It has become almost instinctive amongst City fans of late to herald any change at boardroom level with either cynicism or fear. After years of grappling with gray accountants, homosexual tennis players and thieving Sheffield fuckwits, we have naturally become sceptical of anyone sporting pinstripes and drooling diarrhoea about five-year plans.  

This time, though, I was more fearful than normal. The administrators were using the usual sales spiel, “top ten city”, “massive potential” etc., which is guaranteed to attract the most self-serving gobshites in the country. To cap it all off, the fatso at the Hull Daily Mail led us to believe that our prospective buyers were Americans. The South Yorkshire numbskulls were, in my opinion, complete bastards on every level. But Americans?!!

My initial fears were somewhat allayed, however, when the identity of the new owner was finally revealed. Firstly, Adam Pearson spoke with a flat northern English accent and not a Texan drawl, which was a good first sign.

When it was discovered what Mr. Pearson’s business background was, and what his plans were for the club, I was doubly impressed. In fact, I haven’t been this excited to be a City fan since Christopher ‘the debonair’ Needler sold up to David Lloyd (I know, but trust me on this one!).

Adam Pearson is of the kind we’ve sorely lacked at this club for too long – someone who can blend his football and business together and get results. In his relatively short spell at Leeds, Pearson was the man who took Leeds from a nicely ticking over football club to the sixth biggest earner in Europe. This feat is made even more remarkable when you consider that as a football team, Leeds are an incredibly overrated bunch of fuckwits who spend more time beating up ethnics than they do collecting trophies. Pearson also possesses the attribute most required of football chairmen, namely the ability to generate money from outside sources, and I’m not talking Chinese restaurants here.

Pearson’s career has been built on making cash for businesses via sponsorship deals, outside investment etc. Where Nick Buchanan’s idea of keeping the club running smoothly was to borrow money from the players union, Pearson can generate cash for the club without the danger of a transfer embargo, and presumably without putting his own money into the club as well.

To be able to take a few quid from avaricious suited and booted types without having to pay it back is an art in itself. Also, Pearson has made no rash promises so far. All the noises made were good ones, such as Brian Little will remain as manager, we shall move to the ‘super’ stadium when it is completed in 2072, Brian will be given a ‘limited’ amount of cash in the summer and, most importantly, the club will finally stand on its own financial feet in the next fourteen months or so. This is much more important than promises of Premiership football within five years, or playing on the moon.

Hull City haven’t been financially stable for over a decade. The thought that we’ll be paying our own bills in such a relatively short time is worth a lot more than how big the chairman’s bank balance is, even though money is an important factor in the modern game. To get out of this division you don’t need big money, you just need to have everyone within the club pulling in the same direction, for proof of this just look at the Scunny-lingus, who managed to get out of the dung heap affectionately known as ‘Nationwide Division Three’ with an idiotic manager who pissed his pants during a cup final and no major cash investment from the board.

The likes of Stockport and Grimsby survive in Division One without megabucks, having to get by on boardroom cohesion and team spirit. This may appear unlikely to happen to Hull City at the present time, but strange things happen in football. Bradford City are in the Premiership, for a start. And Terry Dolan’s got a job. Doesn’t seem so unlikely now, does it?

In football, history can often repeat itself, for instance Carlisle will stay up (at the expense of York), Man United will win the league, and Brian Laws will throw a tantrum when City beat them. Similarly, City could well repeat the events that occurred during the 1980′s, with Don Robinson in charge. Just like now, Robinson bought the club as it was going through one of its darkest periods. Robinson’s City climbed from a similar position to where we are now to what should have been an old Second Division play off place. Robinson was similar to Pearson in his ability to make the club profitable without splashing out millions he doesn’t have, and was a master at boosting the club’s profile.

