|
Post by pushon on Feb 23, 2023 17:58:22 GMT
There are many complainants on this board referencing the lack of Football Cognizance at the very top of our club. It now seems that underskilled amateurs will be granted licence to influence decision making at a critical level in the administration of Football. It's a recipe for disaster. I wonder if Denise Coates will be willing to accept that the Family Board do not have total control of where and what on, Bet365, generated profits are spent. I'm not sure on what basis you conclude that the regulator will be staffed by "underskilled amateurs" ? No reason to believe that in my view. I do think that too many clubs have been run by underskilled amateurs or worse - skilled fleecers and egomaniacs. I'm more pointing toward individual club "shadow board members or similar, who may seemingly wield influence without any personal financial liability. It's the cynic in me..Always prepare for the worst..
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Feb 23, 2023 18:11:15 GMT
I see that David Sullivan has come out against all this...must be really good then! His point about the PL paying more to the rest of the pyramid is so quickly debunked when you see what a tine % of their revenue now filters down...it's not called the greed league for nothing Well done to all involved and thanks Malcolm for, as ever, keeping us so well informed.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 23, 2023 19:04:41 GMT
Looks like an uphill battle to get significant redistribution and would I be right in thinking the independent regulator can only facilitate a solution, not impose one? If that is the case it's going to be a big ask. Interesting this was fan led - there have been a good number of posts on here advocating the scrapping FFP and letting rip with an owner funded free for all - the exact opposite of what is being proposed. Were these ideas discussed and rejected or were the fans who were consulted pretty much behind sustainability as the key to this working? Crouch and the Government have said that they would prefer the football industry to agree redistribution, but that if it can't (and there is no sign at the moment of the PL clubs agreeing to it) the regulator will have powers to impose it. It will be interesting to see if that 'threat' provokes progress on the issue. To answer your 2nd para., as far as the FSA concerned we decide our policy democratically and I posted a link to our evidence to the Crouch review above. We are most certainly not in favour of scrapping the current rules and " letting rip with an owner funded free for all". But football fan organisations from clubs all over the country also gave direct evidence to Tracey Crouch, as well as individual fans. I'm not aware of any Stoke fans or the Club itself giving evidence to the review. It's good if the regulator can impose it because I can't see many of the Premier League clubs agreeing to lose out. I don't think anyone with fans long term interests at heart would propose anything that didn't take sustainability seriously and personally I think it's essential. All I'm saying is that some fans on this board have been quite vocal about scrapping FFP and making it an owner led free for all - which I think would be a disaster. What I'm asking is whether in the review anyone was proposing this as an alternative as, if this board is typical, not all fans believe sustainability is a good thing (some almost treat it like a swear word). I am surprised that something like this has got through a government supposedly wedded to the free market as the solution to all ills and in particular why it hasn't been picked up by the swivel eyed loons in the ERG. Its actually quite an admission by a Tory government that the free market might have it s limits and in some cases, like football, actually be problematic.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 23, 2023 19:38:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Feb 23, 2023 19:39:09 GMT
