Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
AIn this case, should I say that British football has a security problem regarding club ownership? In the various washing machines of petrostates, financial institutions, odd businessmen and celebrities who control the ropes of the “beautiful game” in the UK, the billionaire owner of West Ham United David Sullivan did not seem out of place. At the end of his tenure, West Ham fans hated him. But although they had their reasons and most of them were completely correct, they did not always seem to be compatible with his business practices or past history.
Football fans are nothing if they don’t change morally. They (maybe, for the sake of full disclosure, I should say “we”) don’t mind if there’s a cup or two that goes into the cabinet. While Sullivan’s recent decision to step down as owner of West Ham has been widely celebrated in east London, this is the latest reason for the club. relegated from the Premier League.
But West Ham’s problem may be a small problem for Sullivan. This Panorama investigation – a joint venture between the BBC and the Times newspaper and led by journalist Billy Kenber – is a frequently eye-popping story. But does it tell us much about David Sullivan?
There is no mention in this article about football or West Ham. It’s all historical and from the 1990s. Some would say that the documents confirm some of the things Sullivan has already said. A potted biography tells us that Sullivan made money in big entertainment. They owned brothels and produced pornographic films. He served a short prison term for “possession of the immoral money of prostitutes”. He once said: “Why have a sweet shop if you can’t eat a few sweets?” Whatever you think he means by that is correct. If he has been hiding, it has been exposed.
So this documentary finds itself in an odd place. Most of the disclosures are already in the public domain. Some of it doubles as a sad reminder of how bad many aspects of 90s media culture were. Sullivan owned Sport newspapers. The Sunday Sport had a habit of showing pictures of scantily clad schoolgirls along with the countdown to their 16th birthday (“Only 5 days to go!” yowls one splash) before publishing topless photos when the big day arrived.
When asked about this, former Sport team editor Nick Cracknell agrees. “It’s hard to say what was acceptable and socially acceptable 30 years ago.” Even so? Was this right for the people? Cracknell doesn’t want to be copied. He admitted, however, that it would not be appropriate now “because it is illegal”. Which, in itself, is interesting. That’s it, Nick? If there was any doubt that this was in line with Sullivan’s laws, it is revealed that Sullivan admitted that he once paid for sex with a girl believed to be “16 or 17” in the 1990s. Legal when they did it, but illegal now – it was illegal to pay for sex with 16- or 17-year-olds in 2003.
Fortunately, seven brave women have come forward to stand up for some of this. From Sacha and Anna, there is a sense of deception, a dedication to advancing sexual interests. From “Florence”, there is something very sinister. He visited Sullivan’s stately home to audition for modeling jobs. She was accompanied by her boyfriend but met Sullivan alone. He said: “If you let me pick you up, you’ll be one of my regular girlfriends. Later, Florence says, Sullivan insisted on having sex despite trying to make it clear that she didn’t want to sleep with him. Sullivan’s lawyers say her claims are unreasonable because of the structure of her house. At the time she didn’t go to the police because, in her words, “What’s the point? This is to say that it’s easy to think that Sullivan can quit. Pain and the passage of time have left Florence with embarrassing memories.
But in this story (which is a precious thing based on the film), nothing is hard to believe – despite the criticism of Sullivan, who says that he wants to accuse him. Florence is said to have been introduced to Sullivan by Tony Livesey, who was the editor-in-chief of Sport in the 90s. Livesey denies this. He also refuses to come and count Sullivan’s birthday. In fact, Livesey says that large parts of the book he wrote about this time on Sport were fabricated in order to make up for himself the horror stories of the press. Which is a sad behavior even if you cut it, but maybe it beats admitting guilt.
Livesey has been presenting on BBC Radio 5 Live for a decade and a half. Another success for the BBC’s recruitment team, then. The Football Association was informed of the history and subsequently launched a safeguards investigation. West Ham have made it clear that Sullivan resigned before the “historical” release and told The Times and Panorama that they could not comment on any allegations. So, in conclusion, this is a bold report that has every chance of going up against various brick walls. However, this does not mean that it is not important. If there’s one thing we can learn – from David Sullivan, from Tony Livesey, from Nick Cracknell and the football managers of this country – it’s that we need to demand better.
