Letter sent to Walsall FC 17/11/05
Roy Whalley,
Walsall Football Club Limited,
Bescot Stadium,
Bescot Crescent,
Walsall.
WS1 4SA.
17 November 2005.
Dear Mr Whalley,
Re: “Record bookings for Big Ron”, matchday
programme, 12/11/05
It is very
unfortunate that you have used the Walsall FC programme, in which we have no
right-of-reply, to castigate the Trust for its position on the booking of Ron
Atkinson. We also believe that certain statements made by you should be
retracted.
1.
You
state that we “accuse Big Ron of propagating racist views”, yet we never made
this point. We asked why Mr Atkinson had been invited and then asked whether
individuals who propagate racist views would be considered for future events.
You did not make this clear in your article and linked the two sub-questions without
showing the readers of the programme what we had actually asked. We believe the
booking of this individual is wrong because he has a history of making racist
comments, and your association with him demeans the Club’s community work. We
also feel that individuals who propagate racist views should not be invited to
the Club for future events. As shareholders we have the right to ask those two
questions.
2.
You
state that we have “sought maximum press coverage” for our view. However, each
year we email our AGM questions to the local print media. We have not contacted
local radio or the television media, nor have we contacted the press directly, although
we have been phoned by them for comment. Your statement is a complete
fabrication, and at worst is baseless innuendo.
3.
You
state that “so small are their membership numbers, I do not know how they can
claim to have a mandate to speak on behalf of Walsall Supporters.” As you know
we have never claimed a mandate to speak for anyone other than our members. This
is set out in our memoranda and articles, which were sent to you on 9 June 2000.
However, we are shareholders attending a company AGM. Whether we are
representative of the supporters of Walsall FC or not is irrelevant. We feel
that your statement deflects attention from our right as shareholders under
Company Law to ask the Board questions and is baseless innuendo.
4.
You
state that we have “come to the conclusion about Ron Atkinson based upon one
remark” yet you cite no source for this speculation. The Trust has asked you to
justify why he is an appropriate speaker for a Club that sits within such a
diverse community. This is based upon the following statements that he has
made.
·
During
the 1990 World Cup he made racist comments about a Cameroon player while covering
the England/Cameroon match for ITV. Atkinson said of the player that he
"didn't have a brain". His co-commentator, Brian Moore, tried to
correct him: "You mean a football brain, don't you, Ron?" Atkinson
said, "I'll only get in trouble if his mother is watching the game sitting
in a tree." ITV received an official complaint about this.
·
He
called Marcel Desailly "a fucking lazy thick nigger". This is a
disgraceful epithet given that the use of "nigger" continues to
resonate with its various connotations of "alien",
"inhuman", "sub-human", "animal" and
"dog", each of which are connected to slavery.
·
The
former Arsenal striker Ian Wright said in the Daily Mirror: "Every time I
see Ron Atkinson he is making the latest popular racist joke at me and I don’t
really want to hear that.”
·
Re:
Chinese women, he stated that “the Chinese people have the best contraception
in the world - but I can't understand why there's so many of them because their
women are so ugly."
Whether he made one such reference or many, we believe that
his involvement with the football Club sends the wrong message about how we
collectively root-out the cancer of racism in society. You state that Mr
Atkinson “made an injudicious remark”. We disagree – he made a disgraceful and
shameful remark. Dismissing anyone in the way that Mr Atkinson did rejects
their rights as a human being. That is why, as concerned shareholders, we asked
the question about his association with the football Club. Moreover, if this is
simply an injudicious remark, is that now a defence for making the same
statement on a match-day within the ground? How does the Club’s treatment of
racism within the stadium square with this booking? This was not simply ill-advised
or indiscreet, it was an appalling comment.
5.
You
argue that because every celebrity is flawed “are we supposed to ban them all?”
We asked the Board a broader question about how inviting him supports the Club’s
involvement in Kick It Out. We have raised the issue of racism in light of the
Kick It Out campaign, and have questioned the type of message that inviting Mr
Atkinson sends to the community of Walsall. In this context your argument is
irrelevant. Responding to Mr Atkinson’s statement about Chinese women, Kick It Out
has been quoted as saying: "This stuff is poisonous,
really. Essentially he really doesn't understand what he is doing in making
these comments. They are deeply offensive. He seems to be consistently
insulting about people because of their race. In this day and age you cannot
make jokes about race."
6.
As the Board knows, we are not seeking to “undermine the Club’s
commercial activities”. However, we are seeking to clarify whether they are
appropriate and why. This is something that we have done since our
incorporation in 2000. At every AGM we have asked you questions about your
commercial activities, in order to understand how the Club will be sustainable
in the long-term. As you are aware, we have contributed to the Club by sponsoring Ian Roper for
two seasons and holding a raffle in-part to support the Club’s youth
development work. How does this square with your claim that we are undermining
your work?
7.
You go
on to argue that our questions showed “a remarkable lack of knowledge about the
work being undertaken by the Club in the local community”. Yet the very first
question we asked focused upon the Club’s link-up with Sporting Khalsa both before
and during the season. We asked for more details of the strategies being
deployed, rather than the specific activities. Moreover, we are interested to
know how you are looking to measure success. We are entitled to ask this
question, and it does not demonstrate our ignorance of what you are actually
doing. We feel that you have misrepresented our question in your article by the
use of unsubstantiated generalisations. This is more disappointing because we
have previously praised your community work in an email of 2 September 2005 and
asked how you will disseminate the outcomes of Mick Kearns’ work. We received
no reply to the questions raised in this email, which places you in breach of
your Customer Charter (section 2.4).
8.
You
state that we threw “criticism and innuendo” at the Club. In fact, we asked you
a series of questions about the Club’s strategies for community and financial
progress. Again, we believe that you have misrepresented this in the programme
through the use of unsubstantiated criticism and innuendo.
For your information we have
contacted the national Kick It Out campaign and they are fully supportive of
our stance on this issue. They have stated: “You are asking the right questions
here, by all means cite us in supporting your case.” So we would also like a
written response stating how the
decision to invite Mr Atkinson is in-tune with the Club's involvement in the
'Kick Racism out of Football' campaign.
We would
therefore respectfully ask that you give us a right-to-reply in the programme, and
that, both within the next matchday programme and on your website, you:
·
acknowledge
that we have a right as shareholders to ask you questions on Club policy and
finances and that this does not constitute “criticism and innuendo”;
·
acknowledge
that we have a right under your customer charter to ask questions about Club
policy and finances;
·
acknowledge
the questions that we asked of you at the AGM, rather than your
misrepresentations;
·
acknowledge
that we do claim to represent the interests of our members and not those of all
Walsall FC supporters;
·
acknowledge
that Mr Atkinson has made more than one racist comment, and that it was on the
back of this history that we asked the question;
·
acknowledge
that Mr Atkinson did not make “an injudicious remark”, that he made a disgraceful
and shameful remark;
·
acknowledge
that the national Kick It Out campaign are fully-supportive of our stance on
this issue;
·
acknowledge
that we are not seking to “undermine the Club’s commercial activities”,
but that we are seking to clarify whether they are appropriate and why; and
·
acknowledge
that you have misrepresented our understanding of your community-work in your
article.
In-line
with the Club’s Customer Charter, and in particular sections 1.5 and 2.4, we
look forward to receiving your reply within 14 days.
Yours
sincerely,
Paul Giess,
Richard Hall, Neil Ravenscroft, David Roe, Ray Rowley, Phil Sturgess, Adam
Winnall
Trustees,
Walsall Supporters Trust