Crouch and the Government have said that they would prefer the football industry to agree redistribution, but that if it can't (and there is no sign at the moment of the PL clubs agreeing to it) the regulator will have powers to impose it. It will be interesting to see if that 'threat' provokes progress on the issue. To answer your 2nd para., as far as the FSA concerned we decide our policy democratically and I posted a link to our evidence to the Crouch review above. We are most certainly not in favour of scrapping the current rules and " letting rip with an owner funded free for all". But football fan organisations from clubs all over the country also gave direct evidence to Tracey Crouch, as well as individual fans. I'm not aware of any Stoke fans or the Club itself giving evidence to the review. It's good if the regulator can impose it because I can't see many of the Premier League clubs agreeing to lose out. I don't think anyone with fans long term interests at heart would propose anything that didn't take sustainability seriously and personally I think it's essential. All I'm saying is that some fans on this board have been quite vocal about scrapping FFP and making it an owner led free for all - which I think would be a disaster. What I'm asking is whether in the review anyone was proposing this as an alternative as, if this board is typical, not all fans believe sustainability is a good thing (some almost treat it like a swear word). I am surprised that something like this has got through a government supposedly wedded to the free market as the solution to all ills and in particular why it hasn't been picked up by the swivel eyed loons in the ERG. Its actually quite an admission by a Tory government that the free market might have it s limits and in some cases, like football, actually be problematic. I see West Ham chairman David Sullivan is saying the Regulator is a terrible idea so I am all for it and this further increases my hope to see them relegated.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 23, 2023 19:41:18 GMT
I'm not sure on what basis you conclude that the regulator will be staffed by "underskilled amateurs" ? No reason to believe that in my view. I do think that too many clubs have been run by underskilled amateurs or worse - skilled fleecers and egomaniacs. I'm more pointing toward individual club "shadow board members or similar, who may seemingly wield influence without any personal financial liability. It's the cynic in me..Always prepare for the worst.. Ah, right - apologies. I thought you meant the regulator. I think that apart from the fact that the supporters of any club are its lifeblood and most important stakeholders, and as such are entitled to be consulted, because they are drawn from across society they include a huge range of skills and experience. I am far more worried about the incompetent, greedy and in some cases corrupt people who have and still do own some of our clubs, than ever I am about the limitations of its supporters.
|
|
|
Post by bridgnorthstokie on Feb 23, 2023 20:06:18 GMT
I see that David Sullivan has come out against all this...must be really good then! His point about the PL paying more to the rest of the pyramid is so quickly debunked when you see what a tine % of their revenue now filters down...it's not called the greed league for nothing Well done to all involved and thanks Malcolm for, as ever, keeping us so well informed. The same David Sullivan who was given a shiny new stadium paid for by the tax payer.
|
|
|
Post by iamstokie on Feb 23, 2023 20:13:24 GMT
Because the Man Utd buyout will go through way before the regulator is set up , it will take a while go through parliament first
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Feb 23, 2023 20:18:00 GMT
Because the Man Utd buyout will go through way before the regulator is set up , it will take a while go through parliament first Hence the sale timing of the sale as no way would Scholes and Co do anything to antagonise that vilest of institu9ns while its in their gift to agree to united being the wealthiest club in the world
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Feb 23, 2023 20:19:53 GMT
I see that David Sullivan has come out against all this...must be really good then! His point about the PL paying more to the rest of the pyramid is so quickly debunked when you see what a tine % of their revenue now filters down...it's not called the greed league for nothing Well done to all involved and thanks Malcolm for, as ever, keeping us so well informed. I wonder if Sullivans West Ham comes down and doesn't get back up again will he change his opinion
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 23, 2023 20:20:40 GMT
Because the Man Utd buyout will go through way before the regulator is set up , it will take a while go through parliament first eh? Did you read the article? Or even just my post for that matter
|
|
|
Post by admiral on Feb 23, 2023 20:21:45 GMT
I’m going to be in a minority but, if the public sector, more civil servants and government regulation are the answers then god help us!
