There’s an odd story doing the rounds in the media today, one that stinks like a pair of underpants someone’s had on for a month.
It’s the one about Pedro Caixinha, Sevco’s alleged first choice to be manager, and his willingness to come to Ibrox.
According to reports he’s willing to walk away from a contract extension worth £2 million a year, to go to a distressed Scottish club, a move some think would be akin to putting his career on hold and others believe would be jeopardising it entirely.
One variation of this story goes even further than just his walking away from that huge salary; it has him being ready to pay £300,000 “out of his own pocket” to make the move happen. Now, a manager might well be willing to take a salary cut to move to a “bigger club” – and I would stipulate that the SPL is a more high profile environment that the Qatari league – but this would be the first time I’ve ever heard of someone writing a personal cheque to get there.
It’s one of those stories that makes you go, “Hold it … He’s doing what?”
In other words, it’s a transparent falsehood.
So what’s this story all about? What’s the nature of it? Where has it emerged from and what is the purpose of it? Why is the media running such an obvious fiction? What is it supposed to achieve? Furthermore, if you, like me, read that this morning and offered a disbelieving laugh, another question arises; if not for the likes of us, who are the intended audience of such outrageously poor journalism? Sevco fans? Perhaps, but not just them.
When I was in politics I spent a couple of weeks working side by side with a guy I’ll refer to as a “senior official” in the Labour Party.
He went on to serve in very high office.
For the time I was alongside him he showed me the ropes when it came to media analysis, and what he taught me was the basis for me later going on to do a degree in the subject. One of the things he drummed into me was the idea that sometimes a news story is intended for a specific audience, or a specific purpose, and not so much for general public consumption.
Certain stories are crafted in a way that sends a very clear message to select people or organisations, and the key to unravelling them is knowing the landscape.
So let’s think about it in these terms; who is this story trying to “reach”?
What groundwork is it laying for the future?
I think there are several possibilities.
First, it is clearly targeted at least partially at Sevco fans. You only need to look at their forums to see there is near universal disbelief that this is the leading candidate. The Scottish media’s attempt to cover his failings as a boss with nonsense about jet-skis and bullfighting has already been roundly mocked on this site, but they didn’t have any impact on the target audience in that case; the Sevco fans, who did their own research and were left wholly unimpressed.
Some have focussed on the fact he once worked for Celtic, and have questioned whether or not that should disqualify him for a role with their club; it’s nonsense, of course, but it reflects the depth of dissatisfaction with the idea.
There is also the issue of his lack of commitment to previous clubs; his average stay at one is a mere 20 months.
Today’s articles are clearly intended to smooth over some of those doubts, and what better way than to say the guy is so “committed” to the club that he’s willing to fund his own transfer? If you were daft enough that you were willing to swallow anything as long as it had a positive spin you might well buy into that kind of nonsense; at the very least, it blows some smoke and provides partial cover to prevent real scrutiny of those issues.
But this story has a dual purpose, and is intended for another audience entirely, and this is where we can speculate a little. The £300,000 is, curiously enough, what some quoted as the “break price” in his contract with his current employers. What a coincidence, eah?
This is money Sevco doesn’t have. That’s a plain and simple fact. Their current directors are said to be unimpressed by the idea of ponying up this kind of cash when they are already stumping up to keep on the lights, so that asks a question; if he’s the first choice, where’s the money coming from? How nice it would be if he was paying it himself. Imagine the scrutiny that could be avoided by such a move? Especially that of the South African tax man.
I’m not alleging that the money is coming from King here, I’m just saying that if it was this would be a good way of disguising that fact from people who might be monitoring what he does with his cash, as SARS are known to be.
But if you conclude that the other directors are raging at the way this guy has barely put his own hand in his pocket then it’s not unfair to conclude that it might be.
It’s also worth noting that Phil has suspicions of his own in this area; he has suggested today that there are people inside Ibrox who are concerned that the appointment of a new boss might give the previous management team and their legal people confidence that there’s enough cash in the coffers for some ring-fencing. Sevco, on the other hand, might well tell a court that there’s no cash to do so, and that an effort to force this could tip the club into administration.
If they didn’t have to pay compensation for their new boss that narrative is easier to support.
Sevco is a financial basket case. There clearly isn’t money either to ring-fence or to appoint this guy and a director of football, but needs must and these matters have become as pressing as the bills that have to be paid to keep on the lights. The money has to be found and there’s just no getting away from that simple fact or they might as well not bother to send out season ticket renewal forms in a couple of months, because they’ll hardly sell any.
Inaction has ceased to be an option, but if they get too ahead of themselves that means pleading poverty in front of a judge becomes harder to do down the road.
Pedro Caixinha is not going to pay Sevco for the privilege of becoming their boss; that is the stupidest, most ridiculous, media assertion I’ve read yet in the four weeks since Warburton was sacked. It is plainly fictitious, but there it was in the press this morning, as big and bold as you like, as if it was other than sheer nonsense.
You have to ask yourself what the purpose of that was.
Why is the media running such an obvious lie?
Who told them to do it?
What is the agenda?