This is really a bit of a digression, but I felt that something needed to be said about the club's involvement with New Labour when it was in the Premier League. I am not saying that it was a right or wrong policy, something I can say with confidence as both the Labour and Conservative Governments were interested in my input. Indeed, I still recall an event at No.10 after I had chaired a commission on elected mayors when Dave Cameron, Bozza and Hezza had a ding dong.
.jpg)
The most interesting part of Charlton's engagement with New Labour may not be known until papers are released under the 30 year rule (future historians should look at the FCO papers), but for now I thought I would reproduce part of an article I wrote on football for British Politics.
Before doing so, I would like to insert a quote from Rick Everitt on Twitter: 'Hard to make a case that Charlton’s thin connection with Iran distracted the club given the team’s highest Premier League finish was in 2003/04. Bagheri was long gone. A better argument is that later regimes have hidden their incompetence behind a wider agenda or tried to do so.'
It's a valid point, although just how thin the connection was is one of the issues. These blog posts are very much a first draft of history and I would like someone with the inside knowledge and contacts to write an authoritative account of the club's history since the departure of Curbs.'
Charlton Athletic is taken here as an example of the politics of cooption and engagement, describing itself as ‘more than just a football club.’ As Banks notes (2002, 192), ‘The pioneers of supporter activism were undoubtedly the supporters of Charlton Athletic.’ Cooption refers to strategies to involve fans in the agenda of the club, while engagement refers to efforts to relate to contemporary government policy agendas.
Cooption in the case of Charlton is exemplified by the device of a supporters’ director elected by season ticket holders, although after a process of screening candidates. However, a supporters’ director is only one voice on the board and is subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality. At best, they can act as an ombudsperson for fans, and could be seen by management as a way of conveying their perspective on issues to supporters.
Charlton Athletic has followed what amounts to a conscious strategy of engagement with New Labour policies, although the club would no doubt prefer to describe them as government policies. New Labour pursued ‘a desire to use mass sport as an instrument of social policy, notably as a way of combating social exclusion and promoting public health.’ (Moran, 2003, 89). It is no accident that the phrase ‘social inclusion’ appears four times in the club’s latest annual report, along with other buzz phrases such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘successful outputs’. (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 17-19).
The club has pursued a multi-level governance strategy at local, regional and national political levels. Activities such as providing football training for children in the school holidays are perceived as ‘an innovative way of meeting the Government’s social objectives and the new Respect Policy.’ (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 14).
Gordon Brown with Curbs
For its part the government has sent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Health Secretary ‘and a delegation from the Home Office to discuss how football and sport can improve community cohesion and lead to a healthier and safer environment.’ (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 17).
Unfortunately he chose Aston Viilla over Charlton
Add in a delegation from the Belgian Government and Prince William and the club can claim:
Such heavyweight and high profile visits have positioned the club and the
Community Trust as a highly imaginative pathfinder contribution that can be used
as an excellent model of best corporate social responsibility practice to roll out on a
much wider scale in the future. (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 13-14).
No comments:
Post a Comment