|
|
|
Post by iamstokie on Feb 23, 2023 20:23:53 GMT
Because the Man Utd buyout will go through way before the regulator is set up , it will take a while go through parliament first eh? Did you read the article? Or even just my post for that matter No just what was said on the radio this morning
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 23, 2023 21:47:59 GMT
I hope you are right Malcolm, but I fear not. Despite great work in many areas, the Fan Led review was very weak on redistribution and many of the problems in other areas arise because the game’s economics are so distorted. It is important financial stability doesn’t come to mean limited competition - the owner investment story is key here. Why can a foreign investor spend £4 billion on Manchester United but the Coates family, major UK tax payers, are limited to investing £13 million a season? The situation has moved forward since the FLR (with the changes at Chelsea and Newcastle United, the sale of all of Manchester United and some of Liverpool, and the charges against Manchester City) to a point where there is not enough return in the current model to reward the private capital, being invested as long as state backed investors are allowed to continue spending. The risk is the game implodes and a breakaway emerges. Certainly I believe it’s more likely than a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 23, 2023 21:57:28 GMT
It's good if the regulator can impose it because I can't see many of the Premier League clubs agreeing to lose out. I don't think anyone with fans long term interests at heart would propose anything that didn't take sustainability seriously and personally I think it's essential. All I'm saying is that some fans on this board have been quite vocal about scrapping FFP and making it an owner led free for all - which I think would be a disaster. What I'm asking is whether in the review anyone was proposing this as an alternative as, if this board is typical, not all fans believe sustainability is a good thing (some almost treat it like a swear word). I am surprised that something like this has got through a government supposedly wedded to the free market as the solution to all ills and in particular why it hasn't been picked up by the swivel eyed loons in the ERG. Its actually quite an admission by a Tory government that the free market might have it s limits and in some cases, like football, actually be problematic. I see West Ham chairman David Sullivan is saying the Regulator is a terrible idea so I am all for it and this further increases my hope to see them relegated. The clubs who see themselves as fixtures in the Premier League aren't going to like it because it helps most of them remain fixtures in the Premier League. The thing is what Sullivan and others are doing is putting the long term survival of their clubs at risk. We are lucky in that our owners have stuck by us and have been sensible about downsizing. The owners of some clubs in our position would have vanished by now and left the clubs with massive debts and on their way to going bankrupt. I won't lose any sleep over the likes of Sullivan getting their comeuppance but the people who will suffer the consequence will be the fans who see their club going up in smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2023 8:09:48 GMT
I hope you are right Malcolm, but I fear not. Despite great work in many areas, the Fan Led review was very weak on redistribution and many of the problems in other areas arise because the game’s economics are so distorted. It is important financial stability doesn’t come to mean limited competition - the owner investment story is key here. Why can a foreign investor spend £4 billion on Manchester United but the Coates family, major UK tax payers, are limited to investing £13 million a season? The situation has moved forward since the FLR (with the changes at Chelsea and Newcastle United, the sale of all of Manchester United and some of Liverpool, and the charges against Manchester City) to a point where there is not enough return in the current model to reward the private capital, being invested as long as state backed investors are allowed to continue spending. The risk is the game implodes and a breakaway emerges. Certainly I believe it’s more likely than a year ago. Thanks Mark. You are much more of an expert on football finances than I am by some margin, but I would make a couple of points. You are right that FLR is weaker than many of us would have ideally wished on redistribution, but it's put the whole issues of the game's finances, state backed investors and sportswashing into the national sporting, parliamentary and political debate in an unprecedented way which we must build on. Both Crouch and now the Government have said that if the PL and EFL can't agree on redistribution, the statutory regulator will have powers to impose a solution. That might not go as far as we would like but politically it's an extraordinary development which none of us would have forseen just a few years ago. There is now great pressure on the PL to move on it, and Parry/EFL are in a strong negotiating position, if they have the nerve to use it. The whole P & S/FFP debate is also now much more visible than it was (which we have seen on this Board). We'll see where it all goes from here, but we must not let the best be the enemy of the better, and must take advantage of the debate which has now opened up. You are an expert on football finances, your analysis may be right and your pessimistic prediction might come to pass, but as fans I think we should celebrate that we've come farther with FLR than we ever thought possible, and we must see it as the start of a process of change, not the end. I'll use a (admittedly rather stretched ) Stoke City sporting analogy which feels appropriate for this week. On Tuesday we don't want AN saying " we've no real chance of beating them, the odds are against us ..............." We want him to say ( which I'm sure he will) " we've done well to get here, if we continue to work hard we've got a chance of getting further, but even if we don't, we'll come again next time.........."
