The Christian Aid Secrecy League
>From www.twohundredpercent.net
 
Of all the football figures railing against the appointment of another 
independent FA chairman, Leeds United chairman Kenneth William Bates was 
the most predictable. An independent mind and independent voice would also 
have an independent eye. And Bates wouldn’t be one for independent eyes, 
in case they saw him for what he really is. That thought occurred as I 
read a report by Christian Aid, the – surprise – Christian organisation 
dedicated to the end of world poverty, into the secrecy surrounding 
football clubs in the United Kingdom. Entitled Blowing the whistle – 
Time’s up for financial secrecy, the report offered case studies of some 
of the more secretive clubs, and noted that Bates’ Leeds United “takes 
secrecy to a new level.”

The way that Bates’ mind works, he would probably be miffed that these 
words didn’t translate into Leeds actually winning the Christian Aid 
Secrecy League which forms the focal point of the report – Manchester 
United fans can be assured their team won more than the Carling Cup this 
season. But being a voice independent of any footballing vested interest, 
Christian Aid are quite happy to tell things like they are, which makes 
for uncomfortable reading for more than just Bates.

It would be easy to joke that world poverty could be near-cured by halving 
Premier League wages. But the report is only really using football and the 
proximity to its biggest event, the World Cup, to draw attention to wider 
points about financial secrecy and the damage that the use of entities 
such as tax havens can wreak on economies in the developing world. It is 
an indictment of the game that Christian Aid can use football to highlight 
such grave dangers. Their frustration and amazement at the lengths to 
which some will go to mask club ownership is all-too-apparent. A scour 
through the small print of one set of holding company accounts is held up 
as “an absurd complication to determining just who owns companies trading 
in the UK.”

Having discovered the extent of offshore ownership, 70% in the “English” 
Premier League, a number of searches force Christian Aid to admit defeat 
altogether: “The location of ownership of a further English Premier League 
club, a Championship club and a League One club were impossible to 
verify.” In the case of Ipswich Town’s 100% preferred share owners, Marcus 
Evans Investments Ltd, the report notes that: “despite our best efforts, 
we could not prove by documentation where that company is located.”

In Leeds’ case, they have to laugh, or else they’ll cry: “The fact that 
its ultimate parent company is based through a series of tax havens could 
be held as the only way that the fallen giant can get a taste of Europe,” 
they note dryly, before embarking on a welcome borderline-pisstake of 
Bates himself:

“To be fair, even Ken Bates himself seems a bit uncertain about 
ownership,” the report adds, before detailing Bates’ revealing volte-face 
in a Jersey court, when he “adjusted” his position from owning one of only 
two management shares in Leeds’ 70% owners, Forward Sports Fund (FSF), to 
FSF having 10,000 management shares “and that, in any case, none of them 
at all belonged to him.” And the report makes a telling point about the 
football authorities’ attitude: “While (they) may be content to leave 
Leeds fans in the dark (about the club’s ownership), a court in Jersey can 
be commended for attempting to bring matters out into the open.”

All of this, however, only places Leeds seventh in the Secrecy League. 
This is thanks less to there being six more-shocking examples of financial 
opacity, than the calculating criteria which adds weight to clubs’ average 
home gate. Christian Aid justify this as “an attempt to represent the 
number of fans being denied information.” But this seems un-necessary, and 
skews the results – most notably in Manchester United’s “favour”, as if 
the report’s compilers are that desperate for United to win at least one 
league title this season. As a result, clubs such as Aston Villa are two 
places above Leeds, even though their ownership is considerably less 
opaque.

