Independent Football Regulator Bill reintroduced

I think I'd be curious of the extent to which the regulator will be able to interfere with or correct the internal running of an individual club, especially their financial structure? Such as in the case of the PSR problems we have had.

When we've had this discussion before, some posters have seen the regulator as coming in to ensure that each club is 'run properly' — whatever that might mean.

Whereas — apart from the fan involvement stuff, which Everton have pioneered to their credit through early establishment of the Fan Advisory Board — most of the chatter relating to parachute payments and the redistribution of Premier League monies down to the pyramid are broad generalities.

Michael,

I haven't read the bill and have only heard brief outlines as to what the independent regulator can and can't do. I think that if anybody believes this is the panacea of all financial as well as other problems, they may well be disappointed.

So they have ruled out the regulator being involved in rogue nation-states controlling yet more clubs. The bill apparently says it will mediate between Premier league clubs and the English Fotball League as to how much of the Sky cake will be given to the lower leagues… well, good luck with that one.

The Premier League have never shown any appetite for giving the lower leagues a bigger share of the cake, and the way that grassroots football has been treated in all this is shameful.

The fit and proper test has seen so many clubs get into financial difficulty would suggest that needs a massive overall, and I wonder if Gary Neville's idea of a bond signed by prospective owners to guarantee that they can't leave the club in a worse financial state than when they took over will be looked at by the independent regulator?

Maybe if this bond scheme could be introduced, so every owner of every club had to sign it, we could do away with FFP or PSR, as the main reason we were told for introducing these measures was to make sure owners didn't place their clubs in jeopardy by leaving the clubs with massive debts when the owner walks.

As I say, I haven't read the bill but is there any legislation to have more fan involvement at board level?

I found this in The Independent write-up:

A licensing regime is also to be implemented in order to ensure a more consistent approach in how clubs from the Premier League to the National League are run, while monitoring finances.

The devil being in the details, which should be spelled out in the text of the Bill, so I guess I will have to read it.

Well, I pulled it up after lunch… and now I feel like throwing up!

At first glance, the granting (or not!) of an operating licence to a club, and everything that goes with it, seems to be the central thrust of the proposed legislation. Talk about over-arching bureaucracy!

For example, owner suitability (Section 28; Part 4):

(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made in accordance with rules made by the IFR, which—

(a) must require information about the following matters to be provided

with an application—

(i) the proposed operation of the club;

(ii) the estimated costs of that operation;

(iii) how those costs are to be funded;

(iv) the source of such funding;

Also, regulation of owners and officers (Section 26; Part 4):

(7) An individual meets the “individual ownership fitness criteria” if the

individual—

(a) has the requisite honesty and integrity, and

(b) is financially sound.

(8) An individual meets the “officer fitness criteria” if the individual—

(a) has the requisite honesty and integrity,

(b) has the requisite competence, and

(c) is financially sound.

Completely out of context... but I think it gives a taste of what's in the 134 pages!!!

House of Lords [HL] Bill 41: Football Governance

Given the numbers wanting to look after the money, it's surprising anyone would get into financial difficulties.

Initially I, along with many others, welcomed the reins being taken from Masters & Co. I still do but hope that there is much change from what I have read above as it reads as though a Dogs Dinner is being prepared for us all. If that is so it will be a case of from the frying pan and into the fire.

I just can't see, if the extracts Michael has written here, being implementets withourt much revision. For example there are many Clubs that are not run properly, in cluding Everton, and this needs to be addressed but the wording used at the moment doesn't suggest to me that much is going to be done effectivly to address this problem.

Further down the page the quote from The Independent A licensing regime is also to be implemented in order to ensure a more consistent approach in how clubs from the Premier League to the National League are run, while monitoring finances. must be spelled out Michael because as it is it mean absolutely nothing.

It is all getting to sound like the Govt are going to talk alot but in reality not do very much except to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally the Bill says that in an application under subsection (1) for an Operators Licence it must be accompaned by answers to a list of requirements which, to be honest, is pure gobbledygook which can be answered in a thousand different ways (except those idiots who answer truthfully of course).

It is a Dog's Breakfast and a Dog's Dinner as it stands.

Some interesting points there, Michael (#1).

The narrative coming out of the Premier League seems to me to be wholly defensive as regards any hint of government regulation. In short, Masters & Co think the Premier League is only a global success story because of their lack of external regulation; this stance is seemingly backed by the richest clubs (the usual suspects).

