The Football Regulator

[W-S-M Seagull]

20 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Fans leading on football reform? As meaningful as asking the public their thoughts on EU membership.

Until fans are prepared to put their own monies where their unrealistic demands lead then its simply lip-service.  The biggest clubs, UEFA & FIFA won't reform unless the fans of those clubs boycott football. Parochial UK mentality ignores the likes of Manure having more 'supporters' in Asia than they do here in the UK. Save the chattering football classes dismiss these as 'not being proper (sic) supporters'. I haven't seen any proposal as to how overseas supporters are to be consulted, largely because that won't happen. It's not seen as significant despite it generating far greater revenues than punters through the turnstiles.

I think many misunderstood the super league idea. 

It wasn't a breakaway competition from domestic leagues. It was a replacement for the Champs league. Clubs would still play in their domestic leagues. It was an opportunity to break free from UEFA and their control but fans protested not knowing what they were protesting for and actually their protests were a show of support for UEFA.

[BTRFTG]

7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think many misunderstood the super league idea. 

It wasn't a breakaway competition from domestic leagues. It was a replacement for the Champs league. Clubs would still play in their domestic leagues. It was an opportunity to break free from UEFA and their control but fans protested not knowing what they were protesting for and actually their protests were a show of support for UEFA.

By participating in domestic leagues the 'elite' clubs confirmed they would still be bound by UEFA regulation, they just wanted their own league outside it (cake and eat it.)

The fundamental problem with regulation is firstly what they hell are they to regulate and how far does that power transfer down the pyramid? There's suggestion the regulator will have power to veto commercial deals and payments. Let's suppose this is challenged and the regulator loses, who picks up the tab? Who funds the regulator? Sure as hell shouldn't be the taxpayer but also, why should it be only a select few clubs?

I've yet to hear any cogent argument as to what it is fans demand regulating? 'Don't want unfit owners?' Lots of plastic Manure fans moan about the Glazers, some transferred allegiance to FC Manchester because of them, but I've never heard one of them suggest all Manure's records should be expunged given they were bought on the corrupt supply of condemned meat to schools, hospitals and care homes throughout the North West. Tad xenophobic perchance? Perm any of the clubs Ken Bates owned, funds trousered via illegal breaches of export controls to Rhodesia. Don't hear fans of clubs he kept afloat complaining. 'Keep Gambling out of football', the present 'woke' pariah. Unlike Scousers to be so two faced moaning about Coates and Stoke given their own successes were founded on Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters.

Fans need to be careful for that they wish. They prattle on about the excitement of the good old days, all of which worked despite corrupt ownership by local businessmen, awful facilities and players on decent, not life-changing, salaries. Horse has bolted but I, for one, wouldn't be bothered were we to return to those times, where players were truly part of the local community (not bussed in for photo shoots to suit,) where access, like wages, was cheap, where football was about 90 minutes on the park and sod all else. If fans really do think themselves custodians of their local clubs then they should do what they've always had opportunity to do snd that's front up and buy them. They won't, like they never did and allowing them their regulated pennyworth is a recipe for disaster.

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The fundamental problem with regulation is firstly what they hell are they to regulate and how far does that power transfer down the pyramid?

The Review very clearly states that it recommends regulation of the top 4 divisions, plus soft-touch regulation of the National League in order to smooth out regulatory issues when teams are promoted to/relegated from the EFL

It's also very clear that it would seek to regulate through the introduction of a licence, conditions of which would be inter alia governance, independence and diversity of board members, protection of heritage assets, the provision of financial information, and other similar matters.

Clubs will therefore have a degree of flexibility in how they comply with the license requirements. 

14 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

There's suggestion the regulator will have power to veto commercial deals and payments.

No, there is not. Nothing in the Review suggests that the regulator will have any power to veto a commercial deal made by a club.

The Review very clearly says "The proposed objectives for IREF would mean that it should not be responsible for matters related to commercial decisions of clubs or sporting matters such as the rules of the game. While it is a legitimate area of significant interest to fans, IREF should not set the level of ticket prices or merchandise prices. These are commercial decisions that clubs should be free to make. The system is only concerned with activity by clubs that presents a risk to sustainability of a club or the game or compromises IREF’s ability to meet its statutory objective."

The exception to this would presumably be where such a deal would cause the club to breach it's regulatory licence. Which is the entire point of regulation.

14 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Who funds the regulator? Sure as hell shouldn't be the taxpayer but also, why should it be only a select few clubs?

The Review recommends that the regulator be funded through licence fees, fines and penalties.

The White Paper in January will clearly answer these questions and will include a roadmap for the implementation of the required legislation.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

The Review very clearly states that it recommends regulation of the top 4 divisions, plus soft-touch regulation of the National League in order to smooth out regulatory issues when teams are promoted to/relegated from the EFL

It's also very clear that it would seek to regulate through the introduction of a licence, conditions of which would be inter alia governance, independence and diversity of board members, protection of heritage assets, the provision of financial information, and other similar matters.

Clubs will therefore have a degree of flexibility in how they comply with the license requirements. 

No, there is not. Nothing in the Review suggests that the regulator will have any power to veto a commercial deal made by a club.

The Review very clearly says "The proposed objectives for IREF would mean that it should not be responsible for matters related to commercial decisions of clubs or sporting matters such as the rules of the game. While it is a legitimate area of significant interest to fans, IREF should not set the level of ticket prices or merchandise prices. These are commercial decisions that clubs should be free to make. The system is only concerned with activity by clubs that presents a risk to sustainability of a club or the game or compromises IREF’s ability to meet its statutory objective."

The exception to this would presumably be where such a deal would cause the club to breach it's regulatory licence. Which is the entire point of regulation.

The Review recommends that the regulator be funded through licence fees, fines and penalties.

The White Paper in January will clearly answer these questions and will include a roadmap for the implementation of the required legislation.

Every proposal I've seen suggests the regulator's first task will be to ensure a 'more equitable' (sic)  transfer of monies from Premier to EFL. If that isn't commercial interference, what is? As for promotion/relegation between leagues, what's the issue as there doesn't appear to be one now save for restrictions on quality of facilities and that really isn't an issue.  Clubs already are able to sort that for themselves and the pre-requisite requirements are there in the best interests of supporters and competitions played. Clubs go up and down, as they always have.

'Independence' of board members, from whom? If I want a say in appointing a board member elsewhere I first need to be a shareholder. Why should football be any different? Why should somebody without material say in a club, whose monies aren't at risk, dictate who runs the company? As for diversity, give me a break. If directors had to own 5% of stock for a place on the board many would rightly argue that precludes most the 'box tickers' would demand be attracted. But why should somebody be provided a seat on a board simply because of their gender, ethnicity, age or sexual preference, rather than merit or depth of pocket? If my club needs money to survive I want the latter on board not somebody potless who ticks Channel Four's boxes.

Heritage Assets, what they? Shall all clubs revert to their original names, colours, ground name, epithet? Where does one draw the line? Look at how farcical asking fans what club crest they'd like on a shirt becomes. Multiply by a thousand. Fans already have shown they ultimately hold all the power. Don't like the kit, don't buy it. Don't like the stadium rebrand, ignore it. Owners and sponsors quickly catch on.

What's the issue with the provision of financial information now, other than the football authorities should mandate punishment for when it isn't provided, without exception?

