James Shield's Sheffield United Column: Changing beliefs and shifting ideologies during troubling times

Not that one side is necessarily lying, although fake news and deceit can be powerful weapons in times of trouble. Rather, our sense of what is right and what is wrong are shaped by circumstances and experience. And, when the proverbial hits the fan, people’s beliefs become exceedingly entrenched.

I’ll give you an example, relating to something which is happening in the world right now. As governments across the globe fight a battle against an enemy no one can see, many, our own included, are introducing financial measures not dissimilar to ideas like universal incomes to try and stop the Covid-19 virus wrecking their economies. They have, for the most part, been broadly welcomed. Even though, unless there is a complete remodelling of our system, the worst off will inevitably pay a price further down the line.

Yet three months ago, many of those now championing Boris Johnson for rolling these policies out, were lambasting Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell for exploring the possibility of doing exactly the same thing. Those pining for the days of Thatcher reminded these supposedly ‘commie’ interlopers that, as their idol once said: “There’s no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families.” As communities rally around to help vulnerable people they’ve never even met struggle through the crisis, that speech has aged well, hasn’t it. Oh, and let’s not forget, junior doctors, now being hailed as NHS ‘heroes’, were being crucified - absolutely eviscerated by the right wing media - for daring to go on strike four years ago in protest about changes to their contracts. Some people like to pick and choose to suit. Certainly many of those rightly hailing their efforts now have very short memories. Very short and very selective, now they hope to benefit, indeed.

I was reminded about the notion that there’s no such thing as a ‘pure fact’ - one entirely free of theory or assumption - earlier his week when the skirmish between Sheffield United’s present and former owners sparked-up again. Kevin McCabe, HRH Prince Abdullah bin Musa’ad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s predecessor and, until their relationship deteriorated beyond repair, business partner at Bramall Lane, released a statement detailing his intention to continue investing in the region despite losing control of the club six months ago following a High Court scrap between the pair. In it, there was a paragraph confirming an agreement, reached in principle, for Prince Abdullah to purchase property interests including United’s home stadium from one of McCabe’s companies, had broken down. In September, when he handed Prince Abdullah the keys to the club, Mr Justice Fancourt set a July 1 deadline for this transaction to be processed or the price would be decided at arbitration.

When United’s hierarchy responded with a statement of their own, claiming that McCabe had demanded more money at the last moment and that SUL - the vehicle he used to control his shares in them - had set its price for the ground “on the assumption that SUFC leaves Bramall Lane with the site being developed for residential housing”, it inevitably sparked a furore among many supporters.

This could be one tool the person responsible for eventually deciding the site’s value uses, of course. But even if it is, that doesn’t mean United will then be required to move. Rather, it would simply be a way of helping decide the land’s worth. Not what McCabe wants for it or Prince Abdullah is prepared to pay.

The two men, as became apparent during the recent hearing in London, now see eye to eye on very little. Both have very different ideas about how United should be governed and what is its best interests. Both also, I suspect, have United’s best interests at heart and clearly believe they are in the right. In the past, and in very different ways, both have also done great things for this famous footballing institution. They’ve also done some not so great things too but, as Senator Johnson’s compatriot Frank Sinatra once said: “That’s life.”

So one hopes, in a decade or so’s time when neither might be involved anymore, that we can reach a point where the contributions of both are appreciated and recognised. Because what constitutes ‘the truth’ changes from person to person. And, as we have been reminded in recent weeks, from time to time.