Change is most definitely needed in the governance of the Premier League, as the utter nonsense we have seen in relation to points deductions has laid bare the inconsistencies that are in play.

In order to move on from this, it would require all of the Premier League clubs to agree upon a set of clear, relevant and fair guidelines in relation to the financial rules, but it would appear that certain clubs will only vote for change if they see it is in their own interests?

What other industry has to have a 'fit and proper' test for it's owners? If any individual or group has enough money to buy and fund a business, then it's on you go mate.

Whilst a football club does occupy a special place in its local community, and some benefit those communities more than others, it should also be remembered that it is a business and has always been so.

Imagine Tesco sharing with ASDA et al, how it manages to keep its costs low by having preferred suppliers or special deals in place to help beat its competition! It just doesn't happen, although there is perhaps some evidence that the big banks, supermarkets and others do 'share' some information when it comes to having similar price levels.

The point is that all are individual businesses that succeed or fail by their actions; what makes football clubs any different?

Not for me.

If governments start meddling with the game, it will all end in tears.

The government is/was already involved in the Man City case and was in the Newcastle takeover. Ultimately, I imagine it'll be more roles for chinless wonders and those that move in the right circles.

And in the meantime, has Masters made any comment on the leaked Newcastle/Staveley WhatsApp messages suggesting that the buyout of the club hinged on the approval of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman? Confirming that the Premier League was lied to about the ownership? Not a peep.

Our country has long been identified by £mega-billionaire shysters as a very accommodating recipient of their ever-growing money, to our cost. What else did you expect of current Toryism and the acquiescence of their bonkers voters?

We have now since been the safest 1st-world country chosen by dubiously wealthy bastards to engage with in terms of expanding their businesses here for more profitable greed to themselves, to the cost of us citizens, pay and conditions having been dispensed with yonks ago by Government. (Zero-hours contracts, anyone? No, I agree with you!)

I confess to being confused... lots of words and top level stuff but the devil is in the detail, which isn't there in plain English, or perhaps just isn't there yet.

The original Government fact sheet produced under the Tories was thus:
Fact sheet - the Independent Football Regulator (IFR)
A good bit of polaticing and thumping of the dispatch box but short on what and how.

But it is in contradiction with the Premier League, but what is deemed as the problem, who is responsible and how is it going to be sorted, is as clear as mud.

The Independent Regulator can and will operate within a set of agreed rules to achieve a sustainable outcome for all clubs. That runs contrary to the actions of the Premier League who approach the rest of the game akin the Thatcherite trickle-down theory.

Emphasis on trickle. What's mine is mine and you're not having it... too big for their boots perhaps but the "football" of the Premier League bears little relation to lower league clubs, the facilities, the rewards or hardships of players, fans or managers.

The plight of Duncan Ferguson's Inverness Caledonian Thistle, where he was working for nothing and subbing the players' expenses, is a disgrace and he ends up out of work, players likely sold and the club in administration for the cost of one week's pay for just one of some Premier League players. It can't be right.

I seem to remember somewhere that, when Kenwright wanted to give Bury money when they were in the same boat, he wasn't allowed to as it broke FA rules? Absurd, let them go to the wall!

Masters is against it; well, that's no surprise, but that must mean so are the majority of clubs and owners in the Premier League... so exactly what difference is this IFR going to make?

Michael, Christine, I agree, lots of high level words, with little substance.

We used to have a saying when Generals briefed us. "Big hands, small map". Basically, we're going here and we're going to do this. Then we'd have to figure out the objectives and detail of how to deliver!!

I've long called for the Premier League to be regulated. For too long they've been self-regulating. A bit like marking your own homework.

But I too, am nervous about too much Government interference. I don't mind governance, but I fear the nanny state.

Stepping away from football, having worked for several multi-national companies, I am used to regulation, adhering to compliance and being subject to annual internal and external audits.

But on the flip side, any business, football or not, should have the freedom and flexibility to invest as they see fit. "Speculate to accumulate" as they say and there is always risk.

If they mess it up, then it's on them. But if they succeed, they reap the benefits.

On dispersion of monies to the lower leagues, I've long suggested that Premier League clubs could sponsor clubs and the English football could adopt the B Team model as happens in other European countries.

Chester, Marine, Prescott, Southport. If we are going to send out young players on loan, in my opinion, it would make more sense to have them in one place, and with the Everton coaching staff assisting. It would provide consistency.

Michael,

Rick Stein said on telly last night “There are two things in life you shouldn't watch being made – sausages and laws”.

Wise words.