and the fateful day, you pick your side, with us or with him.
Editor Michael.
