Everton fan questions football's relationship with money

[Robin Sisland]

Not sure this is strictly an Everton thread but as it relates to the call by the Everton supporting Culture Secretary for football to 're-examine it's relationship with money' I'm hoping we can stretch a point. Especially as it's precisely the kind of owner that he's criticising that we appear to be looking for.

Here's the article which appeared in the Guardian today.
Is it just me or do all government ministers really look like they live on a diet of live rodents?




The government made its long-awaited intervention in the running of English football yesterday when the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, called on the game's authorities to respond to a variety of threats to its long-term future.

Speaking at the Supporters Direct conference in Westminster yesterday, Burnham said that while the Premier League is "the world's most successful domestic sporting competition," it risks becoming too predictable on the field, not developing sufficient homegrown players, and, more broadly, "losing further touch with its traditional supporter base" if it continues on its current path.

Restating his view that "football needs to reassess its relationship with money", he asked the FA as well as the Premier and Football Leagues to consider whether:

· The rules governing finances can be made consistent between the leagues

· There can be greater transparency and scrutiny of clubs' ownership, including the amount of debt used to finance a takeover and whether that debt is "sustainable and in the wider interests of the game"

· The rules which penalise clubs falling into insolvency can be reviewed

· The rule which requires insolvent clubs to pay football debts in full, unlike other debts, should be reviewed

· The fit-and-proper-person test for club directors and 30% shareholders needs to be strengthened

· "Competitive balance" can be promoted, "preventing the game becoming too predictable"

· "Everything possible is being done to bolster the national side" and there is "a case for introducing a specified number of homegrown players" into club sides.

The issues, relating to the ownership and financing of clubs, the financial inequalities which determine playing success and the suggestion of quotas for homegrown players, are hugely controversial, because the Premier League, in particular, is not expected to be keen on any interference with its commercial approach, which has reaped rich rewards for its clubs. Burnham insisted yesterday that the government is right to raise concerns because of football's importance to supporters, the communities in which clubs are based, and the public at large.

"I am inviting the three football authorities to take a co-ordinated and in-depth look at the questions I have laid out and respond with their thoughts in the New Year," he said.

The FA chairman, Lord Triesman, also speaking at the conference, welcomed Burnham's intervention, appealing for the three bodies to work constructively together: "I hope we can have the discussion in a grown up fashion," Triesman said, "and not feel this is simply jostling in some kind of turf war."

Lord Mawhinney, the Football League chairman, agreed, saying: "The secretary of state has listed important questions and we will certainly consider them in a constructive spirit."

The Premier League were more restrained, saying they had not yet received a formal letter from Burnham.

"When we do," a spokesman said, "we will give serious consideration to the issues he raises, discuss them with the Football League and FA where appropriate and respond to the government accordingly."

 

[davek]

Andy Burnham is absolutely correct in all the things he says there in relation to community over commodity. Football is nothing without its civic connections and domestic rivalries. The game is at a critical juncture in that respect. However, looking at our situation, I dont see any reason why a buyer for EFC couldn't respect the traditions, identity and community we all think worth preserving. Obviously we dont want the sort of sharks who buy clubs by leveraging money and then placing that debt on the club (maybe the current financial meltdown has put that tactic to bed for the time being?). Some of the super rich, though, get into football because it suits their own personal circumstances or, as in the case of the Abu Dhabi United Group, to advertise their own homeland as part of the global community. We can have our cake and eat it.

 

[Robin Sisland]

Andy Burnham is absolutely correct in all the things he says there in relation to community over commodity. Football is nothing without its civic connections and domestic rivalries. The game is at a critical juncture in that respect. However, looking at our situation, I dont see any reason why a buyer for EFC couldn't respect the traditions, identity and community we all think worth preserving. Obviously we dont want the sort of sharks who buy clubs by leveraging money and then placing that debt on the club (maybe the current financial meltdown has put that tactic to bed for the time being?). Some of the super rich, though, get into football because it suits their own personal circumstances or, as in the case of the Abu Dhabi United Group, to advertise their own homeland as part of the global community. We can have our cake and eat it.