So the regulator is to be funded by licences, fines and penalties. In fairness one assumes that's a common licence fee such all clubs pay the same for an equal supposed benefit?  It won't be. You also can't operate a regulator on income for non-compliance as such income isn't guaranteed (I should know having delivered a financial operating model for one such regulator.) So clubs are to be financially penalised to fund a body that may seek to resolve issues that aren't there or only exist in the minds of some who like to create them. Doesn't sound much like progress to me. Rather a sledgehammer to crack the nutcases who think they have inalienable rights (sic) over that they do not.  Provided, that is, they come at cost to others and never themselves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

"The system is only concerned with activity by clubs that presents a risk to sustainability of a club or the game or compromises IREF’s ability to meet its statutory objective."

The bit or a bit that interests me.

For example, Stoke decide to drop £50m on transfers courtesy of their Bet365 backers- to what extent could, might the regulator step in?

Where does the expenditure of a club on new signings become a point where it presents a risk to sustainability of the game? I choose Stoke as their fans seem quite bullish about ability to spend more next season- at what point does one club spending start to destabilise the market at our level.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Tinmans Love Child]

I work in Internal Audit within financial services so am very familiar with the FCA approach to oversight and governance, so these proposals certainly look interesting. For me it's mind boggling that Football Clubs are pretty much subject to no real financial regulation despite how much money is pumping in and out of even small clubs so all good ideas.  I think my ideal job within IA will be with this new body and I get to travel to all the football clubs to audit them!

[ExiledAjax]

Ok, so the place I come from is that football is an industry unlike any other for two main reasons.

Firstly football is an industry in which you cannot buy out your competitors, and you do not 'win' if your competitors all cease to exist. Football, as with other league sports, is an industry in which sustainable competition is the only way in which your club, or if you are the owner your company, continues to improve and grow. Even the top clubs benefit from lower league clubs scouting and developing young talent that they then buy at a later stage. Thus, it is in the interest of every football club to have a balance between competing with their rivals, and ensuring that their rivals are sustainable. Currently there is clearly not enough support coming from the monied top of the pyramid to the more modest clubs below. Assets and talent are being concentrated at the top, and we are seeing an increase in clubs lower down the pyramid seriously struggling to survive.

Secondly football clubs are businesses that have a fixed geographical and community tie. They cannot move location and satisfy their fans - just look at MK Dons/Wimbledon for evidence of that. When they die, a part of that city or town dies as well. A part of the fabric of the nation dies. Call that sentimental if you like, but I believe that sentimentality has a place in our world if it is for the preservation of culturally and historically important assets that are crucial to the happiness and wellbeing of many communities. As such fans are key stakeholders in their clubs, but currently very rarely have any legal representation or say in the management or running of said club.

You say that fans should only have a legal say if they put their money in. Firstly, I disagree, and secondly, many fans spend thousands of pounds each year, often representing a significant percentage of their income, on following their club. Just because they do not receive any equity securities in the club in return does not make them any less important. As an aside, I would like fans to receive equity securities as part of their season ticket, but that is a different discussion.

On 12/12/2022 at 19:10, BTRFTG said:

'Independence' of board members, from whom?

Independent from the shareholders. This is a common requirement in other regulated industries such as the financial markets, where companies listed on the stock exchange must have a certain number of non-executive directors independent of the shareholders. Take our own club, currently the directors of the holding company are Jon Lansdown and Gavin Marshall. Respectively the shareholder's son and mate. Now they may do very well in fulfilling their duty as directors to run the business in the interests of the shareholders, but they have no legal duty to act in the interests of the fans - who are also key stakeholders.

As to your complaints about diversity - this is not about appointing a black, one-armed, gay dwarf to the board of every football club. It is explicitly about clubs "...recruit[ing] and engag[ing] people with appropriate diversity, independence, skills, experience and knowledge to take effective decisions that further the organisation’s goals". So it's more than box-ticking and it is not about pleasing Guardianistas and Channel 4 - it is exactly about what you mention - merit and competence. Why do we not have an ex-player as a non-executive director on the board of our club? The women's team does have this, but the men's team company and the holding company does not. Is there really no fan who has the expertise and time to act as a NED? I say there is, but our owner wants 100% control over the company, and is scared of challengers and alternate views.

On 12/12/2022 at 19:10, BTRFTG said:

As for promotion/relegation between leagues, what's the issue as there doesn't appear to be one now save for restrictions on quality of facilities and that really isn't an issue. 

Agreed, the regulator would not be concerned with facilities as those are already taken care of. This is about the level of regulation that each club is subject to as it progresses up the leagues. The proposal is that there would three tiers of licence. An A Licence would apply to clubs in the Premier League and Championship, a B Licence to League 1 and 2, and a C Licence to those in the top division of the National League. The Review clearly states that the concept here is that:

"...clubs will be required to improve their governance as they progress up divisions. In order to avoid placing an undue burden upon clubs in the often short period between promotion being achieved and a new season, an appropriate transition period should be allowed for clubs as they progress. However, once a club is operating at a higher tier of governance the burden of continued compliance is minimal. It is therefore recommended that the requirements operate with a ‘ratchet’, in that once a club complies with a higher governance tier they should continue to be required to operate at that tier regardless of the division in which they play."

On 12/12/2022 at 19:10, BTRFTG said:

Heritage Assets, what they?

Again, this is clearly set out in the Review, and will no doubt be addressed in the White Paper. Go and read it.

Also, look at Brentford and their new stadium for a clear example of how legal protections around heritage assets do not necessarily preclude ownership from making commercial decisions.

On 12/12/2022 at 19:10, BTRFTG said:

What's the issue with the provision of financial information now, other than the football authorities should mandate punishment for when it isn't provided, without exception?

I defer to my learned friend @Mr Popodopolous who could perhaps summarise the current issues with the provision of financial information and enforcement.

Ultimately you clearly agree with some at the Premier League that the Companies Act, related common law and statute is sufficient to allow football to regulate itself within that framework. I personally very strongly disagree with that because I think football clubs are important and that a standard Ltd company does not sufficiently allow all stakeholders to partake in their management and governance.

Edited December 16, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[BTRFTG]

On 16/12/2022 at 11:51, ExiledAjax said:

Ok, so the place I come from is that football is an industry unlike any other for two main reasons.

Firstly football is an industry in which you cannot buy out your competitors, and you do not 'win' if your competitors all cease to exist. Football, as with other league sports, is an industry in which sustainable competition is the only way in which your club, or if you are the owner your company, continues to improve and grow. Even the top clubs benefit from lower league clubs scouting and developing young talent that they then buy at a later stage. Thus, it is in the interest of every football club to have a balance between competing with their rivals, and ensuring that their rivals are sustainable. Currently there is clearly not enough support coming from the monied top of the pyramid to the more modest clubs below. Assets and talent are being concentrated at the top, and we are seeing an increase in clubs lower down the pyramid seriously struggling to survive.

Secondly football clubs are businesses that have a fixed geographical and community tie. They cannot move location and satisfy their fans - just look at MK Dons/Wimbledon for evidence of that. When they die, a part of that city or town dies as well. A part of the fabric of the nation dies. Call that sentimental if you like, but I believe that sentimentality has a place in our world if it is for the preservation of culturally and historically important assets that are crucial to the happiness and wellbeing of many communities. As such fans are key stakeholders in their clubs, but currently very rarely have any legal representation or say in the management or running of said club.

You say that fans should only have a legal say if they put their money in. Firstly, I disagree, and secondly, many fans spend thousands of pounds each year, often representing a significant percentage of their income, on following their club. Just because they do not receive any equity securities in the club in return does not make them any less important. As an aside, I would like fans to receive equity securities as part of their season ticket, but that is a different discussion.

