Big man with a big task
By
Mickey Blue Eyes

I first met Keith Wyness for twenty minutes shortly after he took the post of Chief Executive. At the time he was busy meeting as many fans as he could as well as digging through the dusty archives of Goodison Park in search of the things every CEO wants to know. I asked him for a taped interview and he promised he would as soon as he settled in. A couple of weeks ago I asked if we could schedule the interview at his convenience. So I found myself in his office at 4.00 pm prompt on Tuesday, 21st December 2004, the day after expiry of the exclusivity period granted to Fortress Sports Fund.

Hereunder is a verbatim transcript. It has suffered only the tiniest of amendment to make some statements clearer or to omit repetition.

I encourage readers to make up their own minds and ignore gossip.

Here it is:

Question: I hope you’ve settled in now, Keith, and you know the full financial background in the club, and of course that was always a big concern for everybody. Do you feel there is anything further that you need to know about the financial side? Are you fully au fait with it now, including the history of things?

Answer: Yes, I feel I’m very much up to speed. Obviously you have to learn from the past but I am well up to speed on the problems.

Q: I wasn’t thinking so much of you being “up to speed” – I took that for granted – more that the financial history of the club is fully available to you and in your head, that there have been no surprises.

A: No, there’s nothing I anticipate now. I think we’re all aware as pointed out at the AGM that basically we’ve got the long-term debt, the £30 million deal we securitised. Apart from that there’s a working overdraft. That’s really the situation the club is in. That’s very, very good not only compared to where it was, but compared to where some other clubs are we’re in pretty good shape.

Q: In terms of yourself, your background and your past experience……….why did you end up in football?

A: Well, I’ve been a football fan all my life. Also, business-wise I’ve always been involved in leisure. From the start my career has been in leisure, in airlines and cruise lines. And then it developed from leisure into sport, which actually is not that big a jump, when I was involved with the Olympics. And then from there into football was not too hard.

Q: How did the Olympics come into your life?

A: I was asked to go down to be managing director for a major project down in Sydney. It was a test market for a new product that they wanted to start in the Olympic movement. I had some previous experience in that area when I was at British Airways and I was contacted to go down and head up the job.

Q: You don’t get much more pressured than the Olympic Games do you?

A: No. I think football politics is mild compared to the politics I encountered at the Olympics. Part of the reason was that particularly in Sydney there was only going to be one Olympics so everybody, sponsors and politicians, wanted their pound of flesh out of the event, whereas in football you have a long season. But it was a fascinating experience.

Q: Regarding the Everton job, how were you approached, and when? Were you headhunted?

A: The way I understood it came about – but you’d have to ask Bill more than me – I know that I’d been talked about in different football circles. These sorts of things usually tend to be personal recommendations and I know there were several people who put my name forward to Bill. And I know there were groups of headhunters who put my name forward as well. So it was a combination of factors I suppose.

Q: So from first to last when you first heard and when you were appointed how long did it all take?

A: Well, I think it was pretty much when it became clear to Bill that Trevor Birch was going to go, and then contact was made at that time.

Q: It didn’t leave you much time did it really?

A: There’s never any time in football. Things move pretty quickly when they move. It’s just part of the territory.

Q: What self imposed time limit have you set for achieving the commercial targets you set at the AGM?

A: We said it was a three-year plan for getting the turnover up to the mid-sixty million mark. I want to do it quicker than that. I think they’re all achievable in three years and if we’re very clever and work hard they are achievable within that time. But certainly within three years that is where we have to be.

Q: Since you’ve been here, and probably knowing that was going to be your target, have you seen anything that causes you to modify the idea it will take you three years?

A: No. Only that it might be shorter!

Q: So you are an optimist then?

A: No, I’m a pragmatist, a realist. But I’ve seen some quick things that we can do. I’m more comfortable than I was in terms of those targets being achieved.

Q: This thing about communication with the fans……………I know when we first met you said it was one of the things that greatly concerned you, and you’ve obviously taken steps since that time. For instance the “Fans Council” has been established – and I don’t know anything about the Council – so can you give an idea of its functions and how you deal with inevitable day-to-day gripes you get from fans everywhere?