I hope you're right, and I hope that the reason we've found it so difficult to get new investors/owners is because BK is insisting on just those conditions. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable supporting a club whose main appeal to its owners is as a smokescreen to hide the fact that its wealth has been built on (effectively) slave labour, and an appalling human rights record.

I'm not sure if the current crisis alone will stop leveraged buyouts. On the one hand credit is more difficult to get. On the other borrowing in the name of one company with no assets and no income in order to buy another company with substantial assets and sufficient regular income to service the debt is still a viable business plan.

 

[davek]

I hope you're right, and I hope that the reason we've found it so difficult to get new investors/owners is because BK is insisting on just those conditions. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable supporting a club whose main appeal to its owners is as a smokescreen to hide the fact that its wealth has been built on (effectively) slave labour, and an appalling human rights record.

I'm not sure if the current crisis alone will stop leveraged buyouts. On the one hand credit is more difficult to get. On the other borrowing in the name of one company with no assets and no income in order to buy another company with substantial assets and sufficient regular income to service the debt is still a viable business plan.

That amazes me. I'd have thought the experience of G&H at LFC would have pointed in the opposite direction. Even people with substantial assets appear to be finding it extremely difficult to secure borrowing.

As for the moral argument of where a backer ultimately gets their cash from - that sounds like a spurious argument to me. Unless you believe in the fantasy of primitive accumulation, all advanced western economies are steeped in exploiting their own populations and imperial plunder. Ergo: their companies were/are founded upon that basis. I suppose it's a matter of how far you want to take your analysis back. The moral argument seems a little weak to me.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Football is nothing without its civic connections and domestic rivalries.

Hammer. Nail. Head. Or is that: Nail. Hammer. Head?

But the point is that you're dead right. Good post, Dave.

 

[Robin Sisland]

That amazes me. I'd have thought the experience of G&H at LFC would have pointed in the opposite direction. Even people with substantial assets appear to be finding it extremely difficult to secure borrowing.

Well they did succeed in raising the £20m they needed to buy Keane by adding to their existing debt portfolio. What they are having problems with is raising sufficient capital for a new stadium which is not quite the same thing as leveraging a buyout of an underperforming company on promise of increasing income.
You're right though that all companies are facing problems getting credit regardless of their assets. Broadly speaking it's a temporary thing while the banking crisis plays out. Once things level out there will be nothing to stop banks funding leveraged buyouts again. Nor any reason to stop them. As I said, leveraging the buyout of an underperforming company on promise of increasing income remains a viable business plan.

As for the moral argument of where a backer ultimately gets their cash from - that sounds like a spurious argument to me. Unless you believe in the fantasy of primitive accumulation, all advanced western economies are steeped in exploiting their own populations and imperial plunder. Ergo: their companies were/are founded upon that basis. I suppose it's a matter of how far you want to take your analysis back. The moral argument seems a little weak to me.

I could agree that you had a point if you were able to prove to me that say the Littlewoods fortune was built by importing bonded Labour from the third world, housing it in what are effectively prison camps, forcing it to work far longer hours than have been permissable in the west since the 19th century, in conditions that were outlawed in the west before the first world war and denying it basic human rights in return for wages that oblige the workers to continue in the same conditions for up to 20 years just in order to be able to earn enough to both feed their families back home and save enough for a return flight.
Actually I know for a fact that Littlewoods is/was a very good employer. Whereas the state owned companies in the phenomenally rich Gulf states most certainly are not.
Sorry but it's your argument that's weak.

 

[davek]

Well they did succeed in raising the £20m they needed to buy Keane by adding to their existing debt portfolio. What they are having problems with is raising sufficient capital for a new stadium which is not quite the same thing as leveraging a buyout of an underperforming company on promise of increasing income.
You're right though that all companies are facing problems getting credit regardless of their assets. Broadly speaking it's a temporary thing while the banking crisis plays out. Once things level out there will be nothing to stop banks funding leveraged buyouts again. Nor any reason to stop them. As I said, leveraging the buyout of an underperforming company on promise of increasing income remains a viable business plan.

