The Mike Vickerman Column

Monday 22 July, 2002

Geoffrey Richmond and the Real World

The supporters meeting at the beginning of this month at which Geoffrey Richmond, aided by David Rhodes and Gordon Taylor, outlined City's plan for escape from oblivion revealed more than just the scale of the debts facing City and the consequencies to the club should arrangements not be agreed with its creditors.

It also revealed that there's a number of people in Bradford who have little or no understanding of how the World around them works. The image that still amazes me is that of that oh so loyal supporter who vowed to have nothing more to do with City whilst Geoffrey Richmond was connected with the club. His reasoning behind this was comical in its naivity and is this.

Geoffrey Richmond, the fiend, might expect to make a few quid out of Bradford City. Well I never. The absurdity of this complaint is all the more clear when looked at in reverse.

That is, a businessman might put a seven figure sum of his own money on the line with the expectation of getting nothing in return. Would you?

Just because the company in question has emotional ties to, well last season on average 15,000 Bradfordians, it doesn't change the way of the World. Just imagine if we all boycotted Dr Marten shoes on the grounds that the man who owns the company has made a lot of money out of it. And there was me thinking he did it for the love of feet.

Despite notable exceptions such as the NHS and education we live in a capitalist society. That might not suit all, but to take it out on the one or two capitalists who are prepared to come anywhere near our football club when others wouldn't even with a lengthy bargepole is nonsense.

Everybody, at least everybody I know, is to some degree driven by money. We're lucky. We've got Mr Richmond hooked on City aswell. The point is, the fact that the directors of a club have in the past awarded themselves dividends doesn't undermines their commitment to taking the club forward.

Indeed quite the opposite. Let's hope City are soon in a position where the directors can award themselves a slice of the biggest pie in football. Do I have to spell it out? Meanwhile, I'm settling down for the new season in full expectation that this fiasco will just be another chapter in City's first hundred years and that I'll get full value out of the remaining 24 years of my 25 year season ticket.

By the way, did I tell you I've got a 25 year ticket? I bought one, like everyone else who could lay their hands on the cash, because it seemed like a good way to save me a few quid.

Index of column & Biography | mail

Replies
From Jon Blakely

Mike,
Hi Jon Blakely here, fellow BfB writer. I just wanted to ask you what you are saying in your article? I cannot pick up from the piece what you are trying to say. You start by slagging off all the people who have different opinions to yourself, condemning us to not knowing how the real world works!! You then congratulate Geoffrey Richmond and his board for taking out 8 million pounds worth of dividends when the debts at that point were very high (Carlsberg stand, new main stand being built etc), and player leases about the start. I notice you don't mention the 250,000 Mr Richmond took for Football consultancy!

It is widely accepted that if you want to own a football club, then be ready to burn your money. If you want a successful one then kiss any hope of a profit away.

No one has any problem with Dividend payments being paid, and in fact a payment for Football consultancy can be accepted if indeed they are done at a sensible time, not when the outgoings for the club are about to triple!

Some facts for you:

You then end with a 'Let's hope' and you call Administration a fiasco (which surely is the term solely reserved for anti-Richmond types)

I think we all need to re-read just where on earth 36m worth of debts could be rung up in such a short period of time.

Jon.

Response from Mike

Jon,
The point I was trying to make (in fact I think I made quite clearly) is simply that the vociferous criticism that GR has faced over he and other directors wanting to make money out of the club is in my opinion unfair.

Admittedly there are a handful of chairmen who chuck money at their clubs, but on the whole most clubs are run along strict business lines. Investors look to have their risks rewarded at some point in time. The point I was making about the 25 year season ticket is that it would be more beneficial to the club if I (and the 970 others) bought tickets on a match by match basis. The saving I make on the long term deal is City's financial loss.

I feel guilty about this, but not that guilty. How different, in essence, does this make me from GR? That's pretty much all I was saying. In your reply you stated that noone has any problems with dividends being paid.

Some of the people at the supporters' meeting on 1 July clearly had a big problem with dividends being paid. These are the people to whom I was refering. The points you go on to make about GR's handling of the finances of the club are totally valid criticisms - a lot of questions need to be answered though I suspect they never will. I'm not sure, though, why you're making these point to me as my article (and I say article in the very loosest sense!) made no mention of GR's competence, just his motivation. Nor did I congratulate GR for anything - I'm afraid you made that bit up. I find it a bit disconcerting that, having read my opinions on a very specific aspect of the GR/City in administration situation, you made huge assumptions on where I stand on other issues and then attacked me for them.

I look forward to your next piece in BfB.

Cheers,
Mike.