Government Survey on the Running of Football in England

[Ellafella]

9 hours ago, ck- said:

I was quite restrained:

”EFL board needs to be formally reviewed and replaced by officials with comprehensive understanding of business methodologies. Currently it is a hopelessly inadequate mess of egos and incompetence”

Come on…don’t sit on the fence ?

[Comrade 86]

Bit knackered today but when I get around to it, boy am I gonna have some fun with this ?

[Pearl Ram]

I wondered if there was an i missing between the u and the n of the fifth word of the thread title. Might have been more apt.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Pearl Ram

[Ramslad1992]

Personally I’m disappointed I could only give the EFL a ‘very poor’ rating, makes them look good! 

[Ken Tram]

16 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

How many times can I fill it in and say what I really think about the EFL?! ? 

@JfRPut the link separate to the tweet, some people 'work' blocks access?

https://dcms.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5naM6vGayWbBJLE

 

Is that what those VPNs are for?

[Ken Tram]

The questionnaire was stuffed full of leading questions, almost certainly designed to get support for what they're inclined to do.

I would say, a new regulator is just as likely to be an incompetent quango, so we should be careful what we wish for!

I liked the idea of a compulsory regulation clause in player contracts, as an alternative to parachute payments.

I said that I think that football player salaries are obscene!

[Tamworthram]

6 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

The questionnaire was stuffed full of leading questions, almost certainly designed to get support for what they're inclined to do.

I would say, a new regulator is just as likely to be an incompetent quango, so we should be careful what we wish for!

I liked the idea of a compulsory regulation clause in player contracts, as an alternative to parachute payments.

I said that I think that football player salaries are obscene!

You may be right but, if we always adopted the mantra of “careful what you wish for” nothing would even change, regardless of how broken the current situation is, through fear that the new order might be worse or, at best, no better than the existing. You could say the same about the takeover. Who’s to say whoever comes in will not make things worse?

 

 

[Mihangel]

6 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

The questionnaire was stuffed full of leading questions, almost certainly designed to get support for what they're inclined to do.

I would say, a new regulator is just as likely to be an incompetent quango, so we should be careful what we wish for!

I liked the idea of a compulsory regulation clause in player contracts, as an alternative to parachute payments.

I said that I think that football player salaries are obscene!

I thought the questions were quite balanced, nothing too leading there. Totally agree with the bit in bold, made me happy to see that. I said yes to the salary cap as well. Fundamentally, the majority of football's woes are caused by players being overpaid. And I mean overpaid, more money goes out to players than comes in to the sport, that's madness.

[therealhantsram]

7 minutes ago, ShoreRam said:

I thought the questions were quite balanced, nothing too leading there. Totally agree with the bit in bold, made me happy to see that. I said yes to the salary cap as well. Fundamentally, the majority of football's woes are caused by players being overpaid. And I mean overpaid, more money goes out to players than comes in to the sport, that's madness.

The salary cap question was interesting.

As I recall a salary cap was voted in for League 1 and 2 this past season, but then withdrawn under pressure from the PFA as as it was considered illegal under competition law.

[Ken Tram]

4 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

You may be right but, if we always adopted the mantra of “careful what you wish for” nothing would even change, regardless of how broken the current situation is, through fear that the new order might be worse or, at best, no better than the existing. You could say the same about the takeover. Who’s to say whoever comes in will not make things worse?

 

 

I mainly agree with you ... but ... improving the EFL might be much better than introducing an alternative.

That way, what needs fixing can be fixed. Changing the regulator could just leave many problems in place, and even introduce new ones.

[Ken Tram]

10 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

I liked the idea of a compulsory regulation clause in player contracts, as an alternative to parachute payments.

I meant ... relegation clause ... !

[Tamworthram]

11 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I mainly agree with you ... but ... improving the EFL might be much better than introducing an alternative.

That way, what needs fixing can be fixed. Changing the regulator could just leave many problems in place, and even introduce new ones.

We simply don’t know. I’m inclined to think an independent or new regulator would be better than relying on the EFL to get their house in order. Let’s face it, it’s difficult to imagine how they could do much worse especially as they could/should reflect on the failings of the EFL.

[RadioactiveWaste]

10 hours ago, Ken Tram said:

The questionnaire was stuffed full of leading questions, almost certainly designed to get support for what they're inclined to do.

I would say, a new regulator is just as likely to be an incompetent quango, so we should be careful what we wish for!

I liked the idea of a compulsory regulation clause in player contracts, as an alternative to parachute payments.

I said that I think that football player salaries are obscene!

Yes, I didn't think it was a good survey - to many questions either leading or only having very limited responses.

I did outline my concerns were corporate and regulatory governance and debt. Some of the other stuff was kind of *shrug* or *that aught to be up to the clubs*

I do think relegation clauses, cap linked to turnover, some fan veto powers and *some* level of adjustment in money distribution are in order but my main concerns in this context are governance and regulation. However, those are the things it's hard to fix, especially as the poachers are better resourced and motivated than the gamekeepers, and it might be hard to get a "popular with the voters policy win" based on effective regulators and tighter controls on how clubs are governed. Some of things suggested in the survey I thought were a bit daft because they'd be non-starters in any business evironment - clubs aren't going to make public their budget for the coming season for example.