Independent from the shareholders. This is a common requirement in other regulated industries such as the financial markets, where companies listed on the stock exchange must have a certain number of non-executive directors independent of the shareholders. Take our own club, currently the directors of the holding company are Jon Lansdown and Gavin Marshall. Respectively the shareholder's son and mate. Now they may do very well in fulfilling their duty as directors to run the business in the interests of the shareholders, but they have no legal duty to act in the interests of the fans - who are also key stakeholders.

As to your complaints about diversity - this is not about appointing a black, one-armed, gay dwarf to the board of every football club. It is explicitly about clubs "...recruit[ing] and engag[ing] people with appropriate diversity, independence, skills, experience and knowledge to take effective decisions that further the organisation’s goals". So it's more than box-ticking and it is not about pleasing Guardianistas and Channel 4 - it is exactly about what you mention - merit and competence. Why do we not have an ex-player as a non-executive director on the board of our club? The women's team does have this, but the men's team company and the holding company does not. Is there really no fan who has the expertise and time to act as a NED? I say there is, but our owner wants 100% control over the company, and is scared of challengers and alternate views.

Agreed, the regulator would not be concerned with facilities as those are already taken care of. This is about the level of regulation that each club is subject to as it progresses up the leagues. The proposal is that there would three tiers of licence. An A Licence would apply to clubs in the Premier League and Championship, a B Licence to League 1 and 2, and a C Licence to those in the top division of the National League. The Review clearly states that the concept here is that:

"...clubs will be required to improve their governance as they progress up divisions. In order to avoid placing an undue burden upon clubs in the often short period between promotion being achieved and a new season, an appropriate transition period should be allowed for clubs as they progress. However, once a club is operating at a higher tier of governance the burden of continued compliance is minimal. It is therefore recommended that the requirements operate with a ‘ratchet’, in that once a club complies with a higher governance tier they should continue to be required to operate at that tier regardless of the division in which they play."

Again, this is clearly set out in the Review, and will no doubt be addressed in the White Paper. Go and read it.

Also, look at Brentford and their new stadium for a clear example of how legal protections around heritage assets do not necessarily preclude ownership from making commercial decisions.

I defer to my learned friend @Mr Popodopolous who could perhaps summarise the current issues with the provision of financial information and enforcement.

Ultimately you clearly agree with some at the Premier League that the Companies Act, related common law and statute is sufficient to allow football to regulate itself within that framework. I personally very strongly disagree with that because I think football clubs are important and that a standard Ltd company does not sufficiently allow all stakeholders to partake in their management and governance.

Long post so I'll just highlight a few points of debate:

'Football is different as you can't buy out your competitors...' : Domestically with EPPP whilst one cannot buy a competing entity one may buy all the talented resource that might allow that entity to compete and through such starvation deplete competition. Matters not the uncompetitive entities themselves took monies to remove competition. Internationally, 'City Group' demonstates how international competition is made less competitive and how such advantage may he used to remove competition domestically. You later acknowledge this point suggesting 'big clubs' use 'smaller clubs' to source talent. Whilst they may do so under the present status quo, they don't need to.

Tangentially we're agreed on your second point about fixed geographic location, though I think you are incorrect in suggesting clubs or businesses forever hold fixed locations. As I highlighted, its fans who hold power and if they don't accept clubs/businesses moving, the name and reputation never relocates though the club/business might (says he forever a Cleveland Brown.) NB there are plenty of football clubs in existence who've crossed significant geographic Rubicons, two on my own doorstep in respect of Arsenal & Millwall. Should 'heritage' place them back from whence they came?

Independence: fans have/had an opportunity to put monies where their mouths are, but don't (see York City again this week.) If one demands a say in the legal running of an entity, in managing its risk and liability, in its legal operation, one MUST be prepared to underwrite that responsibility, IN FULL. Non-shareholding fans CHOOSE to pay to support their clubs, hence are important stakeholders. But those fans may walk away tomorrow, without care or liability and that costs them nothing, unlike those for whom the bills will still have to be paid. NB City fans cover less than 20% of annual running costs. In recent years fans of other clubs, though subscriptions, grants and transfer fees they've helped fund have contributed more to City than City's own supporters. What stakeholder value should they be assigned - greater than City's own fans?

In respect of diversity why should an ex-player be on the board? What might they know of business? There are plenty of examples of clubs who've successfully appointed ex-players to boards. Mostly they've been appointed having made something of themselves in business or political debate. They've been appointed on merit, not because they once played football. I forget the stats about the percentage of ex-pros going bankrupt once their careers are over, save its a very high number. Is it for the best those who can't run their own lives run clubs, or at least until bankruptcy disbars them? Should reglation mandate such folly? There are City fans who are already very successful, high-profile NEDs & board directors (I sit next to one such each week,) but you forget the problem with football is were they to bring their skills and acumen to the footballing boardroom their natural instinct, to protect shareholders, suppliers, and wider stakeholders, would be to pretty much shut up shop immediately. City exist because of the loophole that SL has agreed to lose £750k each week which football allows him to convert to stock and which, ultimately, will be written off. If he or his kind weren't in absolute control and were I appointed to City's board tomorrow, my first duty as director (as legally obligated,)  would be to push for the non-viable business to enter administration.

It's interesting you believe a supposed 'independent' regulator would have no commercial say, yet, de facto, the proposal to increase regulation the higher the licence holder's league status ( and with it turnover and capital resource,) appears at odds. If you took money out of the equation what footballing difference Man City and Bradford City? Wouldn't they be one and the same, historic clubs, fans, safety requirements et al? What is the additional regulation unless its linked to power generated from £ signs?

Heritage assets, still no suggestion as to what they are and when they should be baselined? Your Brentford example is interesting. As previous, I spent an entertaining afternoon with one of their board members (himself a very successful sports administrator, businessman, NED et al.) As he explained at the time (the ground was yet to be completed,) Brentford needed improved facilities to survive and were sitting on a valuable asset, prime for redevelopment with which the local authority were very supportive. Their problem, whilst they weren't against moving farther afield, was finding a site. Land, such as that they were selling, was at a premium and wasn't best placed to gain necessary permissions as residents (as City discovered,) don't want football stadia in their locale. Brentford ended up where they are because the searches conducted showed it was the only affordable plot of land with local planning support available. The Board themselves, like most casual observers, first concluded ' you'll never squeeze a stadium in there', then when shown one could it followed, 'but you'll never get crowds into and from that space safely.' It took several iterations to show what could be made to work, all of which were sub-optimal to what they wanted, but was the only option open to them. Heritage and location, as you define,  were chance benefits.

I've no issue with stakeholders being given statutory powers, provided they also accept statutory liabilities and undertakings. You can't have one without the other. Through regulation that isn't on the cards.

[ExiledAjax]

Long post again, so I'm just going to pick out a couple of points.

On 17/12/2022 at 13:22, BTRFTG said:

If one demands a say in the legal running of an entity, in managing its risk and liability, in its legal operation, one MUST be prepared to underwrite that responsibility, IN FULL.

Absolutely not. Millions of companies up and down the country, indeed around the world, have directors that are not shareholders. There is no legal requirement under the CA 2006 for a director to hold a single share in a company that they manage. It is absolutely feasible that a football club could, and indeed should, have a director who does not own shares in the company. Any fan, ex-pro, or other appointed director would naturally be subject to the same legal and fiduciary duties as a 'normal' director, and so they would have liability - so far as the corporate veil permits - for "liabilities and undertakings". As an aside the FLR does address this - and it is one of the reasons they actually recommend shadow boards rather than true fan directors.

However, they still also recommend NEDs be appointed as part of the regulation - perhaps I mistakenly conflated the two earlier.