A: The first thing is the Fans Council – or whatever name was used, whether it be “Fans Committee,” “Fans Parliament” or whatever name you want to put on it – is very useful for me if there is one identifiable body I can go to that represents a variety of fans interests. That doesn’t really exist at present. Even though we’re trying with the Council it doesn’t seem to have traction at the moment.

Q: Why do you think that is?

A: Because the very nature of football means there are disparate groups at every end of the spectrum. In football it’s very hard to reach consensus. It’s very hard to work together when there are such extreme opinions.

Q: Do you intend to limit it to the Fans Council?

A: No. I’ll work with whatever combination of fans groups there are to make this effective. But it would make it easier for me if there were a limited number. If we have to work with twenty or thirty it means communications will be poorer, though I’ll make an effort to deal with the number of groups as best I can. So it would be better if we had one identifiable body that did try to cover as much of the fans spectrum of interests as possible. An example would be the David France Collection. There’s no one body I can go to and say, “Look guys, this is what the problem is, this is what the opportunity is, how can we work together to try and solve this together?” So I had to open up to the whole fans base and in the end got about eighteen hundred responses and we have to work through those to try and get an opinion. It’s time consuming but it’s something we have to do.

Q: Are you saying there is room for improvement in the way the Fans Council is set up, the way it is run or the way it filters opinions through to you?

A: I think in all those things. And I think there’s room for improvement on our side in the way we communicate. Everybody has to look at themselves.

Q: How often do you meet them and talk things through?

A: This next year I plan to get out to every major supporters club I can. We’re trying to get appointments set up for them right now. I’ll be meeting either indvidual fans or individual fans groups again as often as I can. Right now I make myself available for all the different websites and those situations. It’s up to me to try now and gauge who I can meet on a regular basis. That’s what makes it so difficult. I have to try and see everybody. But I can’t see any other way forward until we have it sorted out.

Q: Have you set yourself a time limit on that?

A: No. We’re looking to see if there’s anything we can learn from other clubs. I think a lot of it is going to be whether we choose to go with the internet or not or different ways of a communications pyramid. That’s how we’re going to have work.

Q: The thing is, though the internet is very popular in this country not everybody has a computer and it’s how you divide between the two isn’t it?

A: Yes, there are a lot of fans that don’t have access, so we have to be clear there are other ways besides that to communicate. Whether it means I have to hold more regular fans forums, and then do we do it on Saturday mornings before games to allow people who are traveling to come in. It’s a very tough one, and every club is the same. And you know fifty percent will say Yes and fifty percent will say No to any subject going. You can never keep all the people happy all the time. I think if you start from that point of reality then you have a chance of succeeding.

Q: Well, that brings me very neatly onto this emotional subject of the stadium. I have divided it into three elements. The first one is the groundshare. What is the current status of that? You said at the AGM that you would give yourself two weeks to eventually say yay or nay. We are at two weeks now. What’s the situation?

A: I have another meeting this week with the group to go through one more meeting………………

Q: Which group is that?

A: …………..This is the group that met with the Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn. That is the group from within Liverpool, and includes the city and other interested parties. And we will go through it once again to see if there’s anything feasible for that particular site.

Q: So what is the time scale now?

A: We’ve always said by the end of the year.

Q: And it will be definite one way or the other then?

A: Unless there’s some dramatic movement from the government I think as we said we’ll have to come to some conclusion then. It’s in everyone’s interests to get it resolved one way or the other.

Q: In the interests of the fans, because it is an emotional subject this, whether we like it or not – for instance I’m in favour of the idea in principle but not this scheme – whose initiative was it for a groundshare to come up for discussion between the clubs?

A: This pre-dates me, so it would be unfair of me to comment on who spoke to who first. I just don’t know.

Q: Well, that will be crucial. The reason I ask you that is that my information is the initiative wasn’t from Everton Football Club, it was from outside the club. And if that is the case I think the fans ought to know, especially if it goes ahead. Because it is obvious what will happen if it DOES go ahead: one of the biggest emotional backlashes you’re going to get on this kind of thing. Therefore, I’m sure the PR side will be very carefully considered by everybody to make sure Evertonians don’t feel like second-class citizens in this.

The second element is Goodison, and the possibility or otherwise of redevelopment. Now you have said something (at the AGM) that seems to me to be self evident, or – sorry – you have implied this, that the existing site footprint isn’t big enough. Now I have said in my opinion that the footprint ISN’T big enough. It is far too narrow across the width of the site. How do you feel about that now? Is that the case?