I'd just say in relation to your last remark that, in the football industry, it 'remains a viable business plan' only insofar as it has credibiltiy. As we can tell from Kenwright's remarks, Everton for one wont be going down that road. How many other club's (with the type of brand/fanbase that can be exploited by these sharks) will be looking at the LFC example and drawing similar conclusions?

I could agree that you had a point if you were able to prove to me that say the Littlewoods fortune was built by importing bonded Labour from the third world, housing it in what are effectively prison camps, forcing it to work far longer hours than have been permissable in the west since the 19th century, in conditions that were outlawed in the west before the first world war and denying it basic human rights in return for wages that oblige the workers to continue in the same conditions for up to 20 years just in order to be able to earn enough to both feed their families back home and save enough for a return flight.
Actually I know for a fact that Littlewoods is/was a very good employer. Whereas the state owned companies in the phenomenally rich Gulf states most certainly are not.
Sorry but it's your argument that's weak.

Regardless that the point being made was that the system itself was created by exploitation and that modern corporations are standing on the shoulders of earlier, more brutal forms of exploitation, I think you let Littlewoods off a bit easily.

Read John Moores biography written by his own neice, Barbara Clegg. It's not a pretty picture she paints of Moores. Clegg reveals that Moores was a sectarian employer who wouldn't employ Roman Catholics in any position of prominence within Littlewoods...a bigot of the worst order. As for what Littlewoods provided: selling the dream of an easy fortune by persuading people to part with pennies and shillings they could just about afford to lose - it isn't exactly tote that barge, lift that bale I'll grant you, but it is exploiting people's economic vulnerability.

I must say, overall, I am surprised at anyone making a distinction between some 'morally ok' cash from a western corporation and cash from sweated labour in the Third World. I would have thought the interconnectedness of the world global order would have made that argument a pretty difficult one to make stick.

 

[Robin Sisland]

Good call on Moores. I hadn't heard that before. And I'll admit my view of him is based on childhood recollections of Littlewoods as a 'benevolent' employer in the mould of M&S and Boots, as opposed to research.
However It still doesn't quite put him in the same league as the Gulf states. Having spent time in several I can confirm that Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan this kind of story is par for the course.
And that's not even particularly bad. A journo mate of mine was in Saudi last year and discovered that the main migrant worker 'suburb' of the capital has no sewerage facilities. What sewer pipes exist discharge into a sort of pool a few hundred yards from the inhabited area with the result that typhoid, cholera and dysentary are rife. There was a project to build a treatment plant but the company awarded the contract just pocketed the cash and did nothing. Apparently this is quite normal in the Saudi public sector.
Naturally anyone who dares complain is jailed. At best.

Globalisation or no, we can't do very much to overturn the capitalist system but that shouldn't stop us from calling out abuses of it when we see them. If EFC was bought by a Gulf billionaire I would hope that wouldn't stop people on here from acknowledging that the club's main function for its new owners is to blanket such abuse.

 

[davek]

Good call on Moores. I hadn't heard that before. And I'll admit my view of him is based on childhood recollections of Littlewoods as a 'benevolent' employer in the mould of M&S and Boots, as opposed to research.
However It still doesn't quite put him in the same league as the Gulf states. Having spent time in several I can confirm that Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan this kind of story is par for the course.
And that's not even particularly bad. A journo mate of mine was in Saudi last year and discovered that the main migrant worker 'suburb' of the capital has no sewerage facilities. What sewer pipes exist discharge into a sort of pool a few hundred yards from the inhabited area with the result that typhoid, cholera and dysentary are rife. There was a project to build a treatment plant but the company awarded the contract just pocketed the cash and did nothing. Apparently this is quite normal in the Saudi public sector.
Naturally anyone who dares complain is jailed. At best.

