The Football Regulator

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

As Crouch implied it may need to wait for a change of government.

Rinse, repeat, apply to any and all issues.

This is not the month to feel good about the organisation or governance of this brilliant game.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

2. It was news to me that the PL has allegedly accepted independent regulation.

On that note, maybe it's the organisation executive if not necessarily the clubs at this juncture-maybe there is a divergence?

Because I do recall vaguely dunno if 2020 or 2021, Richard masters the generally ineffective CEO of the PL said that "change is coming". I took it to mean independent regulation but forgot all about it. About 2 years ago in fact.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-project-big-picture-b1720316.html

Perhaps the PL executive see or have seen it as inevitable.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On that note, maybe it's the organisation executive if not necessarily the clubs at this juncture-maybe there is a divergence?

Because I do recall vaguely dunno if 2020 or 2021, Richard masters the generally ineffective CEO of the PL said that "change is coming". I took it to mean independent regulation but forgot all about it.

Masters is just a puppet. I suspect it's the so called big 6, the ones who thought they could force through the Super League, calling the tune. On the grounds that they don't have enough money I expect.

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, chinapig said:

Masters is just a puppet. I suspect it's the so called big 6, the ones who thought they could force through the Super League, calling the tune. On the grounds that they don't have enough money I expect.

Yeh. The PL is it's 20 shareholder clubs. Just as Bristol City is controlled by it's shareholder, so the PL is controlled by it's 20, or more accurately by any group of either 14 or 7 who at any time can pass or block resolutions.

All the engagement and discussion in the world can happen, but unless you can get a resolution passed nothing will actually change in the PL.

Hence we need legislative intervention, which the Sunak government now seems to be trying to quietly row back on and quash.

Edited November 16, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[ExiledAjax]

Little update following the anniversary of the opublication of the FLR.

To mark the anniversary, Tracey Crouch published a report The Fan Led Review: One-year on. Her conclusions are that "A minority of loud, self-interested voices continue to block meaningful reform, to the detriment of the game," she said. “But the support for reform from fan groups, many football officials and club owners, has been incredibly encouraging and gives me hope that the Government will utilise cross-party support to deliver the change that football needs. The time for reform is now.”

This anniversary report was officially launched at a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for football. Crouch was there alongside the chair of the EFL Rick Parry, the EFL's head of policy John Nagle, the Executive Director of the Premier League Bill Bush, and senior staff from the FA and the DCMS. The big surprise was the attendance of the Sports Minister Stuart Andrew MP. The meeting was lively, and it wasn't particularly difficult to read the body language between Tracey (in the centre below) and Stuart (to her left). If looks could...

In the end, the Minister admitted: "People are losing faith, but it is my No 1 priority. We need to deliver. I'm equally frustrated and I want to get on with it." The response was dealt with a degree of sceptism as he was unable to provide any timeline or indeed an indication as to when we might see the White Paper - the vital last step towards the introduction of the independent regulator. The conversation then moved on to the financial flow in football, a hot potato for the football authorities, who have repeatedly been tasked by the Government to come up with a solution. It is a topic that has clearly left Crouch and the EFL frustrated.

Crouch asked: "The EFL and the Premier League are both in the room, should we just lock the door and wait until they reach a deal?" The riposte from Rick Parry showed exactly the depth of the problem: "Have you got until 2030?"

If anyone wants to support this or wonders where I get this information from, it's because I am a member and volunteer with Fair Game UK. https://www.fairgameuk.org/

Fair Game is a growing band of football clubs striving to change the game for the better fairness, sustainability and success In the wider interests of football. We are trying to persuade City to join Fair Game, but if you'd like to then you can get the newsletter through the website, and there are also options to donate or volunteer if you've got some expertise or passion for this.

Edited November 18, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

@chinapig @ExiledAjax @Davefevs @Hxj

Feel free to tag others that I may not have! Usual caveat with MPs etc but it sounds like it might be on the way sooner rather than later.

[ExiledAjax]

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.

Edited December 11, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[BTRFTG]

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.

[chinapig]

21 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

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.

Kieran Maguire mentions on today's PoF podcast with more details to come on Thursday's pod.

He seemed to suggest the regulator might be appointed imminently though it would be odd in advance of the White Paper becoming a Bill and subsequently law.

[ExiledAjax]

39 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Kieran Maguire mentions on today's PoF podcast with more details to come on Thursday's pod.

He seemed to suggest the regulator might be appointed imminently though it would be odd in advance of the White Paper becoming a Bill and subsequently law.

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.

[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”.