A: Yes, I think without doubt the footprint would have to be expanded in some way for us to do a sensible redevelopment if we were to stay in this area. It’s something I am putting a lot of attention to in terms of the feasibility of that, and looking at what can be done. We are starting to get some clever ideas now in possible supporting income streams.

Q: Are the city council supporting you in that?

A: Well, we’re just at the start of that conversation, or renewing that conversation.

Q: Many fans have a view – and I don’t share it – that the council is anti-Everton. I don’t take that view. It’s got nothing to do with politics. I think it’s just the way the situation has developed.

A: There are key constraints with every single planning situation. They are all different. You’re right. You can’t just say, “Because Liverpool got that, we ought to get this.” The answer is never that simple. Homes and businesses all have a stake. There are a lot of things to be considered.

Q: The most famous example of course was the two old ladies at Anfield who held up construction of a stand for some years. And that could very easily happen here if we go down that road.

Sticking with this subject, one thing that concerns a lot of Evertonians is the timber construction in the Bullens Road stand and elements of that also in the Gwladys Street stand. What is the position with the issue of a HSE safety certificate for the structures?

A: The safety certificate has been granted.

Q: When is it next due for renewal?

A: It has to be renewed every season. It’s something I am very mindful of, of course. Obviously it has been renewed every year so far but there’ll come a time when it will be a serious question mark.

There are a lot of things beginning to coincide, which lead us to the conclusion that something will have to be done either here or on a new site. It’s inescapable for everybody. It has been coming for a long time. It’s just a question of whether it will be done here or elsewhere.

Q: The problem with this is time, and the fact that the club needs money desperately. When you talked about this previously (at the AGM) you mentioned short-term proposals at the ground as existing. Have they become concrete or are you still thinking about them?

A: Not yet. I’m still waiting for some reports to come back on possible short-term improvements. Some are very innovative and will use the space we’ve already got. Provided they pay themselves back over a two or three years period then we’ll go ahead.

Q: Can you briefly describe what you are thinking of?

A: I’m not going to get into it just now, Mike. No, otherwise than it is particularly innovative, I don’t want to open up a can of worms.

Q: Third and finally, the idea of a new stadium. You have mentioned you are looking at a site. We know from previous years it has been said the club has looked at as many as twelve sites around the city. Where do we stand on that now?

A: Well, there are three major factors when you say you are going to look at a stadium on any new site. One is, does the site give you what we call planning gain? In terms of, can you put in Asdas, Tescos, residential homes, sporting situations etc? Secondly, will there be any central or local government funding to help you with that? That’s key on location in terms of regeneration money or things like that. And thirdly, what will be the component of the club’s long term funding? So any site must meet those three requirements. Any exception in any of those three will delay the other two. I have yet to see the site that can do that. So we’re still looking.

Q: Whatever option happens with a new stadium, the sixty-four million or one hundred and twenty million question is: Where’s the money going to come from?

A: Obviously one thing we would be looking to do is to sell Goodison if we move. That would provide part of the funding in one of the three components I mentioned to you.

Q: That would get us fifteen million, tops, wouldn’t it?

A: But if you’re going to redevelop here you wouldn’t even get that. So that’s another factor you have to look at as well.

Where’s the money going to come from? Well, we’ve got some ideas. Actually, if you look at our financial case we’re better off than quite a few Premiership clubs. If we can carry on this prudent financial management I’m looking at and keep the growth going on the revenue side then we may be able to look to borrowing against bricks and mortar. The problem in the past is that we borrowed to spend on players. It’s best to borrow…………………………

Q: …………………Well, it’s Catch-22 isn’t it?……………..

A: …………………It is Catch-22, but right now securitisation should be on investing in an asset that is revenue-producing…………………………

Q: ………………And the problem with that of course is that almost anything you propose, you are talking about three years minimum before your new revenue streams start to flow…………….

A: Yes, it’s quite a delicate balancing act. But we’re starting to see a way forward.

Q: So you have these three elements to consider all at once. You have the overall debt of the club, you have the new stadium issue (whatever option) and of course new players.

A: Yes, that’s why at the AGM I set aggressive revenue targets. But there does come a point with the existing stadium where we can’t go much further. And that’s where our problem will be. And meanwhile we have to give the manager the resources. We know we’ve got one of the best managers in the country just now, in the world in fact.