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2023 9:33:30 GMT
[/quote]Well he's doing the right things with this White Paper. You don't need to pay £500 to the Conservative party for that Q & A - just ask me for free I'm on Signal Radio with George Andrews just after 6 if anyone's interested ! [/quote] 6pm tonight, not last night
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2023 9:36:00 GMT
I'm out for much of the day Potterlog, but will pick this up this evening if that's OK ?
|
|
|
Post by skip on Feb 24, 2023 11:15:13 GMT
David Sullivan does not believe in trickle down economics. There's a turn up for the books.
An away fixture next season against West Ham in a half empty tax payer funded Olympic Stadium. PLIBT.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 24, 2023 11:42:36 GMT
David Sullivan does not believe in trickle down economics. There's a turn up for the books. An away fixture next season against West Ham in a half empty tax payer funded Olympic Stadium. PLIBT. Trickle down economics is the excuse given by free marketeers for policies designed to make the rich richer - i.e. some of it will trickle down to the poor so it's ok really. I'm pretty sure David Sullivan is a fan of trickle down economics but is doing what the rich do - making sure as little as possible actually does trickle down. The thing about a regulator is that those lower down the pecking order don't have to rely on trickle down economics - the regulator ensures there's a nice steady flow away from the hoarders. Redistribution is planned rather than accidental. Which is why I am so (pleasantly) surprised its being endorsed by a Tory government - it's basically an admission that free market economics has its limitations and in some areas it actually create problems that need addressing by a regulator. Politically it's quite surprising.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Feb 24, 2023 11:52:03 GMT
David Sullivan does not believe in trickle down economics. There's a turn up for the books. An away fixture next season against West Ham in a half empty tax payer funded Olympic Stadium. PLIBT. Trickle down economics is the excuse given by free marketeers for policies designed to make the rich richer - i.e. some of it will trickle down to the poor so it's ok really. I'm pretty sure David Sullivan is a fan of trickle down economics but is doing what the rich do - making sure as little as possible actually does trickle down. The thing about a regulator is that those lower down the pecking order don't have to rely on trickle down economics - the regulator ensures there's a nice steady flow away from the hoarders. Redistribution is planned rather than accidental. Which is why I am so (pleasantly) surprised its being endorsed by a Tory government - it's basically an admission that free market economics has its limitations and in some areas it actually create problems that need addressing by a regulator. Politically it's quite surprising. I was being sarcastic about trickle down economics but didn't make it clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 24, 2023 12:53:58 GMT
David Sullivan does not believe in trickle down economics. There's a turn up for the books. An away fixture next season against West Ham in a half empty tax payer funded Olympic Stadium. PLIBT. Sullivan is a complete hypocritical tosser. Yep, all for unregulated markets and no state hand outs except when it comes to being the first in the queue when the Govt is handing out a free (more or less) stadium paid for by taxpayers. The rewards are definitely there if you are well off enough to make the odd £75k donation to the Conservative Party.