There are some gems of devil in the detail. However much you may have read 
about it at the time, you still do a double-take at the “estimated family 
fortune of about US$1trn” that Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour “has 
to call on.” $1m, you’re used to. $1bn still attracts some attention. But 
a “trn”? And still they signed Kolo Toure. “Balram Chainrai must be one of 
the most reluctant owners in football,” the report notes of Portsmouth’s 
pre-administration custodian, who said, “I never intended to end up 
running a football club,” as if he only went out to get the papers and a 
pint of milk. And the report cuts through the considerable crap about West 
Ham owners, Messrs Sullivan and Gold, noting that “much of Sullivan’s 
wealth came from the adult-magazine market,” and that Gold “made much of 
his money through adult magazines,” as well as more respectable businesses 
like…er…Ann Summers. Former pornographers, then, with Gold in particular 
probably wishing he rated far higher on any secrecy index.

The report gets unnecessarily side-tracked into a “Financial Secrecy World 
Cup” in a clumsy attempt to add topicality. As a matter of (limited) 
interest, Switzerland were the not-altogether-shocking winners, “after a 
nerve-jangling tight finish against the USA.” England, you may be 
irritated to know, lost in the last 16 to Germany. But that feeling may be 
offset slightly by Germany losing in the quarter-finals to Greece, who 
went through “by virtue of a worse World Bank corruption score” – the 
financial secrecy world’s equivalent of “on penalties.”

The report is stronger when it restricts itself to plain facts. It 
highlights the (non) effects of the ‘Fit and Proper Persons Test” (“the 
list of those who have fallen foul of the rules in the past six years 
consists of precisely two people”). And it also provides concise case 
studies of the more (in) famous of recent club ownership basket cases. As 
well as Leeds, we are given an overview of clubs such as Portsmouth and 
Notts County. Even for readers steeped in the details of these cases, the 
outside perspective is refreshingly clear and only serves to emphasise 
just what was so wrong. As the report says about County, “the world’s 
oldest professional football club came perilously close to being wiped out 
by unidentified interests.”

Given its firm stance on transparent football ownership, it is no surprise 
that both Supporters Direct and the Football Supporters Federation are 
firm supporters of, and contributors towards an open letter to, the report 
and its aims. The letter makes the bold claim that “if English football 
clubs stopped being customers of tax havens and legal secrecy hide-outs, 
the loss of trade would not be noticed.” What this says about the real 
motives of Bates et al, they leave readers to ponder.

But the report is naturally strongest of all on the effect of financial 
secrecy on poverty in the developing world – its general area of 
expertise – highlighting the damage being done by tax havens in 
particular. South Africa is given special attention in its own chapter, 
with intriguing details of its revenue service’s battles with one David 
Cunningham King. King has found time to be charged with three hundred and 
twenty-two financial misdemeanours while being a non-executive director of 
Rangers, for whom he reportedly made a bid in January of this year. “Among 
the many twists in King’s battle with SARS,” the report says, “it would 
appear that his mother Agnes now owns shares in Murray Sports Limited”, a 
company within the business empire of Rangers’ owner Sir David Murray. It 
isn’t entirely believed that Agnes has a thorough business interest in 
Rangers. And it is not known whether King is regarded as “fit and proper” 
to own a football club.

For all the horror stories of football club ownership, however, the report 
is careful to put the opacity of football clubs into the right 
perspective, and does so with trademark clarity in its very introduction:

“For football fans, it can jeopardise the very existence of their much-
loved clubs. In developing countries, that impact is much more marked. 
There, financial secrecy costs lives.”

Blowing the Whistle is an interesting and thought-provoking read. No-one 
need be put off by the report coming from an unashamedly religious 
organisation – one disconcerting reference to “the framework of relational 
theology derived from St. John’s Gospel” aside, the text is mercifully 
free of such overtones. And it is equally free of jargon in general. So if 
anyone is stuck for what to get Ken Bates for his birthday (and the old 
twister even “seems a bit uncertain” about when this is, given the two 
different dates he’s given on company ownership registration forms down 
the years)… now you know.




------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using InSPire Net Webmail.
http://www.inspire.net.nz



_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators 
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
and the hardest time in a sailor's day is to watch the sun as it sails away

Reply via email to