Globalisation or no, we can't do very much to overturn the capitalist system but that shouldn't stop us from calling out abuses of it when we see them. If EFC was bought by a Gulf billionaire I would hope that wouldn't stop people on here from acknowledging that the club's main function for its new owners is to blanket such abuse.

But the reality of globalisation cuts right through this moralism over sources of wealth and what should be permissible in footbal club takeovers. For example, if we were taken over by oil rich billionaires from the UAE the reality is that their wealth is accumulated by joint ventures with western companies like Shell, Exxon, Mobil, BP, who will be the recipients and users of exploited labour sucked into the Emirates. The distinction between the totalitarian regimes and their primitive human rights record and the Western economies is bogus.

A little closer to home, some of our high street giants have had their knuckles rapped by exploiting sweated labour in the Third World...that hasn't stopped one of them becoming partners with EFC in the Destination Kirkby project.

For me, the moral argument is bunkum.

 

[Nebbiolo]

But the reality of globalisation cuts right through this moralism over sources of wealth and what should be permissible in footbal club takeovers. For example, if we were taken over by oil rich billionaires from the UAE the reality is that their wealth is accumulated by joint ventures with western companies like Shell, Exxon, Mobil, BP, who will be the recipients and users of exploited labour sucked into the Emirates. The distinction between the totalitarian regimes and their primitive human rights record and the Western economies is bogus.

A little closer to home, some of our high street giants have had their knuckles rapped by exploiting sweated labour in the Third World...that hasn't stopped one of them becoming partners with EFC in the Destination Kirkby project.

For me, the moral argument is bunkum.

The problem is, as far as I can see, we want clean money, but it is apparent that any large investor will have accrued wealth via ways thats can always be challenged. But, and here is the crux, failing the overthrow of capitalism, all wealth can be shown to be as a result of the exploitation of the economically vulnerable. But that doesn't mean that, therefore, all wealth is equally dirty. To my eyes, your logic is fallacious.

You mention yourself, Dave, that some of our high street giants have had their knuckles rapped over using sweat labour in the emerging world. To me, that shows at least these companies are having sanctions put against them when they do wrong (forget the argument about whether it is wrong to employ sweat labour in countries where that labour might be deemed vital by the labour force itself). What we have in the west, and of course there are the big players that twist the law to their own advantages, are a number of checks and balances that can be used by government, councils or individuals, which ensure that individual rights are given some notice, even when those individuals are not residents of our own country.

Additionally, as far as I'm aware, Shell, Exon and similar might indeed make use of exploititive conditions for migrant workers in the UAE, but those economic and social conditions under which they operate, were not primarily of their making.

I've not researched this so you might call me on the following: Is it not the case that people in the direct employment of, say, Shell, enjoy working conditions in the UAEs that are at least equal to, if not better, than their peers who are employed by Arabian companies?

The moral argument isn't bunkum. We might not be able to find solely good and solely bad in an analysis. But we can make distinctions and, therefore, make a moral judgment on any prospective investor.

 

[davek]

The problem is, as far as I can see, we want clean money, but it is apparent that any large investor will have accrued wealth via ways thats can always be challenged. But, and here is the crux, failing the overthrow of capitalism, all wealth can be shown to be as a result of the exploitation of the economically vulnerable. But that doesn't mean that, therefore, all wealth is equally dirty. To my eyes, your logic is fallacious.

You mention yourself, Dave, that some of our high street giants have had their knuckles rapped over using sweat labour in the emerging world. To me, that shows at least these companies are having sanctions put against them when they do wrong (forget the argument about whether it is wrong to employ sweat labour in countries where that labour might be deemed vital by the labour force itself). What we have in the west, and of course there are the big players that twist the law to their own advantages, are a number of checks and balances that can be used by government, councils or individuals, which ensure that individual rights are given some notice, even when those individuals are not residents of our own country.