I general I think you are echoing Lansdown's fear of those who are inexperienced 'meddling' in the economics of the Club. That isn't what a "golden share" - ie the fan share ownership that the FLR recommends - is about. Such a share would have no economic rights or benefits. Liability would be limited to par value. The shareholder would have very clearly defined voting rights - and you can look at Brentford's articles of association for an example of that. 

On Brentford, you are not the only person in this conversation to have an inside track on that. I have spoken at length to the lawyer that drafted those articles about how he drafted them, and how they have worked since. His tale is similar to yours, that yes some serendipity came into play. However he provided the added detail that the "Special Share" worked in that it forced the Board to talk to and involve the supporters trust - Bees United - at an early stage of the process. In doing so the board were able to explain why the stadium needed to be below the 20,000 capacity specified in the articles. The Special Share created a dialogue between owners, developers, and fans, and so avoided messy scenes where an unconsulted fanbase might have disagreed with a decision.

Finally, on a club like Arsenal...yes if I had a magic wand I would whisk them back down to Woolwich. However the FLR is realistic as well as optimistic and so I suspect "heritage" would be fixed at the point of the issue of the licence.

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Long post again, so I'm just going to pick out a couple of points.

Absolutely not. Millions of companies up and down the country, indeed around the world, have directors that are not shareholders. There is no legal requirement under the CA 2006 for a director to hold a single share in a company that they manage. It is absolutely feasible that a football club could, and indeed should, have a director who does not own shares in the company. Any fan, ex-pro, or other appointed director would naturally be subject to the same legal and fiduciary duties as a 'normal' director, and so they would have liability - so far as the corporate veil permits - for "liabilities and undertakings". As an aside the FLR does address this - and it is one of the reasons they actually recommend shadow boards rather than true fan directors.

However, they still also recommend NEDs be appointed as part of the regulation - perhaps I mistakenly conflated the two earlier.

I general I think you are echoing Lansdown's fear of those who are inexperienced 'meddling' in the economics of the Club. That isn't what a "golden share" - ie the fan share ownership that the FLR recommends - is about. Such a share would have no economic rights or benefits. Liability would be limited to par value. The shareholder would have very clearly defined voting rights - and you can look at Brentford's articles of association for an example of that. 

On Brentford, you are not the only person in this conversation to have an inside track on that. I have spoken at length to the lawyer that drafted those articles about how he drafted them, and how they have worked since. His tale is similar to yours, that yes some serendipity came into play. However he provided the added detail that the "Special Share" worked in that it forced the Board to talk to and involve the supporters trust - Bees United - at an early stage of the process. In doing so the board were able to explain why the stadium needed to be below the 20,000 capacity specified in the articles. The Special Share created a dialogue between owners, developers, and fans, and so avoided messy scenes where an unconsulted fanbase might have disagreed with a decision.

Finally, on a club like Arsenal...yes if I had a magic wand I would whisk them back down to Woolwich. However the FLR is realistic as well as optimistic and so I suspect "heritage" would be fixed at the point of the issue of the licence.

The sum total of which appears to be that we agree the best run businesses have extensive stakeholder engagement, yet disagree that nothing has been demonstrated as to why football requires regulation? If it does, I'd argue that extends only so far as trying to bring a degree of normalcy back its business model and that wouldn't last two seconds in the courts, if implemented. It would likely have fans up in arms as the best thing to happen would be for a raft of clubs to go bust, quickly, thus forcing football and player, fans and owners demands into a major restructure. The very fact the review is focused on the league element (not grassroots) shows its essentially a protectionist agenda. Let's keep what we've always had the way we've had it. Why? The horse has bolted. Fans need to stop conflating today's football with that of yore, they're wholly unrelated.

If fans choose to invest their emotion in businesses that's up to them, but football is not an exception and it doesn't give them a mandate to call shots they're not prepared to fund. Fans can either pay for that they unreasonably demand else, as they are free to do, walk away and invest their energies elsewhere.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Let's keep what we've always had the way we've had it. Why? The horse has bolted. Fans need to stop conflating today's football with that of yore, they're wholly unrelated.

I do agree that football is different now to how it was 100 years ago. Of course it is, everything else is as well. However I don't believe that should stop us a) trying to stop it degrading further or b) trying to change things. If you believe in the status quo (as it is, because doing nothing will only allow further development towards money and away from fans and tradition) then that is your prerogative. I am going to do what little I can to help change things.

Merry Christmas.

[BTRFTG]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I do agree that football is different now to how it was 100 years ago. Of course it is, everything else is as well. However I don't believe that should stop us a) trying to stop it degrading further or b) trying to change things. If you believe in the status quo (as it is, because doing nothing will only allow further development towards money and away from fans and tradition) then that is your prerogative. I am going to do what little I can to help change things.

Merry Christmas.

And the best of Season's Greetings to you, fellow supporter...

I very much miss tradition but as there are no longer cold, Boxing Day terraces on which to stand with mates (a tradition removed by so-called football supporters themselves, so much for engagement,) replacing the long trek with the Long Walk Hurdle and match on TV, in front of fire and enjoyed with quaff wouldn't be considered backwards progress in some quarters. Personally, I'd love to see football and its money expunged from television (and in doing so football itself,) if you want to see a game then go to it with football funded through supporters. But that's pure fantasy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Few might be interested in this although it does rather confirm what we already suspect.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Plus. It is suggested that clubs will need to appoint Independent Directors.

[ExiledAjax]

White paper expected in the next few weeks. Legislation late this year or early next year. So regulator likely in place for the 24/25 season.

Whether it does anything for the financial waterfall we will see, but even if it initially only improves governance, transparency, and accountability, that will be progress.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

White paper expected in the next few weeks. Legislation late this year or early next year. So regulator likely in place for the 24/25 season.

Whether it does anything for the financial waterfall we will see, but even if it initially only improves governance, transparency, and accountability, that will be progress.

Times tonight says anticipated to be in place for 2025-26.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Little update. Sounds like good and bad news.

Ahead of the Game tonight, says the PL have raised their distribution offer from 16% to 19% (EFL want 25%).

However Parachute Payments, the PL are standing firm on these.

[ExiledAjax]

And an update from Fair Game. 

"We need an independent regulator to oversee the wellbeing of our National Game. And that prospect edged a step closer this week thanks to the EFL.

The organisation hosted a series of six regional meetings for clubs and MPs at the Houses of Parliament.

At the meetings, the EFL presented a briefing - the main thrust of which backed an independent regulator and called for it to have powers to impose a financial settlement “in perpetuity”.

Among those to feedback to Fair Game on the meeting was Tim Farron. The Westmorland and Lonsdale MP was delighted to hear that the EFL were committed to a strong regulator, the abolition of parachute payments and a better redistribution of revenues.

Meanwhile, Yasmin Qureshi, the MP for Bolton South East, used the opportunity to raise questions about the Sustainability Index and the current 80:12:8 split of EFL revenues. 

Afterwards, Managing Director of AFC Wimbledon, Danny Macklin, issued a plea to his peers: "The mood in the room was pro regulator, but the challenge is to make sure it delivers a fairer financial flow in football. As football clubs we have to unite to make that happen."

Our own response was reported widely in papers across the country such as UK Daily News, and the Express and Star. We said: "This is a welcome move by the EFL. Football needs a proper holistic view of funding and that can only come from an independent regulator. The game needs fairer financial flow – a flow that rewards well-run clubs and incentivises culture change."

When talking about financial flow from Prem to EFL, it is absolutely right to raise the 80:12:8 split between Championship, League 1 and League 2. Should that be a more equitable split? 

