ExiledAjax

Genuinely interested in how a competition (finally) deciding to enforce some rules causes it to be "discredited"?

Haha. I'm sure at the very least one or two of us on here would mention it to them. Hell I'd just email the club directly tbh.

The messaging around the regulator has to be crystal clear. Fan buy-in is crucial and we've seen with P&S, with Man City, with Derby, that when messaging isn't clear, fans get angry at the rules and the institutions that seek to enforce them rather than THE ******* BILL/MILLIONAIRES THAT BREAK THEM. Apologies for the caps. Honestly this Whittome MP has got me angry here. The neck on HER to try and leverage some support with a letter that reads like it's been written by a 12 year-old entering a competition. I pity the poor people of Nottingham for being represented by her if this is a fair representation of her intelligence.

See. This is bullshit from this MP. This letter is a real mess, and it confuses the messaging, and sets fans up to misunderstand the intended role of the regulator and the PL's mechanism for P&S enforcement. For the record and for anyone reading this: The Regulator WILL NOT directly enforce P&S breaches. The Regulator WILL NOT impose points deductions on clubs. The Regulator WILL NOT have anything to do with Man City's case. The Man City case IS TOTALLY SEPARATE from the P&S cases of Everton and Forest. It's not relevant and should not really be discussed in the same breath as those two cases. Yes it's annoying that the PL has no fixed matrix of points deductions, and so each P&S case is determined on it's merits, yes the timelines are slow compared to the pace of the football season, but those are not things the Regulator is going to fix! Using the regulator in this way is a complete misrepresentation of what it's expected to do, which means fans are wrongly educated, and so will wrongly blame the regulator when a club breaches P&S/SCMP/"FFP" after the regulator is in place. It's really frustrating that MPs want to use this sort of thing to try and win support and votes with mixed messaging, incorrect explanation of bills, and generally flawed letter like this. How are we supposed to have confidence in these people when they debate the Football Governance Bill if they apparently don't even understand what it is aiming to do.

But seriously, Sullivan's resistance to the Bill might have something to do with the proposal that IFR would be able to levy a fine against an owner/director personally.

They all have to KO simultaneously right. So if Sky want to show just one game - say Leeds v Southampton for example - then all have to move their KO time. The power of the gods in a man's hand.

"Man who made his money in vice is counter-regulation" He'll sing a different song if/when West Ham are next relegated.

His wife Nicola is vice-chairman, an ex non-exec director of British Rowing, ex CEO of a law firm. That's how you use skilled family members to compliment your board and ownership.

Also, I believe if you look at those seasons we've actually barely ever been in either the top 6 or bottom 3 at any meaningful point (is after the first 5 games or so). We've been in those positions very occasionally, but other than 15/16 and maybe for a few games in 18/19, we've rarely had a spell in either of the "fun" areas of the division.

Bird

Maybe we'll get a poll on the website: Which club should we seek to emulate this season: A. Luton B. Ipswich C. Brentford D. Brighton

I've read through once. Will go again tomorrow morning. But yes the old dawn raids bit was interesting! From my perspective I see huge challenges in imposing the restrictions on the share rights of owners and requirements on them to stop being owners. Or to force the removal of directors. The power to appoint trustees seems a stretch as well. I could see legal challenge there. Financial deal is pretty weak as well. Mediation will be pointless so I don't even know why that's in there. Also there's no power for IFR to independently impose a deal. One of the PL, EFL, or NL need to request IFR to start that process. That seems a bit of an abandonment of some fairly sketchy powers. Definitely gives the feeling that IFR really, really would rather not get involved there. On the plus I think the Owners and Directors test itself is a bit stronger - although as I say there's an issue around enforcement. Fan consultation is bolstered. It's a start.

Bit more than a chat down the Hen and Chicken needed.

New Owners and Directors test will have a "competency" requirement for directors. No comment re our board.

Bill is available for download if anyone else is as lame as me and needs something to read. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3701

I mean...I strongly disagree with this.

Ah the fans. Yes. The fans. Not so long ago Forest fans were gleefully compiling "ze List" - which I believe you made it on to - in mockery of their rivals being strung up by the rules. Well, well, well, how the turns tabled. A moral perhaps not to gloat too much when opportunity arises?

Trouble is that we know they won't do that. The short term nature of football means we would get some clubs, owned by some people, willing to omit a relegation clause from a contract if it meant getting a player to sign for them rather than a rival. We know this because it happens. Until recently Everton didn't have relegation clauses int heir contracts. Our own club gave out contracts in the 70s that it ultimately couldn't back. Just two examples of what would happen. So you'd get clubs, community institutions, going bust, or going through desperate insolvency procedures. Unless and until there's enough oversight of owners to ensure pragmatic and sensible commercial decisions are made (*cough* regulator with teeth *cough*) you do have to have some sort of safety net in place to protect the clubs and their fans from stupid owners.

Interesting. But I don't think it gets to he root of the problem and in fact could enhance it. Championship clubs already fly as close as they can to bankrupting themselves, or distort their squads beyond repair, in an effort to chase the riches of the PL. Increasing how much money is given to a promoted team would only increase that desire to do absolutely anything possible to get there. Also, if you're encouraging teams to spend a **** ton on promotion you need to couple it with protections on relegation. Otherwise you simply increase the cliff that a relegated team falls off...and all that does is encourage PL teams to spend more and more in a desperate attempt to stay in that division. Ultimately it's not the answer for me.

Sometimes I struggle to believe that it's only 13.5 months since Gould left.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.