Additionally, as far as I'm aware, Shell, Exon and similar might indeed make use of exploititive conditions for migrant workers in the UAE, but those economic and social conditions under which they operate, were not primarily of their making.

I've not researched this so you might call me on the following: Is it not the case that people in the direct employment of, say, Shell, enjoy working conditions in the UAEs that are at least equal to, if not better, than their peers who are employed by Arabian companies?

The moral argument isn't bunkum. We might not be able to find solely good and solely bad in an analysis. But we can make distinctions and, therefore, make a moral judgment on any prospective investor.

I get what you're saying: there's gradations of exploitation and Arab oil states are at the sharp end of it. But the moral argument can only really stand up by being totally correct. It's not much of an argument at all to say that we dont object to Tesco's involvement in the club because they have now been slapped back into line on their record in the Third World...the same company that squeezes domestic suppliers/producers so they can achieve the biggest mark up they can with barely a sideways glance from Government regulators. At base, I really dont see the moral distinction.

As for the Gulf oil states and western companies operating better conditions, I have no idea whether that's the case or not. The point I was making is that the regimes out there can't function as well as they do without that type of collaboration with (apparently) more 'progressive' western companies (in fact, I dont know why I'm calling them 'western' as they are global companies and the Emirates are part of its global operation). The Sheiks' great wealth is an outcome of that union.


All of this begs the question what would (indeed could) be a moral buyout solution for the club - an Amnesty International-Cooperative Bank takeover?

 

[Robin Sisland]

But the reality of globalisation cuts right through this moralism over sources of wealth and what should be permissible in footbal club takeovers. For example, if we were taken over by oil rich billionaires from the UAE the reality is that their wealth is accumulated by joint ventures with western companies like Shell, Exxon, Mobil, BP, who will be the recipients and users of exploited labour sucked into the Emirates.

All of whom get criticized for it, none of whom are buying football clubs as a means of improving their PR.

The distinction between the totalitarian regimes and their primitive human rights record and the Western economies is bogus.

A little closer to home, some of our high street giants have had their knuckles rapped by exploiting sweated labour in the Third World...that hasn't stopped one of them becoming partners with EFC in the Destination Kirkby project.

Textile production involves so much subcontracting that the only way for western retailers to be absolutely certain that no sweatshop/child labour has been used is to not sell textiles. Obviously that's a non starter.
They do make strenuous efforts to check and they do still get caught out. Ensuring they continue to make strenuous efforts to check is a process which relies on us as consumers and human beings continuing to register the fact that we won't accept them not doing that.

For me, the moral argument is bunkum.

What Nebbiolo said.

edit - incidentally Dave did that biography shed any light on 'the Paul McGrath affair' ? Or would you rather we ignored that too because racism is a global problem?
Sorry if that sounds like I'm accusing you of being a racist. I'm not, I just wanted to make the point that 20-30 years ago football clubs/supporters attempting to combat racism appeared just as 'difficult' as registering protests about the more unsavoury activities of the new generation of club owners.
We have to start somewhere and that isn't by ignoring the problem.

 

[davek]

All of whom get criticized for it, none of whom are buying football clubs as a means of improving their PR..

Castrol, a subsidiary of BP, were one of the official sponsors of Euro 2008, so it's not beyond 'big oil' to look to improve their PR by tapping into football.

Textile production involves so much subcontracting that the only way for western retailers to be absolutely certain that no sweatshop/child labour has been used is to not sell textiles. Obviously that's a non starter.
They do make strenuous efforts to check and they do still get caught out. Ensuring they continue to make strenuous efforts to check is a process which relies on us as consumers and human beings continuing to register the fact that we won't accept them not doing that. .

