ExiledAjax

Charged.

Not being washed up.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/may/23/football-independent-regulator-plans-paused-general-election

The leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, is to confirm on Thursday the bills that will be expedited into law before parliament dissolves next week and the FGB is not expected to be on the list.

Despite making swift progress through the house, and with estimates that the bill could have completed its passage in a matter of weeks, there remain too many stages in the process for it to be incorporated in the wash-up process, government sources have suggested.

Nice to have Fair Game mentioned here as well. We're trying.

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Is this an attempt to sabotage a Labour government from strengthening the bill? One last favour for the Premier League?

It can be seen as that.

In the situation we are in - where it's generally assumed that the GE will see a switch of party - wash-up is generally a game of the outgoing party trying to throw grenades or set traps for the incoming one, and the incoming party cautiously accepting some of those knowing that if it doesn't it has zero control over the situation.

So this can be spun either as:

1) Conservatives trying to leave a steaming dog turd of a regulator on a Labour government's lap - teeing up the ability for Penny Mordaunt's opposition party to claim the Labour government has failed to properly implement the regulator: OR

2) Starmer pragmatically accepting that any regulator is better than no regulator, and that it needs to be in place. He'd also be gambling that any imperfections can be sorted through the actual regulations and secondary legislation.

FWIW I don't think the current government is in cahoots with the PL. I think the 17 MPs on the committee were redoing a good job of listening to all stakeholders, and some pretty good amendments were going to be accepted. 

This my desire for the Bill to not be washed up and rather be re-tabled by the next government.

I'm now hearing it maybe washed up anyway. Ie passed without amendment.

God knows. Should be confirmed in the next 30 minutes or so.

Isn't it great knowing that laws can be made like this

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

But the unfortunate thing is that this is now going to be booted into the long grass as it won't be an immediate priority for Labour. 

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Labour have been incredibly supportive of it. Andy Burnham, Thangam Debbonaire, Steph Peacock etc are all very on board with it.

I think all parties see it as a relatively easy win and Labour would want a couple of those early on if they can.

Also, a lot of the work has already been done. It really would be something that could be implemented pretty quickly and could give the next government a "look what we did" thing within its first 100 days.

2 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Watch the Premier League quickly settle the redistribution dispute with the EFL.

If our amendments get into the Bill in some form then the Regulator will be able to review any deal. I'm relaxed about it, and think it's pretty unlikely they will sort it anyway.

A general election was announced yesterday and I know everyone's first thought was "but what does this mean for the Football Governance Bill!?".

Well what I am hearing today is that the Bill is likely not going to be rushed through in what is known as "wash up". Likely not. Tbc later today I believe.

This is good.

The Bill as drafted had problems. It was good in places, probably excellent in a few, but it was defective in quite a few key areas.

As it stands it looks likely to go away and then be reintroduced under the next government. If that government is Labour then we can expect a stronger Bill that grants the IFR stronger powers and better teeth.

Look for mentions of this in manifestos and watch this space as this is developing at pace today.

Professionalism is....and that is what I want.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

We tend to announce option clauses.  And for someone like Morrison, he’s young enough for it to be largely irrelevant, because we’d get compo.

How are we feeling about a 3 year deal? Takes him to age 21 rather than 22. Given what we've seen with recent and current youngsters would you think 4 years would have been preferable?

I think it would.

Doesn't mean we didn't offer it of course but...I don't know...very hard to really predict I guess.

51 minutes ago, petehinton said:

I’ll stand tall. Happy to look like a total bellend on this one. Kieran McKenna I was unfamiliar with your game. 

Say it again for next season.

31 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

How does the football club having a lease to play at Ashton Gate for 100 odd years impact things? 

Could a new owner just say "OK I won't buy the stadium as the football club has a lease to play there anyways" ? But then I guess it depends on what the terms of the lease are and I guess Steve could change those terms at any point whilst he still owns the lot. 

Pedantic legal point: it's a licence not a lease. The FC operating company does not have exclusive possession or control over the stadium. It's a licence. Broadly though both a lease and a licence do the same thing - they give us (and the Bears and the Women) permission to host and play matches at Ashton Gate.

Secondly.

Yes a buyer could theoretically buy the company that runs the football club/team but not the company that runs AG. If they did then they'd find themselves taking that licence on and would retain a relationship with Lansdown (assuming he didn't sell AG to someone else).

Yes as it stands it's effectively a licence between Steve and Steve, and either of those Steve's could try and change the terms. 

I do always say that I really, really, really think it's unlikely that any buyer will take the operating company and not the stadium.

13 minutes ago, Olé said:

Teams in these firms are literally incentivised to make deals possible because funds not invested are burning a hole due to the expected rate of return.

They will literally have an obligation to their partners to invest the funds that they draw down. It will be in the IM and the subscription agreement. They have to spend the funds.

And yes they will prepare lots of slideshows, spreadsheets, and memos looking at whatever is out there publicly. I wonder though I'd we have a standing dataroom with more confidential information in it that we grant access to for more detailed analysis to happen.

In my experience football clubs often don't have that level of sophistication and do things on a more ad hoc basis.

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It's not something I had considered would be a problem but now thinking about it someone would need to buy the stadium which comes with debt and then also invest in upgrading it if that's at all possible. 

The debt basically affects the price. Any buyer will either a) want it settled before they buy, or b) want a discount equal to the debt. 

It's a solvable problem... so long as the seller is willing to do either of those two things. And that's probably our sticking point.

So it all comes back to the fact that £200m is way too high given there are some expensive issues such as the debt.

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I did a quick Google earth a couple of weeks ago to see if there was another site where you could build a stadium, I couldn’t see on at first glance.

Fruit market?

10 minutes ago, Olé said:

Having worked at a fund albeit not in sport, one thing I’d deeply love to hear is what the board summary (or even just private soundbite) is about Bristol City. Because trust me these guys, especially the Americans, approach to buying businesses is not unlike a football club buying players. There will be a team of @Davefevs who will run the numbers on every viable club in Europe, they will have done due diligence whether or not they have made an approach. They’ll have critically appraised everything about the club (probably more so than our incumbents ever have) and all without having a single dollar invested. And trust me there will be an overall soundbite about us, everyone will have one.

So back to that board meeting, a combination of backers such as the representatives of large family offices (families with lots of generational wealth) and partners at the very top of large US venture capital firms. There will be a slide titled “Clubs with Prumeer League Potenial” and a list of prospects with some summary analysis. And one the board who is time poor and literally only thinks about football 5 minutes before the board meeting but has done the obvious stuff like look at size of city, catchment area, position in the Championship, will lean in and go “Hey Dwight, this is Bob. Where are we at with Bristol City what’s the story there the fundamentals look rully good.” And then Dwight says…

[Insert here soundbite/running joke that every single investment fund has formed about us over the last few years]

• “Hey Bob great question, as you know we really liked that one but the structure is complex you have to buy an amateur basketball team and a weird social media marketing company which are all priced into the deal”
• “Hi Bob, glad you could join how was Cancun? So Bristol we have ran a bunch of scenarios with the modelling guys and we can’t get near a scenario where the number the owner wants makes sense. It’s a dead end”
• ”Bob, glad you could join, Danny and I flew out from Boston to meet these guys, we had met with their chairman and well Bob, he drew some weird soccer kit, and tried to have us invest in a video production company”

Yep. I work with funds, family offices, super HNWs. I'm also currently advising a couple of people looking to buy EFL clubs.

What you describe in delightfully humorous detail is what I negligently summarised as "just chats" in my first post. I agree that's what will be happening in the investment committees and meetings. If nothing is getting beyond that then fair enough. I wondered earlier in the season whether Lansdown's presence at some of our games was about getting us ready for sale or meeting prospective buyers (although much will be done by Teams nowadays).

My point to @Harry was borne from the fact that the guys I'm advising right now don't seem that agitated about stadium size or expansion potential. They're doing much higher level DD on fundamental stuff.

But I will admit that the clubs in question are not quite our exact peers. They are not quite going to be on your slide titled “Clubs with Prumeer League Potenial” (they might be on the following slide though). 

The concern around the stadium surprised me, but on explanation I can understand how, when you're being asked to buy Bristol Sport for £200m, it is a concern that's big enough to torpedo your interest.

On 31/07/2023 at 13:05, ExiledAjax said:

FWIW

10th to 20th is really loose and really anything could happen in there.

