Recent events at Cardiff City have thrown up one of the perennial questions when it comes to fan engagement: how much should fan representatives comment on or be involved in, playing matters?
In late 2024, Cardiff’s Fan Advisory Board issued a statement concerning their worries about the playing side after a drawn out process concerning a new manager. It mirrors a similar incident when the Leeds United Supporter Advisory Board published criticism of the direction that on-pitch matters were taking in late 2023. Whilst I don’t propose to comment on the substance of either, the playing side has always been a disputed area when it comes to fan engagement, particularly of the formal, ‘structured’ kind – fans parliaments etc.
Even specifically where supporters’ trusts are concerned – at least during my time at Supporters Direct – the playing side was rarely something supporters’ trusts would comment on. In fact, it tends to be quite the opposite, and it wasn’t unusual for me to have to shoot down lazy assumptions from journalists and others about such fans merely wanting to be involved in picking the team, especially where ownership was concerned.
I can say without any hesitation that it was in fact almost always completely the opposite. One of the great traditions of supporters’ trusts – and I think fan representatives more widely in my experience – is that they often deeply respect – venerate even – managers and coaches, almost to a fault. Indeed, fans often take great issue with what they regard as a lack of respect from owners towards managers and coaching staff, often because of boards being too short-termist.
So why shouldn’t fan representatives be concerned if, for example, appointments seem to be made with unseemly haste, or what might be seen as a lack of process? Even if the specifics of an issue are not theirs by right to raise, if they are concerned why shouldn’t they raise the issue through the proper channels? I’m not advocating issuing a critical statement. Quite the opposite. And I am certainly not saying that they get to have a say in the appointment of a manager. The point is why should they not be able to legitimately express concern to the club if something looks like it might be going wrong? What matters to my mind is how they say it, to whom and where, and moreover, how the leadership of the club responds.
Does the club just say “It’s none of your business”, or is there what we might term ‘respectful listening’?
Does the club just say “It’s none of your business”, or is there what we might term ‘respectful listening’? One of the problems with being on the outside can be that you don’t know the process, the relationships at play, something that several senior officials at clubs have pointed out to me in response to me asking them their view on the subject. Managerial confidence can rest on the relationship between a manager/coach and a handful of board members or director of football with far greater insight than an FAB can ever hope to have. Indeed, even when I was on the board of the Dons Trust, despite only being a degree separated from the AFCW PLC (the club) board (and three of my fellow Dons Trust Board colleagues on it), I was a lifetime away from the realpolitik of the manager/board relationship, and quite rightly. As a personal preference I like to keep my managers in the box marked ‘do not touch!’
The point that I am making – and which those I asked also pointed to as critical – is whether there is an honest relationship between FAB & club where conversations are not out of bounds, even those outside the scope of legitimate interest. This is where the relationships matter between the parties: is there a culture of respect? Can, for example, the FAB chair raise something with the director responsible for fan engagement, the CEO or chair of the club without being told where to go?
Again, without commenting on the specific cases of Leeds and Cardiff, if the first instinct of the FAB is to release a statement rather than to pick up the phone to the chair of the board, I think that’s an indication that there might either be a structural (the rules don’t permit it) or a cultural (the FAB doesn’t feel like it can) reason that it isn’t doing that. It’s likely a combination of both, and the issue needs to be dealt with in the right way.
Big changes like Fan Advisory Boards take time to bed in, like major structural changes in other areas such as player development or the governance of coaching and management. Given we’ve had a lot of changes in fan engagement over recent years, and will see more over the coming months and years, we all need to get used to what used to be awkward discussions becoming the norm.
These approaches should really result in a relatively short and reassuring conversation that clears the issue up. I think that often they will – should – educate the FAB about something they didn’t know much about, or likewise, educate the club on something they didn’t understand so well about the FAB or fans, and maybe help the club communicate or even make better or more efficient decisions in future. I certainly don’t think that a conversation should scare anyone, and that it should be embraced on both sides. My hope is that it will take place within a healthy culture of discussion, dialogue, challenge and sometimes, change. After all, if it doesn’t, what’s the point?