New football regulator confirmed by government

[SwalePie]

"Blocking clubs from joining a breakaway European Super League will be among the powers held by English football's new independent regulator.

The plan for a regulator, recommended by a fan-led review last year, has been confirmed by the UK government.

Preventing historic clubs going out of business is one of the aims, as well as giving fans greater input and a new owners' and directors' test.
The significant move aims to protect English football's cultural heritage....."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536218

[Elite_Pie]

I noticed this bit:

"A new licensing system will require every club - from the Premier League to the National League - to prove it has a sustainable business model implemented by responsible custodians as part of an application process".

So how will this regulator decide what constitutes a sustainable business model and who are responsible custodians? They've failed miserably in the past.

And what if it goes tits up? Will they bail the club out seeing as their judgement turned out to be wrong?

[MAD_MAGPIE]

The article is making all the right noises because it’s a fan led review and a regulator is needed. We must have done this topic to death over the years with not only what’s happened at our club, but also other clubs. Only in recent days Southend’s plight has been discussed on here.

Whilst the right noises are being made the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. That will be the biggest challenge and will raise the most questions. How will this regulator fit in and how will it all work?

[The_Don_ORiordan]

What disappoints me is that saving clubs, and reproportion of income are way below things like European super league (but only if it’s not a closed shop), stopping changing club name and club colours.

How often has any of the above been attempted or successful?

Compare that to the bury, Darlington, Maidstone, Halifax, Macclesfield and god knows how many other clubs which have gone to the wall, whilst the main reason is mismanagement. Part of this is the lack of funds being spread across the leagues from the rich league.

The PL is claiming that the sport washing bid by Qatar might be put off by this is ridiculous….and shows how out of touch they are.

Strikes me the “fans” involved have a distinctly PL bias.

But I guess we’ll see. They can hardly make the situation worse.

[jackal2]

I'm sure there are good intentions behind the creation of an independent football regulator, and I'm sure fans of clubs currently in trouble due to questionable ownership would applaud the arrival of such controls, because it's easy to support financial propriety when the consequences of financial impropriety are staring you in the face.

The problem is, football fans are hypocrites.

Football fans will accept ownership/money from anywhere if they think it will bring success and fulfill their dreams. They will actively attack those who question the source of such money and threaten their dream. We saw it ourselves when a journalist started asking questions about Munto back in 2009/10. Eventually the journalist was proven right that it was a cynical fraud, but at that time, most Notts fans simply didn't want to hear the truth and actually turned on the journalist. Conmen rely on people seeing things through the eyes of believers, and after years of drudgery and struggle, Notts fans just wanted to believe that Munto money was real, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

Right now, Manchester City are facing a mountain of allegations of financial rule breaches, but their fans aren't welcoming such investigations. They've turned on the Premier League and sided with their owners, because they want to keep living the dream whether it's morally right or not. The same applies to Newcastle fans. I'm not criticising them, it's just football fans being what they are. We watch football to escape from reality, not to connect with it.

The truth is, football isn't that far removed from boxing, in that its business model survives to some extent on being the 'wild west'. Notts are very lucky at the moment to have owners who appear to be genuine football people with legitimate business interests, but many clubs rely for their survival on rich people investing for reasons that are not always solely football driven, whether it's an ego trip, a tax write off, long-term property ambitions, sports-washing or even money laundering.

If you take away all of those owners whose reputations and motives aren't exactly squeaky clean, how many do you have left?

We'll see how the new regulation body gets on, but I think these good intentions may founder on the conflict between the idealism of how the football business should operate, and the reality of how it actually does operate, and in all likelihood always will.

It's not just a question of club owners either. The bodies that currently govern football and sometimes issue charges of 'bringing the game into disrepute' (ha ha!) are themselves hopelessly compromised by incompetence and self-interest, so if you want to "clean up" football you've probably got to start with the administrators before you even get as far as investigating the clubs.

[upthemaggies]

Can only think of two attempted name changes in my lifetime, Coventry Talbot and Hull Tigers, both of which were smacked down without too much of a fuss. It certainly shouldn't be allowed but it's hardly the most pressing issue in football right now.

Club colours wasn't considered sacred until quite recently. Switching to white - as Bradford City, Shrewsbury, Stockport, Walsall and indeed Notts have done in the past - doesn't seem to upset anybody so long as the trimmings are the traditional colour. Crystal Palace, Orient, Watford, Port Vale, Torquay and S****horpe have all made drastic changes since the last war and most people now probably don't realise that none of those teams are playing in traditional colours. Other clubs have switched and gone back again, remember Oldham in Orange! Brentford wore yellow for a season.
Cardiff was the one controversy colours wise and the chairman eventually backed down when he realised that his persisting with red heavily contributed to the ill feeling towards him.

[The_Don_ORiordan]

Can only think of two attempted name changes in my lifetime, Coventry Talbot and Hull Tigers, both of which were smacked down without too much of a fuss. It certainly shouldn't be allowed but it's hardly the most pressing issue in football right now.

Club colours wasn't considered sacred until quite recently. Switching to white - as Bradford City, Shrewsbury, Stockport, Walsall and indeed Notts have done in the past - doesn't seem to upset anybody so long as the trimmings are the traditional colour. Crystal Palace, Orient, Watford, Port Vale, Torquay and S****horpe have all made drastic changes since the last war and most people now probably don't realise that none of those teams are playing in traditional colours. Other clubs have switched and gone back again, remember Oldham in Orange! Brentford wore yellow for a season.
Cardiff was the one controversy colours wise and the chairman eventually backed down when he realised that his persisting with red heavily contributed to the ill feeling towards him.

The only reason I think these have been added is so they can show “wins for the fans”.

Utter rubbish.

The most and frankly only important factor is the distribution of wealth. Everything else is sound bites.

[SwalePie]

The only reason I think these have been added is so they can show “wins for the fans”.

Utter rubbish.

The most and frankly only important factor is the distribution of wealth. Everything else is sound bites.

^^^This

[Elite_Pie]

The most and frankly only important factor is the distribution of wealth. Everything else is sound bites.

I've just read the response of the Premier League chief executive Richard Masters, and reading between the lines he's saying "we have no intention of sharing our pot of gold with you plebs".

"Regulation brings with it many challenges. This needs to be a very precise regulatory tool and not a sledgehammer, otherwise it might take football sidewards, or even backwards, rather than forwards."

"We need to be able to ensure the things which have made English football so successful over the last 150 years, and during the Premier League period, are not damaged".

"It is "no secret" that many Premier League clubs were opposed to an independent regulator. They are some of the most successful clubs in the world and feel this is probably a step too far."

[jackal2]

"It is "no secret" that many Premier League clubs were opposed to an independent regulator. They are some of the most successful clubs in the world and feel this is probably a step too far."[/I]

They're the most successful clubs because they are resourced by the richest owners, whose money often comes from dirty places . You either dance with the Devil or you become uncompetitive, because clubs in another league will take that money instead. It's an unpleasant truth, but that's the football industry.