ExiledAjax

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.

Barton's case (and all other cases) don't create a binding precedent over the FA. I've been privy to a detailed analysis of 101 betting cases which are publicly available on The FA’s website as of 19 March 2021. The severity of TOney's punishment (assuming he's found guilty) will depend on a few things. Most iomportant is the type of offence. Broadly there are four relelvant categories: Category 1 (betting which does not involve own-team competitions) Category 2 (bet placed on Participant’s competition but not involving his or her club), Category 3 (bet placed on own team to win) and Category 4 (bet placed on own team to lose). Of these 4 (there are two others which both involve spot bets and are very very rare) Category 2, 3 and 4 cases form the vast majority of cases that the FA considers - 85%. However it is Category 4 cases that are the most serious but the Guidelines recommend a big range of suspension of six months to life. So the severity of the sentence will first be based on that scale of severity, the following factors would then be considered when determining appropriate sanctions: Overall perception of impact of bet(s) on fixture/game integrity; Player played or did not play; Number of Bets; Size of Bets; Fact and circumstances surrounding pattern of betting; Actual stake and amount possible to win; Personal Circumstances; Previous record – (any previous breach of betting Rules will be considered as a highly aggravating factor); Experience of the participant; and Assistance to the process and acceptance of the charge. I'll now share the full analysis of BArton's case from the breakdown I have seen. ...in which the Participant was ultimately suspended for a total of 57.2 weeks (just over 13 months) following his appeal. This is the longest suspension for a Category 4(b) [Barton bet on his own team to lose but did not take part in the fixture in question] offence and is over two standard deviations more than the average. It therefore warrants closer inspection. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Commission in Barton placed particular emphasis on the fact that the Participant had bet against his own club not once, but 15 times. It is clear from the Commission’s decision that it considered the number of Category 4(b) bets to be a serious aggravating factor, warranting a significant departure from the lower end of the recommended sanction. However, the facts of Barton are certainly not unique: there are four other publicly available cases in which a player has bet against their own team between 10 and 15 times but did not play in any of the relevant fixtures. In those cases, the average sporting sanction was 21.5 weeks. In the three further cases where the number of “own team to lose” bets was larger than Barton, the average suspension was 33.2 weeks. Therefore, if number of bets against a Participant’s own team is to be treated as the most important aggravating factor (as appears to have been the case in Barton), Barton does seem to be out of kilter with similar cases. It could be argued that there were other aggravating factors such as bets on his own team to win and the overall large number of prohibited bets but, again, Barton is not unique in this regard. One element of Barton which does appear to be unique is a series of Twitter messages in which the Participant was “publicly dismissive” of the FA and the FA Rules concerning gambling. This was an aggravating factor, but it is not clear why this factor should lead to such a significant increase in sanction compared to other apparently similar cases. Previous criticism of the sanction in Barton, even after its reduction on appeal, therefore appears to have some force.

Equally fivethirtyeight currently have: Bristol City relegation chance: 14% (1 in 8 ) Bristol Rovers promotion chance: 4% (1 in 20) 0.14*0.04 = 0.0056. 0.0056*100 = a 0.56% chance, or 1 in 180. I won't lose sleep over it.

Mathematically it's possible. Realistically it's incredibly improbable.

There's an interesting little couple of paragraphs in Barney Ronay's article today. On the future of FIFA and the World Cup. "A final note on what might happen next, beyond the US, Mexico and Canada in 2026 and our newly opened book on the morality of World Cup hosts. It was interesting that Michel Platini declined Emmanuel Macron’s invitation to attend the World Cup final. Platini is said to be unwilling to meet Infantino and his circle, whom he sees as malevolent architects of his own downfall. There is genuine enmity here. Platini is also free now of criminal charges. Infantino, newly re-elected, cosying up to world leaders, looks bulletproof. But if anyone knows anything about the things no one knows about, it is perhaps Platini, who doesn’t seem to be done just yet." There's scope for more drama, more scandal, and more revelation. I don't believe for a second that Infantino is clean, and there's surely a good half dozen pieces of evidence floating around somewhere.

Nice of Infantino to lend Messi his dressing gown

Allow it for Aguero though. By all accounts that I've heard he's about 1,000x the man Terry is.

Part one

That'll happen when your pitch is glued together and laid on sand

I guess 3-1 to France. Early Messi penalty to get the wankfest started. But then he tires and France control the second half. Three bangers to win it.

God I fancy back to back wins.

(Belinda) Carlisle

Cash money. But I agree with you.

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.

Interesting. And he makes the same point about winning moments, and being confident in the knowledge that you are good.

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.

Remind me how many high pressure penalties in competitive international fixtures has Barton taken?

Plus a Euros win in 2000 and reaching the 2016 final of that tournament as well. Bar the Spanish team of the late 2000's and early 2010's they are pretty comfortably the dominant European football team of the last thirty years.

My reading of it is that it's quite a long-winded way of saying "success breeds success". He's saying, in flowery journalistic language, that France won because they won the moments, and they won the moments because they knew they would, and they knew they would because they've done it before and it is just what they do. England are getting there but we need that one win, that little bit of luck that just gets us that trophy, and gives us that innate, concrete knowledge that we are good. Not belief, knowledge.

If by "the regulator" Maguire meant the individual who will be chairman/CEO/Head of IREF, then I don't think it's that odd to announce them prior to the legislation being enacted. I think that person will be a regulatory person rather than a football person. Probably some head of dept at the FCA, or possibly an ex-FCA Chair. They will likely then have someone like Clarke Carlisle or Roy Hodgson as the "football" man in a senior position. The rest will be employed from the professional services. Remember, the white paper has been 90% written and on ice since before Johnson resigned in the summer. At the same time there have been a small group of people from the FCA working in the background on designing the structure of the regulator. I.e. how many employees does it need? Where would it's offices be? Paygrades, IT systems etc. All that's really been needed is for the government to commit. Now it looks like they will do that.

Thanks. I agree in so far as there needs to be a pathway for foreign-based players to get into the squad. One that doesn't require them to be either an existing Southgate favourite or a generational talent. So let's say I am Ivan Toney, or James Maddison, or Marc Guehi, and I fancy getting into the Euro 2024 squad. I get an offer in the summer to go and play for...let's say Sevilla, or Lyon, or Napoli. It's more money, it's a fun foreign league, it's a chance to develop. But, my agent points me at Tomori, or Abraham, or Smalling and says "if you want to be picked for Germany '24 then you will have to play twice as well abroad as you will at Brentford, Palace or Leicester". I probably stay playing in the Prem. Now that's not bad, as the Prem is a very good, possibly even the best, league in terms of average player standard. But, if what we want is to develop a team that can win a tournament through bringing in a diverse footballing experience, it doesn't encourage me to go abroad.

But the England coaching set up has to reward players that do go abroad. You mention Smalling, but Abraham has set records in Serie A and been rewarded with a bit part role in the England set up. Bellingham has been picked whilst abroad, but he's different gravy. The evidence, the pathway, the record, the action all suggest that unless you are either a) truly exceptional (Bellingham) or b) already established in the England set up (Trippier), you need to play in the Prem to get picked. If you play abroad then you need to be one of those two things. So it's a two sided coin. A chicken and egg scenario perhaps. Both the players and the coaches need to be willing to experiment.

The Daily Mail is today exclusively reporting that Sunak has said yes to the government supporting a regulator. White Paper will finally be published in January with a view to establishing a regulator by the end of 2023. I will believe it when I see it, but this builds on Donelan's recent words in the HoC so I suspect there is truth to this.