Q: Having looked at the figures on stadium issue, whichever option the club decides to go for, what kind of capacity would you be looking at? The numbers matter of course because they directly affect everything.

A: At this stage in my thoughts – and it is always a moving situation – I think fifty thousand would be the maximum we would be going to. That to me is the right number at the top end. As new ideas come in we may review that up or down, but I think that is our best aspiration just now.

Q: Wayne Rooney. The rumours that have done the rounds since the young man left have been phenomenal. Can we tackle the reason he went? Now, can we tackle the first allegation that was made, that he was “forced out” so the club could get the money to help pay off the debt? What is your response to that?

A: I don’t know because I wasn’t here.

Q: Well that takes care of that one, then!

A: I’m also a post-balance sheet event. I arrived after the whole deal was done.

Q: Well there’s no point following that one up either!

A: Seriously, it would be unfair for me to comment without knowing the ins and outs of it. All I’m going on is second and third hand information as well. So, I don’t know.

Q: Okay. The David France Collection. Is the club going to buy it or not?

A: What the situation is at present is that I had meetings this morning with lawyers to see what would be the correct way to establish an independent body that would actually own the collection. The club is prepared to contribute some money toward the collection. We’ve got one other group that is also prepared to contribute a significant amount, and we’ll probably be coming back to other fans groups with a campaign to raise the balance. And that would be the way for this going forward.

Q: So the club will not buy it outright?

A: No. I don’t think it’s right for the club to do that. I think it’s right for an independent body to do it. What we are considering is whether the club will contribute its own memorabilia collection to the independent body as well. Then we will have the best collection in the world of any club. What we do with it then is the big question.

I want the fans to understand it can be a millstone around your neck if you aren’t careful. I was involved when I was up in Scotland with the SFA Museum, and it became a huge loss maker every year. After the euphoria of having it open, everyone was happy to have it closed as quickly as possible because it wasn’t used. People might come to it once a year, if that. And yes it’s great to have it for your grandkids but you have to be realistic about it. So this independent group has to find clever ways of not only giving the fans access to it, but maybe limit it to exhibitions of some description maybe twice a year. Also the commerciality of the collection, you have to find ways of carrying the significant costs of insurance, how we house the collection in controlled temperature rooms, security, all these things.

My first reaction was like everyone else – you know, we’ve got to have it. But then you start to think about the reality of what that means. This is the only way forward for us. We can’t leave it as a consistent overhead for the club. I think there’s a more creative way we can do this. And that is letting the fans have ownership of the whole structure.

Q: Have you agreed a price on it?

A: We have had a good conversation with David and I think we have reached agreement on what we’re going to be targeting. So we’re working on this vehicle for ownership and the club will be significantly contributing toward that.

Q: Has he agreed to postpone sale of the items?

A: Yes he has. We have now reached that verbal agreement.

Q: Again, what kind of timescale are you looking at here?

A: We have to have this resolved by the end of the season.

Q: Change of subject. Coming up here for the interview I had Radio Five on the car radio. They reported David Moyes as saying he wouldn’t be buying anybody in January, that the players he was interested in wouldn’t be available. Is that so?

A: If he was quoted accurately, that would be the manager’s decision. It would not be because we’re not giving him money.

Q: Well, you can see the road we are headed down here. In view of the events of the last few days, if David doesn’t get money in January against his wishes then you can guarantee someone somewhere will say this was a conspiracy all along.

A: Some people will say that regardless of the facts. And the facts are that David knows we will support him should he wish to operate in the market in the January “window.” It’s up to him whether he wishes to spend it in January or in the Summer.

Q: And presumably there are some players targeted?

A: No comments on that. Again, we’d prefer to go about our business quietly in the background and try to get on with it without saying anything or signalling any moves. Which is what I hope the fans would expect.

Q: Eleven players out of contract at season end. This projects serious consequences doesn’t it? Have you in your mind now what the likely approach to that situation is going to be?

A: Yes. We’ve discussed it with David and we know pretty much how we’re going to play that through. Again, the manager will make his final decisions as he sees fit.

Q: Change of subject again. The question of Fortress Sports Fund that has been exercising everybody this week. Where do we stand on that? Is the money in, or coming in, or what?