The rumour currently doing the rounds is that a Harrogate businessman who recently sold his internet company for £25 million will be Pearson’s first board appointment, and in Brian Little, we have the best manager in the division. Whitmore, Goodison, Whittle, Greaves and an on form Eyre are players good enough to grace Division One. We’ve been through a hell of a lot during the last decade. Now we can sit back and bask in the glory to come.

Danny Lodge

The last couple of months have been bloody horrible. The prospect of no Hull City AFC has frightened me to the point of feeling physically sick. The city of Kingston-upon-Hull would be the largest in Europe without a professional football side. It would unspeakably depressing for each and every one of us. As well as being economically and socially disastrous for Hull, and football in general it would leave us all at a loose end.  

If City were to fold what would we do on a Saturday afternoon. Shopping? Err, no thanks. Watch Premiership football? There are enough sheep in the Hull area that do that, I don’t wish to join them. Support one of our local rivals?

That’d be on my list of possible alternatives somewhere between slitting my wrists and listening to Celine Dion’s entire back catalogue. I reckon a fair few of us would be tempted to watch a bit of grass roots football. Myself and four equally football starved City fans fancied trying this out on the blank Saturday after City’s game at Cardiff.

Our first thought was North Ferriby United. Without wishing to patronise them, they’re a lovely little club. Friendly fans, the opportunity to have a drink whilst watching the game, cheap to get in, the chance to laugh at the size of Darren France’s beer gut, there are loads of reasons to watch Ferriby.

So off to Church Road we headed. Gretna were the opposition and no, I don’t know what a Scottish side are doing in the Unibond League either. It was a sunny, if somewhat cold day, so we were quite surprised when we were informed it was off. I imagine it was due to the Foot and Mouth ‘crisis’ which I can confirm was started by Cardiff City supporters being fed on the remains of fellow Bluebirds fans.

What to do now? We decided on heading to Dene Park, Dunswell, the home of Hall Road Rangers. We didn’t have a clue whether they had a game or not, but it we really didn’t want to go home and be reduced to watching the Six Nations on the telly so the decision was unanimous.

On arriving there the signs weren’t promising. There was a match on one of the pitches involving a team in god’s own colours of black and amber, but park league football isn’t the greatest of spectacles, so we headed on to the main pitch. There was nobody on the turnstiles, but just as we were about to leave we noticed a ball being hoofed high in the air.

Huzzah, football at last. We ambled in to join the 30 or so other fans. Sat near us in the Ted Richardson stand was a man in a L***s United hat with his young son. “Who’s playing mate?” “Haven’t the foggiest.” Nice one.  I only discovered who the teams were after asking the linesman that the game was between Hall Road Rangers reserves and Driffield in the Humber Premier League. Driffield had an absolutely beautiful blue, white and red shirt, reminiscent of the French class of ’98.

Rangers’ stiffs were a damn sight less sartorially elegant with their kit of red and black striped shirts, blue shorts and blue socks. Yeuch. The men from the Wolds even had their subs and coaches wearing matching jackets with their website address on (www.driffieldfc.co.uk if you must know).

Unfortunately they looked less professional once the game actually got underway. Hall Road’s nippy strikers had a field day, with the young looking number 9 (yeah, like I can be arsed to find out who he was) causing Driffield’s ponderous defence and gobby ‘keeper no end of bother. The half time score was 4-1 to Rangers, the highlights of the half being an own goal from the Driff full back, some of the worst fouls I have ever seen and language from the players that was so blue it would make Bernard Manning blush.

Half time was a lot more fun than the intervals at City. Instead of trying to guess which City reserve would be reeled out to make the half time draw we were treated to watching the half time scores on Grandstand and a pint in the warmth of the Dene Park Social Club. It is a very nice set up bringing the club a considerable amount of money.

Indeed it recently hosted Radio Five’s ‘Any Sporting Questions’. As is par for the course at non-league clubs there were a few peculiarities. There was the ‘Dene Park Disco’ that consisted of a single record deck tucked away in the corner of the room. Also there was a bizarre sign – “Parents please ensure children vacate the premises during darts matches”.