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Feb 24, 2023 17:43:53 GMT
Great news. Will the government actually pass the legislation though? Yes it will. See my link above. The Minister is part of the Government and speaks for it. It also has the support of the Opposition. I'm concerned though about how quickly they do it, and whether things will be changed when the legislation is debated, due to the inevitable backlash from the you know who clubs in the premier league. I'm sure there's lots of clubs in the pyramid that are in desperate trouble
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2023 17:55:40 GMT
David Sullivan does not believe in trickle down economics. There's a turn up for the books. An away fixture next season against West Ham in a half empty tax payer funded Olympic Stadium. PLIBT. Trickle down economics is the excuse given by free marketeers for policies designed to make the rich richer - i.e. some of it will trickle down to the poor so it's ok really. I'm pretty sure David Sullivan is a fan of trickle down economics but is doing what the rich do - making sure as little as possible actually does trickle down. The thing about a regulator is that those lower down the pecking order don't have to rely on trickle down economics - the regulator ensures there's a nice steady flow away from the hoarders. Redistribution is planned rather than accidental. Which is why I am so (pleasantly) surprised its being endorsed by a Tory government - it's basically an admission that free market economics has its limitations and in some areas it actually create problems that need addressing by a regulator. Politically it's quite surprising. It's politically interesting. Boris was strongly in favour, allegedly because he saw it as a populist red-wall type issue. It was reliably reported that Liz Truss was against on the ideological grounds that Government shouldn't be getting into this type of thing and would have dropped it, had she survived. Rishi is in favour, although I don't think he's a big footy fan ? As I stated above, when Ally and I met the 4 local Tory MPs, they were all in favour. The Opposition are also in favour. Although Oppositions have to oppose, when Jeff Smith MP replied in the Commons, he didn't really say anything against it, other than it's taken the Government too long since the Crouch report was published in Nov 21 to produce the White Paper.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 24, 2023 19:47:03 GMT
It's an important and current topic of course. Tracey Crouch's view is that she couldn't recommend to Government that it should impose on football something it doesn't impose on itself or other industries, namely that dealing with such states and/or allowing them to own clubs should be outlawed. On the Nicky Campbell show on R5 yesterday morning I heard her debate this with, perhaps surprisingly, a very forceful and knowledgeable Newcastle fan who doesn't want the Saudis owning his Club because of their human rights record. Personally I thought she sounded uncomfortable and didn't win the argument, perhaps not surprising given her own commitment to women's sport and that one of the 10 strategic areas covered in her report is equality and diversity. The Guardian report you link to, says the Government have confirmed this ( but doesn't give a source for that). All that said, it was interesting that when he presented the White Paper to Parliament, the Minister of Sport was tackled about this by several MPs, and his answer was more vague than Tracey's as I quote above. Without checking the text in Hansard, he something like it's an area among others that the Regulator will have to look at. Whether he just wasn't properly briefed or whether there is some possible movement there, we'll have to wait and see. One thing I am sure of - this is a debate which won't go away.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 24, 2023 20:00:05 GMT
It's an important and current topic of course. Tracey Crouch's view is that she couldn't recommend to Government that it should impose on football something it doesn't impose on itself or other industries, namely that dealing with such states and/or allowing them to own clubs should be outlawed. On the Nicky Campbell show on R5 yesterday morning I heard her debate this with, perhaps surprisingly, a very forceful and knowledgeable Newcastle fan who doesn't want the Saudis owning his Club because of their human rights record. Personally I thought she sounded uncomfortable and didn't win the argument, perhaps not surprising given her own commitment to women's sport and that one of the 10 strategic areas covered in her report is equality and diversity. The Guardian report you link to, says the Government have confirmed this ( but doesn't give a source for that). All that said, it was interesting that when he presented the White Paper to Parliament, the Minister of Sport was tackled about this by several MPs, and his answer was more vague than Tracey's as I quote above. Without checking the text in Hansard, he something like it's an area among others that the Regulator will have to look at. Whether he just wasn't properly briefed or whether there is some possible movement there, we'll have to wait and see. One thing I am sure of - this is a debate which won't go away. Thanks a lot Malcolm.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 19, 2024 15:39:26 GMT
Just wondering Malcolm, if an independent regulator had already been in place would s/he have had the power to prevent the change of rules concerning FA Cup replays without full consultation with the EFL and non league. It just seems to me that this is yet another example of the disregard in which the Premier holds the football pyramid. Do you think they have rushed this through before the regulator is in place?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 19, 2024 16:46:29 GMT
Just wondering Malcolm, if an independent regulator had already been in place would s/he have had the power to prevent the change of rules concerning FA Cup replays without full consultation with the EFL and non league. It just seems to me that this is yet another example of the disregard in which the Premier holds the football pyramid. Do you think they have rushed this through before the regulator is in place? Suspect that wouldn't be in regulators purview?
|
|