I am still wary of the regulator getting fully involved in the flow of money. I understand that money is ultimately what the 72 EFL clubs want, and it is their primary motivation when backing the regulator. But is it really what the regulator should be about? For me it should be a secondary item. Primary in the regulator's should be governance and financial hygiene of clubs. But at the end of the day it's money that talks.

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

When talking about financial flow from Prem to EFL, it is absolutely right to raise the 80:12:8 split between Championship, League 1 and League 2. Should that be a more equitable split? 

I recall Rick Parry saying in an interview on the PoF podcast that this needs to be addressed. I trust proposals will follow in due course 

 

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I am still wary of the regulator getting fully involved in the flow of money. I understand that money is ultimately what the 72 EFL clubs want, and it is their primary motivation when backing the regulator. But is it really what the regulator should be about? For me it should be a secondary item. Primary in the regulator's should be governance and financial hygiene of clubs. But at the end of the day it's money that talks.

Agreed and Tracey Crouch didn't seem keen on this either. The government wants the PL and EFL to sort it out but perhaps some informal nudging behind the scenes needs to happen.

[ExiledAjax]

Update on this one. Stevenage FC have been in the news recently due to their FA Cup heroics, but there's been some big changes off the pitch as well.

A new CEO and changes in board make up, but more interestingly they've granted a "Golden Share" to their Supporters Association. Veto rights include:

• stadium move;
• name change;
• changes to badge or crest; and
• colours.

there are good provisions around still allowing the club to make "bona fide" changes to these things so long as they follow and fulfil certain criteria.

Articles 25 - 33 in the latest articles of association available here set out the legal detial https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02901467/filing-history. These were written by the same lawyer that wrote Brentford's articles. He's a good guy who I have spoken to and shared a little knowledge with.

Press release here.

https://www.stevenagefc.com/news/2023/january/golden-share-supporters-association-stevenage-fc-football-club-sky-bet-league-two-efl-english-football-league/

Chairman Phil Wallace said, “I have owned the Club for 24 years this summer. It has taken a long time, but I am satisfied that we now have an infrastructure in place that will last for generations to come.

The move towards fans having more of a say in future on the big identity decisions is gathering pace and will continue to grow. What we have done is positioned ourselves in front of that movement and provided a Golden Share veto on specific subjects that would be considered important to a Club. 

We changed our name to Stevenage Football Club when we achieved promotion to the EFL over twelve years ago to clearly represent the town of Stevenage and we modernized and simplified the badge a few years ago. If these are to be changed in future, along with any change to the accepted home colours and stadium location, the Supporters’ Association will have to agree to any change. 

We are delighted with our progress on the pitch this season and hope that we can continue to provide pride, enjoyment and entertainment to our fans. This veto is a small step forwards in ensuring our fans have a say in the big decisions in future”.

 

[chinapig]

White paper now expected in February:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64411515

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

White paper now expected in February:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64411515

"Around Valentine's Day" is what I heard last week.

[chinapig]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

"Around Valentine's Day" is what I heard last week.

Tracey Crouch may get a few cards from secret admirers then.

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, chinapig said:

Tracey Crouch may get a few cards from secret admirers then.

No doubt Donelan will claim them though.

[chinapig]

Potential progress between the PL and the EFL. Though I'm not holding my breath:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/27/efl-urges-premier-league-to-halve-financial-gap-with-championship

[ExiledAjax]

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Potential progress between the PL and the EFL. Though I'm not holding my breath:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/27/efl-urges-premier-league-to-halve-financial-gap-with-championship

Not a mention of anything about the gap between Champ and L1 or L1 to L2 though. I think that has to be addressed as well. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Been leaked or maybe 'leaked' to The Sun a document for it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11703467/Government-football-charter-LEAKED-owners-unable-prove-source-wealth-BARRED.html

[chinapig]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Been leaked or maybe 'leaked' to The Sun a document for it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11703467/Government-football-charter-LEAKED-owners-unable-prove-source-wealth-BARRED.html

See also here:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/02/mps-urge-football-clubs-to-back-fan-recommendations-over-sustainability

@ExiledAjaxthe Sustainability Index also gets a mention.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

See also here:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/02/mps-urge-football-clubs-to-back-fan-recommendations-over-sustainability

@ExiledAjaxthe Sustainability Index also gets a mention.

Cheers, and to @Mr Popodopolous as well, (hope you don't mind if I read the Guardian article over the Mail's). Although even that one is a bit of a mish-mash article built from 4 or 5 recent ones with a bit at the start that's new. I did, for once, open the Sun's article as well. Poorly informed and full of confusion over what is the Football Charter and what is the Whitepaper. This Charter seems like a propaganda piece of fluff. The meaningful document will be the Whitepaper and subsequent "Football Reform Bill" or whatever they'll name it.

Without diving into politics I'd honestly quite like Labour to be properly cross-party on this. Powell doesn't need to get chippy, and the dithering and delay is frustrating but is a symptom of the government turmoil we saw last year... turmoil she presumably was glad to see.

This should be an easy vote winner for any MP with a football club or a large number of football fans in their constituency - ie basically every MP.

Should be a good couple of weeks.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dunno if it's worthy of a thread in itself but...

Wonder if PL clubs are trying to tie this to extra revenue.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dunno if it's worthy of a thread in itself but...

Wonder if PL clubs are trying to tie this to extra revenue.

Wonder...wonder!? I'd say it's absolutely certainly part of the "package".

It's also bollocks.

This in particular is mega-bollocks "There is also an appetite for EFL clubs to commit to housing a certain number of loan players from the top flight at any one time, although it is not clear how this would be enforced.".

SecondTier pod are ok and I don't think they'd tweet something they hadn't verified, but what's the reputation of "FootballInsider"? Are they actual journalists or just fishing for clicks?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Wonder...wonder!? I'd say it's absolutely certainly part of the "package".

It's also bollocks.

This in particular is mega-bollocks "There is also an appetite for EFL clubs to commit to housing a certain number of loan players from the top flight at any one time, although it is not clear how this would be enforced.".

SecondTier pod are ok and I don't think they'd tweet something they hadn't verified, but what's the reputation of "FootballInsider"? Are they actual journalists or just fishing for clicks?

Football Insider is hit and miss, seems alright for financial related issues.

The price itself wasn't so well written, think what thst bit means is an appetite from PL clubs for EFL clubs to do this, doubt there is a great appetite from EFL clubs however.

Sure this sort of thing was mooted a while ago, a big NO hopefully.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football Insider is hit and miss, seems alright for financial related issues.

The price itself wasn't so well written, think what thst bit means is an appetite from PL clubs for EFL clubs to do this, doubt there is a great appetite from EFL clubs however.

Sure this sort of thing was mooted a while ago, a big NO hopefully.

Yeh it comes up every now and then. It's the start of B teams and multi-club ownership within a single country. If the EFL has any dignity at all then they have to resist it in every way they can.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yeh it comes up every now and then. It's the start of B teams and multi-club ownership within a single country. If the EFL has any dignity at all then they have to resist it in every way they can.

Has to be done. Line in the sand, very much a hard no- yeah thin end of the wedge as you say.

[cidered abroad]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dunno if it's worthy of a thread in itself but...

Wonder if PL clubs are trying to tie this to extra revenue.

They flood the four leagues from Championship to National league with young kids who are earning thousands of £'s a week and who would pay these wages?

Of course the greedy barstewards would expect the club to contribute a big percentage. That would do wonders for the team spirit with possibly one 19 year old earning more than the rest of the squad collectively. 

