Jump to content

ExiledAjax

OTIB Supporter
  • Posts

    12108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

ExiledAjax last won the day on January 23

ExiledAjax had the most liked content!

Reputation

17031

About ExiledAjax

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

16628 profile views
  1. Perhaps part of it. Although the "independent" bit is more about making it clear that it's independent of the clubs and leagues that currently pretty much regulate themselves. From a Bristol City fan's point of view I'm most interested in seeing what we eventually get in the Football Governance Code. I expect that to make it a condition that Clubs have a board of directors that is more than just the owner's son and mate. I expect it to require a certain level of transparency around decision making. There will also be an increase in the minimum level of fan engagement, consultation, and communication.
  2. That depends on what powers the regulator has. Parliament will debate and pass the law that establishes the regulator. That law will set out how the individuals that head up the regulator are chosen. Personally - I'd probably rather a Labour government passed this law and was in power as the regulator was set up. Labour are naturally more comfortable with regulation and although the Bill has broad cross-party support, that support is more concentrated in Labour MPs. I don't think so. The regulator is essentially being imposed upon football by parliament and law. Private companies don't then get to "opt-out" of these laws and regulations. That's not to say there aren't still potential challenges. FIFA might have a say as it has pretty clear rules about government intervention in football. You've also got the potential for the PL or EFL challenging any eventual use of the regulators powers - in particular any power to impose a financial deal between those two entities. Today is a landmark moment, but it's far from the end of the story.
  3. If anyone is wondering how they can try to make sure our MPs put through a strong and effective piece of legislation that arms a regulator with tools that might work - joining the FSA is a great start. Kevin Miles is a legend in football fandom and honestly the FSA are a rare breed of fan organisation that the powers that be listen to. Fair Game are also doing some great work so do consider supporting them as well.
  4. Yes. A few of us have been chatting about this for the last 2.5 years over on this thread. Would love to get your views on it all.
  5. No worries. As I say, would be great to get your thoughts over there. Hopefully it's a landmark day in the regulation of football and the people who own our clubs.
  6. Clearly only cares about the money. Read between the lines and he supports a regulator who imposes a financial deal between PL and EFL. My questions to any EFL chairman/owner/CEO who comes out today in support of the Regulator are: 1) if you get extra money can you commit to not simply spunking it on players? 2) what steps have you taken over the past two years to independently and proactively address the issues raised in the Fan-Led Review? 3) how should extra funds should be shared between EFL clubs? Because if the answers are "no", "nothing", and "league position"...then I say they don't actually support the regulator, they just support Championship clubs getting extra money to pour into a wages black hole in the ever-more-desperate race to the PL. "Sustainability" is not achieved through simply more £££.
  7. @phantom @Ian M could we possibly change the title of the thread to "The Football Regulator"? I'm delighted to be able to ask that by the way!
  8. Yes a huge day today. The culmination of years, in some cases decades, of campaigning by some very hard working people. It won't be quite as strong a regulator (initially at least) as some hoped for. The fan heritage but is watered down a fair bit from what we hoped for, but yes there will be a regulator that checks that clubs have consulted fans if they want to change their badge for example. A few of us have been discussing it over on this thread, and you're welcome join us. https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/214852-the-fan-led-review-of-football-governance/page/7/#comment-4841478
  9. It's -3 for the initial breach, which Forest accepted. Then a further -3 for the circumstances and size of the breach (basically them holding off on selling Johnson and a relative breach 77% larger than Everton's). Then they got 2 back as mitigation because they co-operated with the investigation. Why would a decision in the Forest case, or any article reporting it, mention a completely different case dealing with a completely different alleged offence, and being considered totally separately from this one. Don't worry, Everton's case and appeal are mentioned extensively throughout the Forest piece. This will still happen.
  10. The award does plenty of comparison to EFL cases and of course to Everton.
  11. The Bill is expected to be tabled (in a weird and possibly desperate throw of the die from the government) to Parliament tomorrow. Aides are briefing journalists today. The wording surrounding any power to impose a financial deal between EFL and PL will be what to watch for.
  12. -3 for breach. -3 for circumstances and scale. +2 for exceptional co-operation. They will appeal. They kind of have to appeal really.
  13. All I've done is summarise the many many great posts and thoughts that everyone posts on here all the time. But thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...