A: All I can say as of this afternoon is – raising money for a football club is a very difficult thing. Most clubs are trying to raise money now. As an example there have been several funding situations across the park that have not come to fruition this season. Bill has done everything in his power to make this happen. If there has been any delay it has been at their end. Nothing to do with us in terms of going forward.

Q: The exclusivity agreement went as of Monday. So where do Fortress Sports Fund stand now?

A: There isn’t a queue of people waiting to invest in the club. That’s the reality. It isn’t as though I can say, “Right, you’re time’s up. Now bring in the next one.” And I hope that’s what the fans realise.

We are still receiving very strong assurances from Fortress that the money is actively being transferred.

Q: But they said that at the AGM didn’t they, and that was two weeks ago?

A: Yes, but this is not a simple transaction when you are creating a fund like this. You have to go through all sorts of regulatory procedures. It isn’t like you and me transfering funds into a bank account.

Q: How many individual funders are there?

A: I don’t know what the actual number is.

Q: You see, one of the problems with this – and we’ll come to motivation in a moment – is the concern highlighted in reports like that in “Private Eye” edition no. 1117, 15th-28th October, in the “Slicker” column. It was a sardonic piece, and I choose my words very carefully. Here’s what they say about some of the names they have dug up:

“………….wealthy clients/associates about whom little is so far known except that they have the most colourful names you could not make up: Guy de la Tour du Pin, Patricia German-Ribon, Robert Steelhammer and the unforgettable Emily Willi.”

Do any of these names strike a chord with you in any way?

A: I think the important thing is that when the investment is made those questions will be answered by the Fortress Fund themselves as to what the make up of the investors will be.

Q: Then again, you can forgive the fans for being cynical about this, for this reason: Fortress Sports Fund is a Brunei-based offshore company. And of course offshore legislation has only been established in Brunei during the last year. So it looks frankly opportunist and nothing more than that. Which leads on to an obvious question: If they are pumping in as much as thirty million, what do they want for their money? They’re not philanthropists obviously so what will they get out of it? Where’s their profit?

A: As Chris Samuelson said at the AGM they are in it as long-term investors. What I do see is the chance to increase value in shareholdings as we improve as a club and the turnover of the business increases.

Q: So shares value first, you think?

A: I think that’s one area. I think more importantly why they’re a long-term investor instead of a short-term investor is they can see they have other types of high profile sports investment besides investment in a Premiership club. They can leverage off that in different sports to help create secondary services around those.

Q: Such as?

A: Well, there’s an insurance situation, possibly. I don’t know what their plans are long-term. I’m guessing. All I can say is what Chris Samuelson said at the AGM, that they’re in it for the long-term. And, again, if their investment comes through there will have to be an EGM and those questions will have to be asked.

Q: Obviously when they make their proposal they have to put some detail into it. How can you consider it? You would want to know all of this before the EGM wouldn’t you? So surely those questions are being asked now?

A: The first thing to establish is that the investment can come through. Any investor who is prepared to put money into the club – you would have asked Bill Kenwright and his group when they first invested in the club, “What are your intentions for the club?” and those questions are right to be asked at the right time. And I think it was only fair that Chris was at the AGM to give people a chance to ask him and I’m sure those questions will be asked even more intensely at the EGM. I can’t speak on his behalf.

Q: Again, this “Private Eye” article mentions here – and I think it’s a good point, though how it is followed up is another matter – that the Football Association might press for “full public disclosure.” Would you see any objection to that if they did?

A: I don’t see any problems at all with that, that there is a “fit and proper persons test.”

Q: Well, yes, but that’s not exactly the same thing is it? That is more or less a procedure that you have to satisfy anyway. The term that is used here I think is a good one: “full public disclosure” of everything related to it. Now, that would imply obviously the people who are putting the money in, not just whether they are suitable or not, but background knowledge of them. For instance, those names I mentioned to you before, I mean they do give pause for thought. No one has ever heard of them. That is not to say that it is not okay, but it does give pause for thought, and it is in those areas I think the fans would be looking at it. There’s also this question – and I would like if you could, Keith, to be fairly clear on this – Chris Samuelson is an agent is he not? So he’s not putting any of HIS money into it…………….

A: ………….Correct……………That’s my understanding of it. I don’t know whether he is or not, but I don’t think he is.