Wondered what on earth we were all saying way back before the season began. This looks kind of shit but also kind of not too bad. Not much worse than the supercomputer or old captain spreadsheet @Davefevs though.

Ipswich didn't burn out and McKenna didn't leave for a better job, so I got them obviously wrong.

Hull, Norwich and WBA also stand out as ones I really didn't get.

The bottom though...for a while I was on with Sheff Wed and QPR, and I maintain that Cardiff finished in the "most false" position and weren't anywhere near as good as the table says they are. Had all three relegated clubs in my bottom 7.

Had us two positions higher, would have been bob-on had we got that win on the final day.

22 minutes ago, Harry said:

As far as I know from the rumour mill - when he first put the club up for sale a couple of years ago there were a number of interested parties. Not one off big benefactors, but more the business-investment style groups. 
I’m certain 777 was one of them. 
There were others that were batted away immediately. 
So, with 777, it could be that Steve made a good call and pulled out, but I think the truth would more likely be that they weren’t anywhere close on price. 
I think 2 years ago they probably looked like a decent investor. 
I believe that with all talks, they’ve quickly stumbled when it comes to a few things :

1) Structure. We are the most complex of structures, more so than any other championship club that’s been available in the last few years. 
2) Ground. Steve ballsed up with the Ashton Vale situation and the Ashton Gate rebuild is not something some of the potential investors saw as a great facility. In terms of size rather than anything else. It’s a very good championship facility but if new owners have ambitions for Prem football, there are no grounds for expansion and many thought it’s too small to sustain a Prem club. 
3) The cost base at the club is ridiculous. (Mainly loaded with mates of Jon). There are reams and reams of positions that just aren’t required or provide very little value for money. When someone arrives and challenges this (Phil Alexander) they are quickly removed for asking too many questions and telling too many home truths. 
4) The people. I know that a party who were previously interested a couple of years ago were very satisfied with the Gould/Nige/Tins set up and felt they could really work with that. 
We are now miles away from that and I can’t see how any investors would currently be happy with how we’re set up. 
5) The price. Steve wants his money back. Basically. He might settle for being about £50million down as an absolute maximum but he basically wants his money back. 
That doesn’t make us a very attractive proposition when other championship clubs can be purchased for a lot less and without the complexity of the Bristol Sport model. 
 

So, short answer is, how far has anyone got, a lot closer a couple of years ago than they are now. 

I think I'd have guessed a lot of that.

The opinions on AG surprise me though. Ticket sales aren't a big part of a PL club's revenue, so I'd have thought most buyers wouldn't take that so seriously. If we were in the PL this season just finished we'd have had the 15th biggest stadium - smaller than the City Ground but bigger than Selhurst Park. Miles off the biggest stadia, and smaller than the 35/40k that would be average/standard. But still substantially larger than Bournemouth or Brentford. Plus it seems - to me at least - that the stadium does ok from concerts, arms fairs, and vegan conferences. So your number 2 surprises me.

Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5 do not though. And really it's 1, 3, and 4 that make 5 so silly. 

Sort 1 (the commercial structure, not corporate. Our corporate structure is simple), 3, and 4 and I suspect we'd be a lot more attractive.

If 777 were interested then yes with the benefit of hindsight we dodged a bullet (even if done accidentally). 

I would absolutely expect us to be bought by a fund/consortium/group btw. I don't think sole owners are really playing at our level right now. Below in L1 and L2 yes, and higher up (if you can call an Emirate a "sole" purchaser), but not really at Champ level.

I wonder how far through the process any prospective buyer/investor has got?

Just chats? Confidentiality or exclusivity agreement? Due diligence? Heads of Terms? Doubt anyone has gone further than that, but I can imagine there is a dataroom somewhere that people take a look at.

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

I live even further from Bristol now. If somehow we become a successful team in the next 20 years then my kids will (hopefully) be non-locals who support a team 150 miles away and they may be the "glory hunters". Ok City success is doubtful but you get the point...

Likewise, I live near Leicester now. When the boy gets to school I suspect a lot of his mates will be Leicester fans and he may want to go with that. I wouldn't blame him, and tbh it would be convenient if he decides to support a club 30 mins drive away rather than one 2.5 hours away. I'd like him to support City, but am willing to accept if he goes for the Foxes.