I'm surprised to see you write that. Why is it obvious they shouldn't do that - or at least not touch goods from parts of the world they suspect use those labour practices? I would have thought if you're arguing for a blanket condemnation of all forms of exploitation then you'd advocate that. The fact is, our retailers know that they go to the cheapest supplier to ensure the greatest profit. I'm not supporting that, not by a long chalk. I just dont see the fundamental difference in attitude you think we should take between that type of once-removed exploitation and a state like the UAE doing it more aggressively and directly.

edit - incidentally Dave did that biography shed any light on 'the Paul McGrath affair' ? Or would you rather we ignored that too because racism is a global problem?
Sorry if that sounds like I'm accusing you of being a racist. I'm not, I just wanted to make the point that 20-30 years ago football clubs/supporters attempting to combat racism appeared just as 'difficult' as registering protests about the more unsavoury activities of the new generation of club owners.
We have to start somewhere and that isn't by ignoring the problem.

What your suggesting, it seems to me, is that opposing one type of investor for football clubs is drawing a line in the sand regarding exploitation when, as we know, economic exploitation is built into the system in one form or another. To expect football to tackle that is unrealistic. What constitutes good as opposed to bad businesses is unclear to me - therefore, 'good and bad' or 'right and wrong' investment for football clubs becomes a non-debate.

 

[Robin Sisland]

Castrol, a subsidiary of BP, were one of the official sponsors of Euro 2008, so it's not beyond 'big oil' to look to improve their PR by tapping into football.

Castrol only exists as a brand - the product is manufactured locally round the world and sold under license, with the licensees responsible for local management of the brand.
The brand may be owned by BP but they don't publicly associate the two, so it's inaccurate to claim that BP are using it to boost their image. See if you can find any mention of BP on the Castrol web site, i couldn't
Castrol Motor Oils and Lubricants

I'm surprised to see you write that. Why is it obvious they shouldn't do that - or at least not touch goods from parts of the world they suspect use those labour practices? I would have thought if you're arguing for a blanket condemnation of all forms of exploitation then you'd advocate that. The fact is, our retailers know that they go to the cheapest supplier to ensure the greatest profit. I'm not supporting that, not by a long chalk. I just dont see the fundamental difference in attitude you think we should take between that type of once-removed exploitation and a state like the UAE doing it more aggressively and directly.

It's a non starter because retailers are obliged to source textiles in countries which have a textile sector, and short of telling their customers to make do with the threads they already have, don't have any choice except source them in the countries with the factories.

In the UK the textile sector had pretty well disappeared by the 1970s. It's now pretty well disappeared from all of western Europe with those factories which exist in Eastern Europe (for historical reasons textile manufacturing never really took off there) expected to follow.
The Turkish textile sector is currently in meltdown having lost its main bulk business to the far east after the 1998 far east economic crisis, and is currently losing its niche markets (high end and specialist stuff and especially short production run mid season re-orders) to the south Med countries - lots of Turkish firms have re-located to Egypt.
Even if the big bulk buyers suddenly returned, willing to pay higher prices, the sector couldn't supply their needs as the plant capacity and the skilled workforce simply isn't there any more.

So they go to the far east where as we know prices are cheaper and cost cutting often involves practices we as western 'liberals' abhor. So under pressure from us, the consumers, the retailers have to be very careful who they buy from. As I said, it's a process. We voice opinions about the standards we expect the retailers to oblige their suppliers to follow, they do their best to ensure those standards are met or face criticism and humiliation if they fail.

I don't see how you can claim this is any different from supporters taking a stance over the behaviour of the owners of their club.

What your suggesting, it seems to me, is that opposing one type of investor for football clubs is drawing a line in the sand regarding exploitation when, as we know, economic exploitation is built into the system in one form or another. To expect football to tackle that is unrealistic. What constitutes good as opposed to bad businesses is unclear to me - therefore, 'good and bad' or 'right and wrong' investment for football clubs becomes a non-debate.

Exploitation is only built into systems that fail acknowledge it exists and hence to tackle it. I don't see why the owners of football clubs should be immune from criticism of their other activities just because they happen to be rich enough to own football clubs. And I don't see how football fans can justify ignoring those activities if they involve either criminal activity or forms of 'exploitation' which have long been outlawed in the countries where the clubs draw their support, simply because the 'exploiters' happen to be rich enough to own the club they support.