Q: Okay. Now in that case, his background matters, and how much HE makes out of it matters too because he’s not in it as a philanthropist either, so he would be looking for a commission of some kind somewhere down the road. And obviously most fans would want full public disclosure on that too, as they did of Paul Stretford’s involvement in Wayne Rooney’s transfer. For which, according to the press, he got one-and-a-half million pounds. Now the reason I mention that is that it is something the fans are aware of, and the fans have become terribly cynical these days, nor is it fair to blame them is it?

A: Deals are done every day where commissions are paid in every single walk of life, in your business as well. People who go and find projects are paid a fee. We are in a particularly difficult sector to raise money. There is not a queue of people waiting outside Goodison waiting to come in and invest money in Everton Football Club.

Q: So, there are several things here. We don’t know the names of who is involved yet………………..

A: No. But those questions will be brought forward as to who the particular group of investors are at the time of their specific proposals.

Q: So these names in the “Private Eye” report…………..

A: ………….Oh “Private Eye”……………I don’t know if those are the present investors or not. At the time they put their proposals, those questions should be asked at that time.

Q: The club debt. The last figure that was mentioned was forty-two million, and that was before the Wayne Rooney transfer was taken into account. With your knowledge of the club’s finances now, how have the debts increased to that figure in the period since True Blue Holdings have held ownership of the club?

A: Well, it has been mainly on player acquistion. That’s where it has gone. That was all displayed quite accurately when I attended the EGM on that first night. That showed where the gap has been. We had been spending above our means.

Q: And that has now stopped? Because it had to, because there’s nothing left to “hock”?!

A: Yes.

Q: So the overall plan for repayment is based solely on the securitisation deal? And there’s nothing more we can borrow against, because the only other thing there is of course is selling players?

A: That’s one of our constraints, yes……….

Q: And that obviously is where the fans are concerned, because it’s the old adage whenever you speak to any fans from anywhere in the country, they say, “We’re not a selling club.” Whereas actually we know all clubs are selling clubs in reality. But it’s a question of whether that’s what you do to keep your head above water, because that relates directly to the Wayne Rooney transfer. Some people genuinely think he was sold to help clear the debt.

A: All I know is that it’s a system for keeping debt under better control. That’s a fact. We are now in a very manageable condition and it is my job to KEEP it in a manageable position going forward. As long as I’m here I am not going to allow it to get out of control the way it might have been before.

Q: In that case, during the January “transfer window” does that mean we would consider selling some players?

A: No. We still have funds available regardless of selling players or not. It’s purely David’s choice. We’re not asking him to do that, to finance bringing players in. We’ve discussed the numbers and he can operate or not as he chooses to. As I said, if he wants wait for the Summer it’s completely his perogative, or he can do it in January.

Q: Now one of the developments that has made your position particularly invidious – and I really don’t want to go down this road too long and too far for obvious reasons – but again, it’s something the fans want to know about – is the fact that the board is split. We’re all grown up so we have to deal with it de facto. How do you cope with this? Presumably you have two voices in your ear here, one from each faction, and that makes your position well nigh impossible?

A: As I said before, I think the politics of the Olympics are ten times worse than the politics of football. This happens in thousands of companies up and down the country every day. The fact that we are in football means there is a light shone on it more.

Q: There’s a world of difference between that, though, Keith, with great respect, and the fact that one of the directors has employed a PR firm to attack his own club! Which I frankly found astonishing.

A: It’s been one of my biggest disappointments the way some things have gone on. And I’ll be saying more about that in coming days.

Q: Would you know what Paul Gregg’s motive was for buying into Everton? In an interview with me a couple of years ago he said openly he knows nil about football. I never got a clear answer and since then of course the position has deteriorated considerably.

A: I don’t know. You’d have to ask Mr. Gregg that question again yourself.

Q: Are you satisfied with progress to date from your arrival? Is there anything else about the club’s affairs that makes you concerned?

A: I’m not unduly concerned about anything but there’s no time to lose in the areas I’m working on just now. It’s not rosy either. We are now in the execution phase. I have done my assessment. I have done the planning of where we want to get to. We are busy at setting these out to the staff in bite-sized pieces as to what the targets are and how we are going to get there. But over the next months it will be pretty crucial as to how we implement that change.and I get the right team organised to do that. Off the pitch I want to match David up in terms of the success he’s had on the pitch. If we get both parts of the club firing on all cylinders we can get back up where we belong.