What a brain dead idea. No benefit to those clubs who are forced to use Premier loaners.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, cidered abroad said:

They flood the four leagues from Championship to National league with young kids who are earning thousands of £'s a week and who would pay these wages?

Of course the greedy barstewards would expect the club to contribute a big percentage. That would do wonders for the team spirit with possibly one 19 year old earning more than the rest of the squad collectively. 

What a brain dead idea. No benefit to those clubs who are forced to use Premier loaners.

 

I hope the 72 collectively tell them what they can do with this concept.

[chinapig]

The White Paper has been delayed again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64539586

[ExiledAjax]

23 hours ago, chinapig said:

The White Paper has been delayed again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64539586

Presumably because of the reshuffle. Donelan moving to Head of IT and Lucy Frazer coming in to head a "slimmed down" DCMS. I imagine Frazer would want to get her feet under the desk before heading up something as big as the Whitepaper. Hopefully it is just that rather than a radical redraft, as the leaked version looked pretty positive.

[Bristol Rob]

Isn't the white paper due out this week?

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Isn't the white paper due out this week?

It is expected this week yes. The only thing really holding it up now is finding time in the Ministers' diaries for an announcement. I have heard that Sunak wants to be personally part of the announcement, so his diary needs to be considered as well. But yes I heard last week that it was expected to be this week.

[ExiledAjax]

So, the White Paper is here. You can read it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bold-plan-to-protect-long-term-future-of-english-football

Headline summary features of the Government's plans are:

• New independent regulator to help prevent repeat of financial failings seen at Derby County, Bury and Macclesfield Town;
  • Clubs in the top 5 divisions will need to obtain a license form the regulator prior to competing in domestic competitions;
• Strengthened owners’ and directors’ test to protect clubs and their fans from unscrupulous owners
  • this will run in parallel to, and will not replace, the current PL and EFL tests.
  • There isn't much suggestion that it will include any moral or ethical test of owners, so it may simply be an extension of the current objective tests we have;
• Fans given greater say in running of clubs, and key heritage such as team names, badges and stadia at core of new plans; and
  • No real say as to how this might happen, but given the White Paper essentially agrees with the original Review, and that Review strongly recommended Golden Shares, I suspect that is the route that the Regulator will expect clubs to take;
• Powers to block English clubs from joining unpopular breakaway leagues like the European Super League.

All good, and all expected, and all without any real substance.

On finances the position remains that football is to sort the distribution out itself. However, if the football authorities cannot reach an agreement the regulator would have targeted powers of last resort to intervene and facilitate an agreement as and when necessary. So I don't expect a solution to the financial distribution any time soon. That's a shame, but I think ultimately the backstop powers will be used, perhaps not immediately, but at some point in the next few years.

I was posting yesterday about governance in relation to Scudamore's role at our Club. governance is going to be a big part of the new regulator's powers. The regulator will have a remit to ensure club directors demonstrate good basic financial practices, have appropriate financial resources and protect the core assets of the club and will aim to improve governance through the introduction of a Football Club Corporate Governance Code. So we should be looking to be absolute certain that our governance is up to scratch.

[Hxj]

In my view the whitepaper is a perfect example of governmental white-wash.  It's full of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes'.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

What I am wondering is how this white paper if implemented as planned, dovetails with existing EFL financial regs.

For example, a sustainable Business Plan seems likely to be required- but how does that fit in with losing £39m  adjusted losses over 3 years?

Granted we will probably be moving towards the 90-80-70 pct of turnover for football and amortisation as the replacement for P&S but surely by definition if an owner needs to put in anything at all, be it cash or revenue then the business isn't altogether sustainable? In the course of ordinary business I mean, not post Covid, or loss of a big sponsor etc.

Especially cash in the above paragraph. Revenue snd profitability can be a bit of a red herring..

Escrow 2-3 years in advance?

Of course there would also hopefully be a notable redistribution of how wealth is spread, which would resolve many issues.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What I am wondering is how thus white paper if implemented as planned, dovetails with existing EFL financial regs.

For example, a sustainable Business Plan seems likely to be required- but how does that fit in with losing £39m  adjusted losses over 3 years?

Granted we will probably be moving towards the 90-80-70 pct of turnover for football and amortisation as the replacement for P&S but surely by definition if an owner needs to put in anything at all, be it cash or revenue then the business isn't altogether sustainable? In the course of ordinary business I mean, not post Covid, or loss of a big sponsor etc.

Escrow 2-3 years in advance?

It will sit alongside any league rules around financial sustainability. Whether the current rules or some future system, this will compliment it. The White Paper says that any Regulator requirements will be coordinated with pre-existing financial rules to minimise the potential compliance burden on clubs and deliver a system which allows the Regulator to fulfil its statutory duties.

The WP also goes at lengths to say that the first step ibn any enforcement by the Regulator will be made on an "advocacy" basis. Essentially that means that should the Regulator think a club is potentially non-compliant, the first step is to work with the club on a collaborative basis, to seek to "sort out" any defects. The WP describes this as engaging constructively with regulated parties, resolving issues and encouraging compliance through advice, soft influencing and informal engagement.

On financial regulation specifically the White Paper says as follows:

1. Financial sustainability regulation would be the Regulator’s core focus, delivered through the first licence condition: ‘appropriate resources’. It would be based on improving financial resilience, to protect the long-term sustainability of clubs for the benefit of their fans and communities.
2. Clubs would be required to:
   1. demonstrate good basic financial practices;
   2. have appropriate financial resources or ‘buffers’ to enable the club to meet cash flows including in the event of a financial shock; and
   3. protect the core assets and value of the club - such as the stadium.

"Appropriate resources" is a key phrase used throughout the WP. It means that the club must have adequate financial and non-financial resources and controls in place, to meet committed spending and foreseeable risks. Demonstrating this to the regulator would include planning for adverse circumstances - including relegation and the withdrawal of owner funding. Also the WP says that the Regulator will make objective, risk-based decisions on what constitutes adequate financial resources according to each club’s specific circumstances and its risk level. If a club lacks sufficient resilience, the Regulator may require the club to improve its financial resources, such as by building up its readily available liquid assets or seeking greater assurances on owner funding. So yes escrow sums, owner bonds, or simple "rainy day" funds may be required - but it will be quite specific to each club.

Stadiums will be quite closely protected, with sales of stadia needing prior written approval from the Regulator.

On debt the WP says that the Regulator would be able to place controls on excessive debt where it could threaten the viability or value of the club. The Regulator would determine the appropriate limits and controls when setting that club's Specific Licence Conditions. They expect that these limits may need to be waived in exceptional circumstances, if agreed with the Regulator in advance. For example, a high-interest loan might be the only way to help a club survive to the start of the next transfer window, when players could be sold, debt repaid, and the club downsized.

The WP gives a broad example of how this might work in practice:

In general there's quite a clear ambition to make the licenses issued to clubs, and the conditions needed to be complied with, quite specific to each club. There will only ever be (subject to league structure changes) 116 regulated entities. That's a very small number compared to most industries. I think the intention is that this will allow a fairly small team of people to have quite involved and intensive supervision of these entities.

[Kid in the Riot]

I think the White Paper is really encouraging, the Fan Engagement and Club Heritage section in particular. Long overdue mind.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Grounds for cautious optimism? Maybe it could hasten a better redistribution than we currently have.

One thing that could be done is pool Parachute Payments with Solidarity into one pot and distribute accordingly- that would smooth the gaps in the Championship for one. That's a starting point, an easy win.