Which is essentially the point being made in the article that kicked off this thread.

 

[davek]

Castrol only exists as a brand - the product is manufactured locally round the world and sold under license, with the licensees responsible for local management of the brand.
The brand may be owned by BP but they don't publicly associate the two, so it's inaccurate to claim that BP are using it to boost their image. See if you can find any mention of BP on the Castrol web site, i couldn't
Castrol Motor Oils and Lubricants

I can think of many direct examples of 'big oil' owning or sponsoring football in Germany and Italy and Russia. Do you really think there'd be an outcry if BP wanted to own/sponsor an EPL club? Of course there wouldn't. People rationalise (consciously or otherwise) that if their clubs are not being funded by a company from one sector of the global economy they will be from another sector - that the global economy functions as a whole, with exploitation endemic to the system. And they're right to think that way.

It's a non starter because retailers are obliged to source textiles in countries which have a textile sector, and short of telling their customers to make do with the threads they already have, don't have any choice except source them in the countries with the factories.

In the UK the textile sector had pretty well disappeared by the 1970s. It's now pretty well disappeared from all of western Europe with those factories which exist in Eastern Europe (for historical reasons textile manufacturing never really took off there) expected to follow.
The Turkish textile sector is currently in meltdown having lost its main bulk business to the far east after the 1998 far east economic crisis, and is currently losing its niche markets (high end and specialist stuff and especially short production run mid season re-orders) to the south Med countries - lots of Turkish firms have re-located to Egypt.
Even if the big bulk buyers suddenly returned, willing to pay higher prices, the sector couldn't supply their needs as the plant capacity and the skilled workforce simply isn't there any more.

So they go to the far east where as we know prices are cheaper and cost cutting often involves practices we as western 'liberals' abhor. So under pressure from us, the consumers, the retailers have to be very careful who they buy from. As I said, it's a process. We voice opinions about the standards we expect the retailers to oblige their suppliers to follow, they do their best to ensure those standards are met or face criticism and humiliation if they fail.

I don't see how you can claim this is any different from supporters taking a stance over the behaviour of the owners of their club. .

And I dont see how the type of exploitation you rightly highlight operating in the Third World by (amongst others) British retail giants can be condemned and lobbied against whilst domestic forms of producer/supplier exploitation by these same outfits is somehow 'not too bad' or something we can live with - as per our current link up with Tesco. It's that type of contradiction which is at the heart of this moral argument.

Exploitation is only built into systems that fail acknowledge it exists and hence to tackle it. I don't see why the owners of football clubs should be immune from criticism of their other activities just because they happen to be rich enough to own football clubs. And I don't see how football fans can justify ignoring those activities if they involve either criminal activity or forms of 'exploitation' which have long been outlawed in the countries where the clubs draw their support, simply because the 'exploiters' happen to be rich enough to own the club they support.

Which is essentially the point being made in the article that kicked off this thread.

But we ignore the stark facts of life all the time in the English Premier League. You or I wouldn't bat an eyelid if Philip Green (a man who, to quote Kenwright, is a 'great friend of Everton FC) took control of EFC, but he's exploiting every single one of us 365 days a year by avoiding paying tens of £Ms in taxes - a shortfall that others have to pick up the tab for. It's not criminal - but it is morally reprehensible because he's an exploiter - he exploits a loophole that, in turn, exploits the rest of us. We're sponsored by Chang Beer. Can we be sure what sort of conditions factory workers in breweries and bottling factories work under in that part of the world? Arsenal are heavily sponsored by the UAE airline, but are seen as a 'traditional' English club; Spurs are sponsored by an online gaming company that rips off the gullible etc etc

It's a slippery slope saying a takeover from one set of spivs and hucksters should be deemed ok whilst others from another set of heartless bastards should be blocked. In the absence of any likely fan takeover of football clubs of our size, what form of corporate takeover would be appropriate for you?