But I'd say that really what is meant by "plastic" is the failure to put any effort in. The armchair critic, or fan, who selects a team they've no connection to, then never goes to a game, never learns the club history, and is loud when the team wins but silent when it loses. That's very different to picking a club to which you don't have geographical or consanguineous attachment but then actually attend games and take a real interest.

We have "plastic" fans by that definition. I'm sure we do. Not as many as a club like Liverpool or Man City, but a few.

14 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Oh wow, well remembered. 
 

It’s almost like they’re making it up as they go along. 

Or like they have 4 different people doing interviews, all of whom have their own slant on things.

Who'd have thought that would happen when they scrapped the single point of focus that a CEO brings?

8 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

"Internally, however, the pre-Easter wobble, particularly in the three straight defeats to QPR, Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff City was largely expected"

How bizarre. 

Despite everyone at Failand "rubbing their hands together" at those fixtures?

I'm glad we're getting consistent messages from everyone who currently does a little bit of the CEO's job.

I think that expecting a wobble there is more realistic than the implied hubris of "rubbing hands together", but it's one or the other.

7 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Not disputing that other clubs have benefitted from spending big money before 

Blackburn and Chelsea both other examples

Has a club done it with so many (alleged) breaches and cheating as Man City though? 

Probably not.

But then football has never seen so many rules and regulations in place before.

6 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

The season they signed Laporte, Mendy, Walker, Bernardo Silva and Ederson then?

A not insignificant number of big signings who played a part of their squad in more titles after that.

The season before that there was Stones, Jesus, Sane and Gundogan.

The season before that having De Bruyne, Otamendi and Sterling.

A large chunk of their squad that's still winning (as it stands) the title this season were players signed under the period that's getting investigated.

Yes, if anyone, or any company, spends a high level of money, more than their neighbours or competitors, over a decade, then that will likely embed superiority.

We see this elsewhere when we talk about societal generational privilege, or hereditary wealth. 

Anyway, Arsenal are no angels in that department of course. Moving from Woolwich for financial gain, buying their way into the first division (allegedly but almost certainly), being the original "Bank of England" club (so rich they could build that old art deco frontage at Highbury). 

So being financially/morally dodgy isn't something that Man City invented.

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

The majority of charges span 2009-10 to 2017-18 season, but some of the charges of failure of co-operation with the PL investigations go right up to February 2023. 

Yes, but I doubt they'd get a sporting sanction (points deduction) for failing to cooperate. So I didn't refer to those.

I suspect those 35 are the easiest to prove for the PL. But likely to bring only a slap on the wrist for procedural failures. Maybe.

12 minutes ago, JBFC II said:

For this season.

Second highest net spend over the past decade with the highest wage bill.

They spend a bucket load and win everything, it's all rather boring really.

Hard to get excited about today with all those charges hanging over them, if they are found to have broken rules what does it mean for this season?

It probably wouldn't impact this season. The latest charges against them are, iirc, related to 2017/18, so it's likely that is the latest season where they could possibly have a title stripped from them (either directly, or perhaps indirectly through something like a retrospective points deduction). These are example punishments only, no-one really knows exactly what punishment they may suffer.

But, even if they didn't get the most recent trophies taken off them, any finding of guilt would still mean that the entire foundation of their dynasty is shit. Big stinky fraudulent shit.

Allegedly.

I'm torn between not wanting them to win anything, and thinking that the more they win the funnier it will be to see the PL/UAE's darlings come tumbling down.

5 minutes ago, lenred said:

Slightly off the incredibly educational mathematical theme, but I wonder how many ‘caps’ we are going to need to get to the away game. Probably will be the most popular away game next season? 

Easy from London, small stadium, new ground for many, close to Bristol. Yeh it'll sell out 4 or 5 times over I reckon.

4 hours ago, Colemanballs said:

You are. 15 seasons does not constitute 'almost all' of 25 seasons which is the reasonable meaning of 'most' given the context in which KITR used it. 

Looking forward to all the apologies to WSM from all those who got it wrong...

At the risk of speaking for him, I think the fact that @Kid in the Riot clarified his intended context, that in his initial post he was using the word to mean "significant majority", is important. He may have been abrupt in that clarification, but it was made quite clearly.

That may not be the primary common meaning, but it is an acceptable meaning of the word "most", and once clarified, can be taken to be what the author intended.