Government's proposed statutory regulator for football
Discussion
The media would have me believe that I am the only person other than the Premier League who wishes that politicians would just keep their noses out of football.
The last thing football needs is another layer of pious, pontificating bureaucrats who contribute nothing (but take a fat salary). There are enough of those already.
The last thing football needs is another layer of pious, pontificating bureaucrats who contribute nothing (but take a fat salary). There are enough of those already.
DocJock said:
The media would have me believe that I am the only person other than the Premier League who wishes that politicians would just keep their noses out of football.
The last thing football needs is another layer of pious, pontificating bureaucrats who contribute nothing (but take a fat salary). There are enough of those already.
While I agree that government involvement tends to be rubbish, but they do need to make stricter rules for football club ownership, as it seems the FA is failing in their role. Can’t keep having clubs go into administration due to the owners not fulfilling their responsibilities, and leaving clubs high and dry unable to pay their bills. The last thing football needs is another layer of pious, pontificating bureaucrats who contribute nothing (but take a fat salary). There are enough of those already.
Challo said:
While I agree that government involvement tends to be rubbish, but they do need to make stricter rules for football club ownership, as it seems the FA is failing in their role. Can’t keep having clubs go into administration due to the owners not fulfilling their responsibilities, and leaving clubs high and dry unable to pay their bills.
I’m sorry but why?If coffee shops or wallpaper manufacturers behaved this way, would anybody be demanding they be regulated by their own dedicated regulator? How exactly does the world stop spinning if a club goes into administration? It’s not like suddenly cutting off a drinking water supply is it?
psi310398 said:
Challo said:
While I agree that government involvement tends to be rubbish, but they do need to make stricter rules for football club ownership, as it seems the FA is failing in their role. Can’t keep having clubs go into administration due to the owners not fulfilling their responsibilities, and leaving clubs high and dry unable to pay their bills.
I’m sorry but why?If coffee shops or wallpaper manufacturers behaved this way, would anybody be demanding they be regulated by their own dedicated regulator? How exactly does the world stop spinning if a club goes into administration? It’s not like suddenly cutting off a drinking water supply is it?
Whether that should mean football clubs are treated differently is a legitimate debate. You're right, not having a football club is not like having no healthcare or water supply.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You make a good point, but I think the difference between coffee shops or wallpaper manufacturers and football clubs is that a football club has a monopoly on its fan base. I might be loyal to a particular coffee shop or wallpaper manufacturer, but if they didn't exist, that's not the end of coffee or wallpaper for me. I might be sad, but I can find alternatives. I can't do that with Chelsea. If they go out of business, I ain't going down to QPR or Fulham. I'm done.
Whether that should mean football clubs are treated differently is a legitimate debate. You're right, not having a football club is not like having no healthcare or water supply.
Whether that should mean football clubs are treated differently is a legitimate debate. You're right, not having a football club is not like having no healthcare or water supply.
I see what you mean but it’s still a choice - other clubs are available. To take the analogy, if Osborne and Little can’t furnish me with the requisite papiers peints, I’m going to have to go with bare plaster as I’m not having that Sanderson stuff in my house! But we’re not getting a wallpaper regulator any time soon…Maybe it’s a tribalism thing but I prefer rugby and follow the Saracens. If they went bust, I’d probably still go to matches and take pleasure in going to see, say, the Wasps or London Irish. Watching well played sport would still be available to me. There would be no market failure.
What more or less guarantees distortion or failure is government intervention.
A cautionary tale: when my son was small he was a member of a cricket club. It was doing well on a voluntary independent basis with a motivated parent base providing admin and logistics. In due course, the committee canvassed opinion about applying for a small subsidy from, IIRC, Sport England. I, and some others, argued strongly against on the basis that the minuscule benefit would be outweighed by the reporting and ‘social value’ burdens that the funding would come with. (It amounted to about £25 per child per year.) we preferred to pay higher subs and keep the busybodies out. The lure of free money prevailed and, lo and behold, within a year the committee was complaining about the bureaucracy and interference from SE. Interestingly most of the reporting requirements related to matters that f
k all to do with cricket. TwigtheWonderkid said:
psi310398 said:
Challo said:
While I agree that government involvement tends to be rubbish, but they do need to make stricter rules for football club ownership, as it seems the FA is failing in their role. Can’t keep having clubs go into administration due to the owners not fulfilling their responsibilities, and leaving clubs high and dry unable to pay their bills.
I’m sorry but why?If coffee shops or wallpaper manufacturers behaved this way, would anybody be demanding they be regulated by their own dedicated regulator? How exactly does the world stop spinning if a club goes into administration? It’s not like suddenly cutting off a drinking water supply is it?
Whether that should mean football clubs are treated differently is a legitimate debate. You're right, not having a football club is not like having no healthcare or water supply.
I haven't seen all the proposals but the ones so far seems pretty good especially around better rules around owners. Its quite interesting that it has been welcomed by the EFL, PFA as they can see the benefits. Even the Premier League said they liked the recommendations put forward but said it can better manage themselves in house.
Overall i think it will be a good thing. Unfortunately there is so much money at the top of the tree in terms of the Premier League that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Well I don't like the proposed transfer levy for a start. It disadvantages English clubs with the rest of Europe, however small or large it would be.
I also don't like the (several times uttered) attitude of "owners treat the clubs like their personal playthings". Excuse me? Do they mean the owners who have coughed up millions to own the club? Or in the case of Abramovich, for example, billions?
I also don't like the (several times uttered) attitude of "owners treat the clubs like their personal playthings". Excuse me? Do they mean the owners who have coughed up millions to own the club? Or in the case of Abramovich, for example, billions?
Challo said:
Another point is that clubs are seemed to be hubs for the community / city, and a lot of clubs do local work in the community supporting various charity projects, disabled groups etc. Plus they often use local suppliers for goods and services which is a good thing.
More so than mines? Mines were the absolute heart of mining communities, but we didn't hesitate to let them go to the wall. Clubs are important to the community without a doubt, but the mines employed about 90% of the male population, and the other 10% and the women worked in shops and businesses etc where the miners spent their money. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Challo said:
Another point is that clubs are seemed to be hubs for the community / city, and a lot of clubs do local work in the community supporting various charity projects, disabled groups etc. Plus they often use local suppliers for goods and services which is a good thing.
More so than mines? Mines were the absolute heart of mining communities, but we didn't hesitate to let them go to the wall. Clubs are important to the community without a doubt, but the mines employed about 90% of the male population, and the other 10% and the women worked in shops and businesses etc where the miners spent their money. What is clear is that the FA and Premier League have not done their best in terms of the fit and proper persons tests.
Challo said:
What is clear is that the FA and Premier League have not done their best in terms of the fit and proper persons tests.
That depends on the objective. If the objective was to bring in tonnes of money to build the best league in the world, with great stadiums, and world class players, then they've done a fabulous job. I doubt we will ever see another Hillsborough or Bradford in the Prem. If the objective was to not have clubs owned by dodgy people with links to murderers, or in the case of Newcastle, actual murderers, then no, they've failed miserably. Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff