21st April 2005
By
Gaz Pearson
The link between football and politics has been well documented. Most
recently in a BBC documentary Football and Fascism. This article
looks at the way the political world affects Newcastle United and
the way in which the two are paralleled. References and links will
be made to several political parties, movements and members of Parliament.
No offence is intended in this article, it just aims to show the way
in which Newcastle United and politics co-exist in a country preparing
for a General Election on the 5th of May 2005.
The Church has just elected a new Pope, America recently re-elected
George W Bush as President and we will shortly be choosing between
Blair, Howard and Kennedy to see who will be our New Prime Minister.
Imagine if we were to have the choice at Newcastle United to elect
our Chairman, or indeed Chairwoman? Our board members? Our manager?
Clubs in Spain, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona hold elections in
which two participants lay out their manifesto's to win the vote of
the clubs fans. Perhaps it is time clubs in this country, specifically
a club with a fan base such as Newcastle, to adopt the same methods?
The far right wing of politics did not contain the likes of Keith
Gillespie or Nobby Solano, but rather figures such as Mussolini and
Hitler. Both men were fascist dictators, and Mussolini had a passion
for football, especially SS Lazio, where the recent Paulo Di Canio
fascist salute caused outrage in Italy. However, perhaps the fascist
ideals in football are the same nowadays? Who can deny Freddy Shepherd
doesn't appear to have the final say on everything black and white
at our club? If the news that was broken on Newcastle-Online.com by
my colleague Ally Campbell is to come true regarding Freddy Shepherd
and a takeover bid, then without doubt he will become the Dictator
of Newcastle United - a totalitarian Shepherd rule will unfold. Is
this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not, remember Sir John Hall? The noticeable
difference here though again can be linked to politics of England
today.
Where the Blair/Brown conflict lies with the Chancellor wanting to
become the Prime Minister, is it not the same with our 'Chancellor'
Freddy Shepherd seemingly wanting control of team affairs? Sir John
Hall financed the club, was the chancellor of the club, and Kevin
Keegan, in a manger role parallel to that of a Prime Minister, ran
the Football Club team affairs. Souness doesn't appear to have or
want this responsibility and always seems to have to ask the chairman
for the final word. An example of this was the Dyer/Bowyer saga in
which both players were summoned before Freddy Shepherd on the Monday
morning following their infamous brawl. Forgive me but shouldn't they
have been summoned before their manager, Mr Graeme Souness? Surely
he should have had the last say of these two players and not Freddy
Shepherd? The likelihood is that if Freddy wanted shot of them he
would have done so regardless of what Souness wanted. If you look
at other clubs such as Manchester United and even Chelsea, the manager
is the main man, the Chairman just finance the club. Even deadly Doug
and Simon Jordan down at Crystal Palace don't have has much influence
over their clubs as Mr Shepherd has.
Moving on, Newcastle United's most liberal members seem to be the
players themselves. Liberal in off the pitch activities that is; such
as doing what the hell they like, as events down in a London hotel
may have or may not have proved (damn political correctness!) However,
their politics and that of most footballers who are earning the big
bucks must surely be conservative. Conserve what they have and get
richer whilst the working class fans get unemployment, taxes and economic
instability under a conservative regime.
Democracy in the UK, and indeed all over the world has been seen as
a Western tool of political control to enable world stability, especially
since September 11. Yet democracy is not faultless and allows for
even more corruptness than in a fascist or, to the extreme left, a
communist ideal. Sometimes it is better the Devil you know, than the
Devil you don't. Democracy in football perhaps isn't the right way
forward either. There may be a just need for an almost fascist strand
of control over football clubs, yet this should come from the manager.
The manager has to be the main 'fascist' figure, not the chairman.
Going back to the earlier argument, it may be time to abolish the
role of 'Chairman' and create an ELECTED active 'President' for the
club. His or Her role would include the financing of the club, promoting
the club and getting the club the best players and manager he can.
Basically the job the chairman does now but with a new democratic
rule at the top. The manager is then appointed, in the same way the
President will be, with consent of the fans, i.e. a shortlist put
forward of candidates who have applied for the job and then the fans
get to decide who they would like to see in charge. If it is a two-third
majority then the fans decision is final, if it is a split between
candidates then the 'President' has the final choice.
The 'fascist' figure at the club must be the manager but only regarding
team affairs when elected to office. The 'President' must be the head
of all other matters, control the economy of the club and lay out
the manifesto for the clubs progress in a more open and clear way
than what Chairmen do nowadays. The fans must be heard to have a 'political'
voice and influence in the way their club is run, as fans of Barcelona
and Real Madrid do. President Shepherd? Maybe not. Prime Minister
Souness? Maybe Not. When you vote for your future and the direction
your country will take on May 5th, just think of how a vote would
enable you to change the direction, the future of your football club?
|
 |
Toon
Shirts |
|
Sponsors |
|
|