Not that I'm a cynic, but a dull, not exciting or massivly popular but actually worthy policy seems to be of little interest in modern politics, so if anything comes out of this expect it to be more about "more money to grassroots football (national league get 2% more than they did)" "Increased fan engaugment (non-voting place on board for fan representitive, decided by the club)" "Suppoting the women's game (clubs who don't have an affliated women's team are to allow a women's team in the area to use the training facilities)" because they can shout about the good of the game without having to actually try to fix things.

[Ken Tram]

21 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

We simply don’t know. I’m inclined to think an independent or new regulator would be better than relying on the EFL to get their house in order. Let’s face it, it’s difficult to imagine how they could do much worse especially as they could/should reflect on the failings of the EFL.

If I was made responsible for regulating football safety, would I turn a blind eye to the benefits to the atmosphere of standing fans - or might I feel compelled to stamp down on it, and impose a 1-point penalty per game ? Alternatively, might I impose those safe-standing things?

Regulators would probably start imposing things on football, left, right and centre! 

I shouldn't think that football clubs would continue to have a collective veto over the running of football.

It's probably a populist reaction to the Super League proposal. But that got dealt with by the existing regulators.

The EFL needs to be given a bloody nose. Most fans will accept punishments that seem reasonable and fair. Shout a bit, wave their hands, but accept it. After all, we've all been well trained by having each match being regulated by a w****r in the black.

The EFL need to realise their failings, admit them, and put their house in order. Then there would not be any momentum for a regulator.

I think that I may be have an ever so slightly under-appreciative of view of how regulation can bring positive effects!

[Ken Tram]

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Yes, I didn't think it was a good survey - to many questions either leading or only having very limited responses.

I did outline my concerns were corporate and regulatory governance and debt. Some of the other stuff was kind of *shrug* or *that aught to be up to the clubs*

I do think relegation clauses, cap linked to turnover, some fan veto powers and *some* level of adjustment in money distribution are in order but my main concerns in this context are governance and regulation. However, those are the things it's hard to fix, especially as the poachers are better resourced and motivated than the gamekeepers, and it might be hard to get a "popular with the voters policy win" based on effective regulators and tighter controls on how clubs are governed. Some of things suggested in the survey I thought were a bit daft because they'd be non-starters in any business evironment - clubs aren't going to make public their budget for the coming season for example.

Not that I'm a cynic, but a dull, not exciting or massivly popular but actually worthy policy seems to be of little interest in modern politics, so if anything comes out of this expect it to be more about "more money to grassroots football (national league get 2% more than they did)" "Increased fan engaugment (non-voting place on board for fan representitive, decided by the club)" "Suppoting the women's game (clubs who don't have an affliated women's team are to allow a women's team in the area to use the training facilities)" because they can shout about the good of the game without having to actually try to fix things.

You put into words almost exactly what I wanted to say!

[Tamworthram]

24 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

If I was made responsible for regulating football safety, would I turn a blind eye to the benefits to the atmosphere of standing fans - or might I feel compelled to stamp down on it, and impose a 1-point penalty per game ? Alternatively, might I impose those safe-standing things?

Regulators would probably start imposing things on football, left, right and centre! 

I shouldn't think that football clubs would continue to have a collective veto over the running of football.

It's probably a populist reaction to the Super League proposal. But that got dealt with by the existing regulators.

The EFL needs to be given a bloody nose. Most fans will accept punishments that seem reasonable and fair. Shout a bit, wave their hands, but accept it. After all, we've all been well trained by having each match being regulated by a w****r in the black.

The EFL need to realise their failings, admit them, and put their house in order. Then there would not be any momentum for a regulator.

I think that I may be have an ever so slightly under-appreciative of view of how regulation can bring positive effects!

Sounds like but the best outcome but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

The rest of your concerns would of course be dependent on the remit of any such regulator. 

[Spanish]

On 10/07/2021 at 09:32, therealhantsram said:

The salary cap question was interesting.

As I recall a salary cap was voted in for League 1 and 2 this past season, but then withdrawn under pressure from the PFA as as it was considered illegal under competition law.

Quite odd this, I think in Feb it was withdrawn and then I remembered Swindon who are under embargo.  So they must be in breach of a rule that no longer exists, should be interesting to see what the DC do with this one.

Swindon Town

Regulation 17 - Defaults in payments to HMRC

Article 48 - Non-payment to Football Creditors

Rule 10.1 of League Two Salary Cap Management Protocol - Failure to submit SCMP Calculation

Conditions under monitored loan agreement

[Tamworthram]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Quite odd this, I think in Feb it was withdrawn and then I remembered Swindon who are under embargo.  So they must be in breach of a rule that no longer exists, should be interesting to see what the DC do with this one.

Swindon Town

Regulation 17 - Defaults in payments to HMRC

Article 48 - Non-payment to Football Creditors

Rule 10.1 of League Two Salary Cap Management Protocol - Failure to submit SCMP Calculation

Conditions under monitored loan agreement

It's an "overall" salary cap rather than "individual" isn't it?

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Quite odd this, I think in Feb it was withdrawn and then I remembered Swindon who are under embargo.  So they must be in breach of a rule that no longer exists, should be interesting to see what the DC do with this one.

You wonder whether the EFL are rule-making and changing to keep themselves in work! #creatingamonster

[Ken Tram]

Have you seen the link to the interim report? It's linked to a thread by David in the "General football" forum.