They must be incredibly poor players. When the skiing came on Grandstand we supped up to watch the second half. It wasn’t as entertaining as the first, Hall Road added another goal, and there was a sending off – a Rangers player walked after a foul that was nowhere near as bad as the Mark Dennisesque lunges from the first half.

The Hall Road goalie was wearing odd boots, one Adidas and one Diadora. When quizzed as to why he mumbled “No I aren’t, they’re someone else’s”. Err, OK then. I then asked him where his side were in the league. “I dunno, I usually play for the youth team.” The poor kid wouldn’t make much of a guest on ‘Parkinson’.

The game ended 5-1. We were cold, but had enjoyed a break from the usual City-watching routine. If City don’t have a game or you can’t get to see them away, then I’d definitely recommend watching your local non-league side. However if City were to fold and were forced to start off again at this kind of level it would be a demeaning, unenjoyable experience.

Unwittingly the good people of Hall Road Rangers FC opened my eyes to what might have happened if Lloyd, Hinchliffe or Buchanan had succeeded in killing off the club. And I assure you, you wouldn’t like it one bit.

James McVie

If you read the newspapers lately when changes to the transfer system are being discussed, you’d be forgiven for thinking that right now we have a wonderfully competitive Football League in which each club can easily beat any other and in which small clubs are in financial clover thanks to all the cash that filters down through the Leagues from the top clubs.

Listen to the wails of Arsene Wenger and “Sir” Alex Ferguson and you’d think that all this milk and honey will be soured if those pesky Europeans carry on interfering with our precious system. Bollocks. The English league is dying. As a competitive event, it’s even more predictable than the WWF. Between 1967 and 1973, seven different clubs took the English title. In the last nine years, including 2001, Manchester United alone have won seven times. And as for the small clubs, well, most of them are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, saved only by indulgent bank managers or clever administrators.

The possibility of transfer income deludes too many into spending more than they earn, and in any event the big-money transfer of the lower League player up to the higher echelons has more or less come to an end, as the giants develop ever-bigger youth academies.

I’m all for the scrapping of the transfer system, but let’s dwell a moment longer on the hypocrisy of the big clubs. The same people – Ken Bates, David Dein – who tell us that the elimination of a transfer system will kill off smaller clubs are the self-same people who set up the English Premiership as a breakaway from the Football League in the early 1990s with the express purpose of sharing a smaller percentage of the income with the other 72 clubs.

Don’t believe these money-grabbing shysters for a second when they tell you they want a transfer system to survive so as to nurture the grass roots. They are concerned only with their own share price. Arsenal. I hate Arsenal. How they pleaded for sympathy when Nicolas Anelka refused to play for them. Then they sold him. For £22.5 million. That for a player they’d bought from PSG for half-a-million quid, a player with pace but a very spotty record in front of goal and an appalling attitude.

Cry no tears for the Arse. I know why they want to retain the transfer system and it’s got nothing to do with charity towards clubs in Division 3. (And while I’m on, why do people take Arsene Wenger seriously? A nice soft voice and a French accent – but the guy talks total mince every time he opens his mouth. He says he’ll give up club management for the international game if the transfer system is scrapped, because he won’t be able to build a team – like you can build a team at international level? Twerp.)

I’ll tell you why the big clubs want a transfer system. Because it allows them to inflate their profits by imposing archaic restrictions on the freedom of the players. And because it allows them to deflect attention from the real issue in football today, which is the vital need to share gate and TV money around more fairly than happens at present.

The starting point is that in football a player is treated quite differently from an employee in any other job. This is because of arrangements that are enforced collectively by clubs, Leagues and international associations. Imagine your contract’s up. Another employer offers you better terms. You’ll take the new job. Of course.