Q: Do you forsee considerable admin changes? I presume that’s what you meant in day-to-day matters.

A: There certainly will be changes. Now I’ve had a chance to review how the club is functioning there will undoubtedly be changes. I’ve already had quite a few that have started. I think there will be more to come, yes.

Q: Okay. I think everybody at the AGM was delighted when you said the things you did. They were brutally honest but we figured that was required. And it must have hurt some people sitting on the top table. But that’s the way of life. That said, what future vision do you have? Apart from the commercial targets, where do you see this club standing? You’ve examined the fans base, you’ve looked at the figures, you’ve made your own projections. Where do you see the club standing in, say, five years?

A: Well, there are any number of measures we can look at but we must never forget that we are a football club first and foremost. As I said at the AGM, within three years I want us to be a consistent top ten finisher. Within five years we’ve got to be a consistent top six finisher. If we do that, we have to have years of exceptional performance. If we looked over a five to ten years period and we could get to top ten and then top six I think most of the fans would be pretty happy with that. Those are the targets we have set. The bar is getting raised in Premier League football as other clubs also keep improving themselves. But I think we’ve got a chance to do that and that’s what I’ve set my target for. I think most of the fans would be happy with that.

Q: What is your view of the Premiership itself? You know it is despised openly by a lot of the fans in much the same way the G14 Group is. Both of them are looked upon as cartels, whereas the game developed in this country as a community sport. Now, obviously it has to make its compromises with business requirements. So what is your view of the Premiership and the G14 Group?

A: I was quite heavily involved with the politics in Scotland to the extent where I was one of the leaders of the rebellion where ten clubs actually resigned from the Premier League against the actions of the Old Firm. We actually forced a fairer split of the TV money. That was the main issue we were looking at as well as some voting issues. So I’ve actually shown my colours on it in terms of looking for greater equity in the set up of the game. I think we’ve got to go toward that route of greater fairness in distribution of income. It is getting too polarised. That could be the biggest downfall for the whole situation. Uncertainty of outcome is the biggest thing any league must have. You can’t go to games and expect one team to win and know they’re going to win every week. Fans want to see uncertainty of outcome when they go to any game. We’ve got to protect that. And I’m certainly going to be fairly vocal in the Premier League on those sorts of issues.

Q: Would you like to see a return to a single league of four divisions, possibly the fourth on a regional basis or even on a part-time basis?

A: I haven’t had the chance to take a view on that yet, Mike. I’ve only attended one Premiership board meeting so far. And I’m only starting to get to grips with the whole politics of the Premier League and the whole set-up of the FA etc. I’m forming some opinions pretty quickly but I’m not quite there yet.

Q: And the G14 Group?

A: It’s a self-interest issue, the G14. From their point of view you can see why they’re trying to do that in terms of them utilising their pressure. Us being on the outside with our nose pressed against the window, you tend not to think kindly of it. I wonder how we’d think if we were inside it. At present, I go for greater equity in the game and greater distribution on a fair and level playing field. Therefore, the G14 go against that in my opinion. That’s my philosophical point of view. The practical reality of it I haven’t had to face. But I tend to go for the view that the G14 is not a good thing.

Q: So you had a clash with the Old Firm in Scotland?

A: Oh yes. Big time. The ten clubs actually resigned from the Premier League.

Q: That must have loosened a few bowels.

A: It was a classic couple of months.

Q: With that in mind, then – and I know this goes off the beaten track – how do you view the prospect of the Old Firm joining the English Premiership?

A: It’s a different situation, different dynamics. In Scotland the Old Firm were the five hundred pound gorillas sitting on the doorstep of every other club in the league. I understand completely their point of view and how they were trying to perform in Europe. They had their own agendas to perform. They didn’t have the TV money Premiership clubs have. In the Premiership it is a different case. It’s not quite such a marked difference in performance. We can see now with us at the top end of the table, with our turnover and our resources we are nowhere near some of the big boys but we’re still performing quite well.

Okay, Keith. Thank you very much for your time. It has been kind of you, and compliments of the season.

Thank you, Mike. Same to you.

What Do You Think? e-mail info@bluekipper.com