Trivela Group statement re Joanna Byrne

[Jolly Red Giant]

Why did Drogheda appoint a sitting politician as their Chair though? What were they thinking? It's essentially a very public business taking sides politically - which usually comes back to bite you one way or the other.

As Nesta99 said they probably appointed her because they wanted a high profile local to make sure they got the fan base onside. Remember - Trivela are a 'sports investment company' (i.e. a hedge fund) - and they are in the business of making money and Drogheda Utd is a means to an end not an end in itself. Their business model is to develop players and sell them for as much as they can get.

Man Utd are a prime example of the consequences - The Glaziers bought it for about £800million - they then leveraged a debt of £1billion and took their own money back. This resulted in them owning the club, getting their money back and running up a big debt that costs about £40million per year in interest payments. They then sold about 1/4 of the club to Ratcilffe for £1.25billion - significantly padding their personal bank balance and indicating that they continue to own about £4billion worth of an asset. In 1994 the Gaziers bought the Tampa Bay Bucs for $192million. The Bucs are now worth about $5billion - last year the Bucs made $130million in profit.

Then you have sports-washing - using sporting outfits to wash the dirty actions of a company or country - with Man City and Newcastle being recent examples (but it prevades all sports). This is a long way from the origins of these clubs - for example Man City were formed in Gorton in the 1880s to combat gang-violence and poverty - to give kids something to do when unemployed rather than engage in criminality.

Up until the 1980s when clubs were owned by individuals it tended to be local businessmen (or very occasionally women), many of whom were fans of the club and the clubs were almost exclusively dependent on gate receipts. Man Utd from the 1950s until the 1980s were owned by Louis Edwards, a local meat-packing businessman who employed 1,300 people in Manchester - and father of Martin Edwards who later sold his shares in the club over a period of about 20 years for about £100million (a percentage of which were bought by JP McManus and John Magnier). Particularly with smaller clubs - local fan pressure could have a significant impact and when the owners ******-up or engaged in outright fraud, the fans could act and keep the club afloat. That is now extremely difficult outside of smaller countries because of the amount of money needed.

When the money began to flood in with the Sky deal in the early 1990s everything went skewed - effectively turning soccer globally from something that existed for the fans into a cash-cow for extremely wealthy individuals (I think only two of the twenty owners in the PL are not billionaires - or countries who have pumped billions into the club for sports-washing purposes). We can see how skewed things can get when Shamrock Rovers and Shelbourne can get €125,000 for being LoI champions, yet Rovers, Shels and Pats took in a combined €10million from Europe - an amount of money that completely skews the competitiveness of the LoI.

Now - all of that was to lead up to how you address the fact that an American hedge fund is dictating what a local fan of a club can say - and the only answer is fan-ownership of football. That way the fans dictate (at least somewhat) as to what happens to their club.

[Nesta99]

While we all seek growth and financial security, In a way, being a small impoverished league has given fans significant influence. As JGG mentions, a lot of football has little to do with football these days but as LoI fans we still have to be listened to for as much as we think we often dont. By and large, if owners were to lose support of a total fanbase in our league they are forced to act. That could be walking away from debt but certainly in more recent times we tend to be able to scramble to keep something going. Even Athlone now look to have turned a corner. So limited resources may be frustrating but maybe there is a case for appreciating what we have too.

I dont agree entirely with the fan owned solution. Hybrids are the ideal, Shamrock Rovers have fallen in to the sh1t and come out smelling of some slightly less stink - a hybrid model after selling their soul to cover debt but with an agreement from non fan shareholder not to erode supporters shareholding by some ransom situation, fans would have to vote to change the model. But Corks efforts failed because fans can be inclined to gamble for success rather than remain disciplined. Bohs get a lot of credit here, they havent broken themselves chasing a rival and have still managed to build their base. Scale is relevant, I dont think Dundalk could be successfully fan owned, even a large town is too small to be competitive consistently so investment is needed - especially with creaking infrastructure. Attitude or entitlement can hold things back, there are some in Dundalk that think they should be paid to be supporters. Harps fans seem the opposite to this, self deprecating at times but coming from a low bar almost forgotten. Derry are showing that even a sugar daddy isnt an automatic route to success, eventually it has to come together with a bottomless pit of money but having never won a league is madness for a club of their stature.

Maybe Im a fan of low moral compass but in general I dont like clubs being used as a means to express political opinion. Or at least let there be consistency - why let clubs be purchased by countries with questionable humans rights and then supporters fly flags of oppressed people. Why make assumptions about American owners and beat them with some political stick automatically. I dont know anyone who would want to carry an Israeli flag to a game but would it be allowed to happen*, could supporters express their support for the other side of the argument. I did allude to it previously but was it entirely Byrnes political background the absolute issue or was there some questions on governance or awareness of a blind eye shown to some supporters. Either way if you want the investment you may have to accept that the investors dont always align.

*Ive often wondered whether Dundalk would have received the same substantial fine after a Palestinian flags on display at a European game as an Israeli one. There is one flag that has been displayed in Oriel almost as long as I can remember with the Palestinian flag on it and thats fine by me in some double standard way, but if fans display flags at games knowing that it will be at significant cost to clubs that dont have whole lot in the first place, then that angers me. Which is well off point here but its a week off from LoI.