A footballer cannot do that. If the player wants to move from a club in England to a club in France, then he can move freely (that is the result of the 1995 Bosman ruling), but it’s far from that simple if you want to move between two English clubs. And imagine you want to change employer even while your contract is in force. Provided you can satisfy the rules governing breach of contract, you can switch jobs even if the old employer doesn’t want you to leave. Not so a footballer. A footballer who tries to do what you or I can do will find himself penalised by the authorities and unable to play for the new team.

There’s no reason why footballers should be treated in this way. And please don’t tell me that without the protection of a transfer system, clubs will stop training youngsters. Sainsbury trains its managers even though some will later leave and go work for Tesco. Every business in the country trains young employees because it needs them to survive, and they do so without for a moment expecting compensation when the worker moves on. Why should football be any different?

You might say that this will put the players in an even more powerful position. If transfer fees vanish, won’t wages rise? Sure. What’s wrong with that? Footballers are entertainers and deserve the market rate. No one says that Tom Hanks earned too much for his last film, and that he better accept half as much for his next one or else no director in Hollywood will hire him.

And David Beckham is worth every penny that a club is willing to pay him. That is how markets work. You might say, won’t players just walk out of clubs on a whim? Well, no – or at least no more than any ordinary employee walks out. Workers stay put if they’re happy and it is the employer’s job to keep them happy.

It’s an everyday matter of negotiating contracts. If a club is worried it won’t keep its players for the full duration of their contract, it could, for example, include a large loyalty bonus, payable after, say, the third and the fourth year of a five-year contract. That’s the way ordinary businesses operate and it is the way football should operate. The transfer system is simply indefensible.

I am not saying football is in all respects a business like any other. It isn’t. If you make sausages, you have no interest in the existence of other makers of sausage – in fact, you’d rather there weren’t any others, so you could control the market. But football clubs need each other. Scotland’s three-second qualifying match with the non-existent Estonians was a lot of fun, but most of the time you need two teams on the pitch to make it worthwhile, and you need some doubt about who’s going to win a competition to make it appealing to customers. So clubs have a sense of mutual solidarity. What I’m saying is that the horizontal relationship between football clubs is unique, for they are inter-dependent, while the vertical relationship between clubs and their players is and should be treated in exactly the same way as any employer/employee relationship.

The future of the English League depends on taking this notion of mutual solidarity seriously. The likes of Southampton and Coventry should demand a much higher percentage of the income of Manchester United and Arsenal be put into a common pool for distribution among all the clubs. Otherwise competition will wither. The transfer system is a red herring in all this, because it is haphazard and, for smaller clubs, involves relative pennies anyway nowadays, and it’s time to stop getting taken in by the big clubs bleating about the transfer system. Forget that, and focus on the real issue – which is the need for the Football League in effect to tax bloated big business like Manchester United for the rare privilege of participating in our League.

It seems that the compromise struck between UEFA and the European Commission contradicts my views, because it does allow some space for a renovated transfer system – it does allow footballers as employees to be treated differently from you and me. It is, however, a fact that whatever deal the European Commission strikes with UEFA in Brussels, it is not binding, in the sense that the ultimate authority on the interpretation of EC law is the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In the late 1980s the Commission and UEFA came to a cosy agreement that no more than three foreign players would be allowed to play for clubs in European competition. (This was the rule that Vfb Stuttgart famously broke against Leeds).

In 1995 the European Court decided in the Bosman case that this was contrary to EC rules forbidding nationality discrimination between nationals of EU Member States. The Commission was left looking very stupid: its cosy agreement had no legal effect for these purposes. The same could happen again. Any triumphant announcements by Commission and by UEFA that a solution on transfers has been found could easily be exploded later by a ruling of the Court. And with the players union expressing an intention to bring a test case, this is a live possibility. A personal view is that the terms of the latest “compromise” are plainly in violation of the rules of the EC Treaty, because they envisage disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on the structure of the market for the supply of labour, and in particular they indefensibly treat footballers as subject to restrictions which would not be permitted in other industries…

Steve Weatherill