I can understand more easily the PL concerns about wider redistribution but it's all PL money anyway the Parachute Payments and Solidarity Payments, should have been done when Covid hit.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-offers-efl-30m-a-year-sweetener-to-seal-football-new-deal-12839581

The offer of extra revenue up from £95m to £125m. In conjunction with better cost controls.

If we pool Parachute Payments and Solidarity Payments and distribute by divisional weightings- a mechanism that I have suggested for a while this could see a significant smoothing of the cliff edge. The question is would the PL do this or more accurately would PL clubs vote for this.

[ExiledAjax]

In the latest edition of "Shit try and look busy or someone will ask us about the money" we see that the PL has introduced some additions to its Owner's and Director's Test. The headline parts are changes are aimed at political owners and those who've shat all over various human rights.

However perhaps more interestingly we also see changes to widen the types of insolvency that bar you, widen the list of other regulators that being barred from will bar you, and allowing the league to stop you being an O/D where you are under investigation for conduct that would result in a ‘Disqualifying Event’ if proven. That last one is good as currently you're only barred if you have an unspent conviction.

Generally quite good extensions, and its almost certain that the EFL will follow suit shortly.

Full PL statement here:

Premier League clubs unanimously approved a number of changes to the League’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) at a Shareholders’ Meeting today.

Following a comprehensive review of the OADT, and consultation with clubs and a range of stakeholders, clubs agreed the following Rule amendments and reforms to the OADT assessment process, which will come in with immediate effect:

Decisions taken by the Premier League Board under the OADT will be subject to review by a new Independent Oversight Panel

The threshold for ‘Control’ will be lowered to 25 per cent from 30 per cent

Club Chief Executives to be brought within scope of the OADT, as will a new concept of ‘Relevant Signatories’, being individuals responsible for signing a range of key regulatory documents

Owners’ and Directors’ Declaration form (Form 4) to be tailored to address individual and corporate directors

A range of new Disqualifying Events have been added to the test, including:

- A new Disqualifying Event for individuals/companies subject to Government sanctions

- A new Disqualifying Event for human rights abuses, based on Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020

- Extending the list of criminal offences resulting in disqualification, to include offences involving violence, corruption, fraud, tax evasion and hate crimes

- Extending the list of regulatory authorities, suspension from which will result in disqualification, to include the Charity Commission, FCA, Prudential Conduct Authority, HMRC and Gambling Commission

- Broadening the scope of the insolvency provisions, to enable the League to take action against individuals involved in previous insolvencies in a wider range of circumstances

- A new power for the League to stop those who wish to become ‘Directors’ where they are under investigation for conduct that would result in a ‘Disqualifying Event’ if proven

Greater clarity and transparency over the due diligence to be conducted by the League on a takeover, with an agreed, published list of ‘Acquisition Materials’ that must be provided to the League to facilitate its due diligence

Additional annual due diligence to be undertaken by the Premier League on incumbent Directors to ensure ongoing compliance with the OADT

A range of increased transparency measures, including the requirement to publicly disclose individuals/companies disqualified under the OADT and an obligation on the League to create an annual report of compliance

Following the adoption of these measures, the League will now consult with its clubs and other stakeholders on a further, final package of reforms, to be considered by clubs at the League’s AGM in June.

[chinapig]

On the human rights front it reads to me that it applies to individuals not states, subject to clarification from the PL. If so somebody who did not personally, for example, murder a journalist would not be barred even if they held a position of power in the state concerned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65128593

From this BBC report:

"[The] Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations are already the law of the land so this is nothing new," said Crouch in response to the Premier League's announcement.

"Improvement always welcome but still don't go as far as white paper."

Amnesty UK's economic affairs director Peter Frankental added: "It'll make little difference unless powerful individuals linked to serious human rights violations overseas are definitively barred from taking control of Premier League clubs and using them for state sportswashing.

"Would, for instance, a future bid involving Saudi or Qatari sovereign wealth funds be blocked by this rule change? It's far from clear that they would."

[ExiledAjax]

42 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the human rights front it reads to me that it applies to individuals not states, subject to clarification from the PL. If so somebody who did not personally, for example, murder a journalist would not be barred even if they held a position of power in the state concerned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65128593

From this BBC report:

"[The] Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations are already the law of the land so this is nothing new," said Crouch in response to the Premier League's announcement.

"Improvement always welcome but still don't go as far as white paper."

Amnesty UK's economic affairs director Peter Frankental added: "It'll make little difference unless powerful individuals linked to serious human rights violations overseas are definitively barred from taking control of Premier League clubs and using them for state sportswashing.

"Would, for instance, a future bid involving Saudi or Qatari sovereign wealth funds be blocked by this rule change? It's far from clear that they would."

It will presumably apply to whoever is the "Relevant Person". Essentially the person who owns the 25% (new threshold) of the shares. As, officially, none of the current clubs are owned by states, rather individuals with links to states,* yes it probably wouldn't block a purchase unless that individual had or was under investigation for, personally breach(ing) said human rights rules.

It's better, but it's still all far from good enough really.

*Links like being the deputy PM of the UAE in Man City's case. You know, just a small link.

[chinapig]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Links like being the deputy PM of the UAE in Man City's case. You know, just a small link.

Or Newcastle's chairman having no connection with the Saudi government according to the PL but who is claimed to be a sitting member of the government in the LIV case.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just thinking of other cases.

As we know Birmingham are under investigation over whether a former Cambodian diplomat owns their club in secret or not.

However had they been open, it was back in the era of Shaun Harvey in 2016, would he have even sought to bar them? I have my doubts!

Edited April 2, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dunno if this is the right thread but the wrangling over Parachute Payments continues. Couple of snippets.

[Davefevs]

Promoted Teams with PPs:

22/23: (5 teams with PPs)

Burnley / Sheffield U (likely)

40% likelihood with PPs / 5.3% likelihood w/o PPs

21/22: (5 teams with PP)

Fulham / Bournemouth

40% likelihood with PPs / 5.3% likelihood w/o PPs

20/21: (6 teams with PPs)

Norwich C / Watford

33.3% likelihood with PPs / 5.6% likelihood w/o PPs

19/20: (7 teams with PPs)

Fulham / WBA

28.6% likelihood with PPs / 5.9% likelihood w/o PPs

18/19: (9 teams with PPs - some on 4 year PPs scheme)

Aston V / Norwich C

22.2% likelihood with PPs / 6.7% likelihood w/o PPs

17/18: (6 teams with PPs)

None - but Cardiff C / Fulham had finished receiving PPs the season before

0.0% likelihood with PPs / 16.7% likelihood w/o PPs

16/17: (8 teams with PPs)

Newcastle U

12.5% likelihood with PPs / 12.5% likelihood w/o PPs

15/16: (10 teams with PPs - some teams on 4 year PP scheme

Hull C

10% likelihood with PPs / 14.3% likelihood w/o PPs

 

Totals (8 seasons):

24 promotion places

12 promoted with PPs / 56 with PPs = 21.4% likelihood

12 promoted w/o PPs / 136 w/o PPs = 8.9% likelihood

2.4 times more likely to get promoted with PPs than without!

Could be worse if WBA / Watford or Norwich get into play-offs and gain promotion.

 

[Davefevs]

To add:

of the 24 relegated PL teams - 6 have bounced straight back up in first season back in Champ

of the 24 promoted Champ teams - 8 have come straight back down in first season in PL

 

Further:

If Sheffield Utd go up plus Watford or Norwich, there will be just 4 clubs with PPs next season…the 3 coming down, plus whoever out of Norwich or Watford who don’t make it.  5 clubs if neither of them go up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Good work Dave! I say good, more like Great!

Wow those numbers are stark and the problem is getting worse. Someone described them as a rocket booster or something in an article a while back, presumably for freshly or recently relegated clubs. 

Although I thought Cardiff and Fulham were entering their final year of Parachute Payments as they were relegated in 2013-14 when the 4 year rule still seemed to hold. It changed a few times over the years.

Norwich's had run out by 2018-19 too, think the 2 year scheme for a yoyo club had kicked in by then. They received in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Either way a great way to have negated advantages would be to have only included an Solidarity Payments portion in FFP and revenue returns.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Norwich were still entitled to 3 years PPs on their relegation in 15/16:

 

They’ve received £133m in PPs in 7 seasons, rises to £167m next season if they don’t go up.

In terms of my initial list, Burnley were also promoted in 15/16 whikst getting PPs!

So it’s 13 / 56 = 23.2% with

and 11 / 136 = 8.1%

almost 3x as likely!

Light green shading = promoted with PPs

Dark green shading = promoted with PPs first season back.

Pink shading = relegated back to Champ in first season.

Think it’s fair to say that the last 5 years we are seeing more clubs with PPs get promoted (10).  And we seeing many come straight back down (7) in 4 years.  If Forest and / or Bournemouth come down, that could be 8 or 9.

It’s really becoming a 24 team PL, where 20 get to play each season.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Although Norwich's accounts for 2019 do seem to be not indicating it. Article from 2019 suggests they did not receive that year. Different sites say different things I guess.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/norwich-city-loss-38-million-profit-parachute-payments-a9185746.html

Anyway irrespective of the odd individual case who may or may not, they're a huge issue for competitiveness at this level.

[beaverface]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

To add:

of the 24 relegated PL teams - 6 have bounced straight back up in first season back in Champ

of the 24 promoted Champ teams - 8 have come straight back down in first season in PL

 

Further:

If Sheffield Utd go up plus Watford or Norwich, there will be just 4 clubs with PPs next season…the 3 coming down, plus whoever out of Norwich or Watford who don’t make it.  5 clubs if neither of them go up.

I'd be interested to see how many relegated sides bounced straight back up before Parachute Payments were introduced.

Normally when a team gets relegated from the Championship into League 1, or from League 1 to League 2, they're usually the favourites to come straight back up, which kind of indicates that relegated sides are fairly strong regardless of PP's.

 

(ps. I'm not in favour of PP's, I'm just intrigued by the above question)

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although Norwich's accounts for 2019 do seem to be not indicating it. Article from 2019 suggests they did not receive that year. Different sites say different things I guess.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/norwich-city-loss-38-million-profit-parachute-payments-a9185746.html

Anyway irrespective of the odd individual case who may or may not, they're a huge issue for competitiveness at this level.

You are right.

I am wrong.

I need to think “seasons not accounting years”!

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, beaverface said:

I'd be interested to see how many relegated sides bounced straight back up before Parachute Payments were introduced.

Normally when a team gets relegated from the Championship into League 1, or from League 1 to League 2, they're usually the favourites to come straight back up, which kind of indicates that relegated sides are fairly strong regardless of PP's.

 

(ps. I'm not in favour of PP's, I'm just intrigued by the above question)

PPs came in for 2006/07 season.

I’m not gonna trawl back before that, but definitely a trend that as as the PP amount shifted from £48m / 4 years to £90m / 3 years (end of 15/16 season) we have seen more clubs going back up with PPs.

Burnley and Hull knew what they were playing for in 2015/16…promotion that season guaranteeing £75m over the next 2 seasons, £90m over 3 years if they stayed up for one year.  All on top of the TV money they’d get in the PL whilst they were still there.  QPR were a basket case as we know, and eventually got fined.

Before that, PPs started with £16m / 2 years and we saw less yo-yo’ing.

These are the teams that have played in the Championship that have benefitted from PPs / PL TV Deal.

Southampton and Crystal Palace are the only promoted team to have survived 10+ years.  Southampton now under threat.

Leicester have lasted 9 years.  Under threat!

Norwich are the biggest yo-yo’er…4 times each way.  Could make a 5th promotion this season.

Leices

[shahanshahan]

Karen Carney has today published her independent review into the future of domestic women’s football, which was commissioned by the DCMSt following a recommendation from the FLR

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/raising-the-bar-reframing-the-opportunity-in-womens-football
https://thefsa.org.uk/news/fsa-response-to-carneys-womens-game-review/

Some specific supporter related recommendations:

All clubs should ensure that the recommendations in the Football Governance White Paper with regards to fan engagement should be delivered on with meaningful representation for fans of the women’s team.

Following the introduction of FA licensing requirements for clubs to have ticketing policies, the FA should review these annually and clubs should actively seek feedback from their fans on how these should be adapted.

Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship clubs should each implement a supporter liaison officer.

The FA should urgently address the lack of diversity across the women’s game – in both on and off pitch roles.

The FA, Premier League, English Football League and broadcasters should work together to carve out a new dedicated broadcast slot for live women’s football games.

 

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, shahanshahan said:

Karen Carney has today published her independent review into the future of domestic women’s football, which was commissioned by the DCMSt following a recommendation from the FLR

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/raising-the-bar-reframing-the-opportunity-in-womens-football
https://thefsa.org.uk/news/fsa-response-to-carneys-womens-game-review/

Some specific supporter related recommendations:

All clubs should ensure that the recommendations in the Football Governance White Paper with regards to fan engagement should be delivered on with meaningful representation for fans of the women’s team.

Following the introduction of FA licensing requirements for clubs to have ticketing policies, the FA should review these annually and clubs should actively seek feedback from their fans on how these should be adapted.

Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship clubs should each implement a supporter liaison officer.

The FA should urgently address the lack of diversity across the women’s game – in both on and off pitch roles.

The FA, Premier League, English Football League and broadcasters should work together to carve out a new dedicated broadcast slot for live women’s football games.

 

A good piece from Suzy Wrack on this. Still a lot of questions.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jul/13/review-womens-football-karen-carney-wsl

[ExiledAjax]

I've skim read it. Honestly, it's even lighter on detail that the fan led review/white paper. I also think there needs to be far more emphasis on not repeating the failures of the men's game, and on creating a distinct product that stands on its own feet.

For example the report talks about learning from the mistakes of the men's game but then recommends allowing the women's game to self-regulate...which is the root cause of the issues in the men's game. There are some improvements - for example it recommends one board across the WSL and WC, and golden shares, but imo it gives with one hand and takes with another 

It talks about allowing women's football to stand alone and self fund...but then recommends that Sky, the FA, the EFL and the PL carve out a special slot for women's football on TV.

I don't know.. it feels lightweight to me.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One for @ExiledAjax to perhaps add more detail and apologies if already a thread on it or coverage.

https://news.sky.com/story/915m-football-new-deal-faces-delay-amid-fears-over-regulator-12966498

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One for @ExiledAjax to perhaps add more detail and apologies if already a thread on it or coverage.

https://news.sky.com/story/915m-football-new-deal-faces-delay-amid-fears-over-regulator-12966498

The New Deal is crap basically.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The New Deal is crap basically.

Yeah agreed. It's not as much as the EFL hope for, the whole uncertainty pertaining to Parachute Payments etc.

Found this, about to read it myself but seems interesting.

https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/football-club-governance-case-change-britain

[phantom]

Tracy Crouch has responded to the Kings speach referencing the need to establish the regulator 

[phantom]

The Kings speach in full on this topic 

[phantom]

Another response