Independent Regulator for Football

[David]

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

I read the letter, which seemed a reasonable start, albeit with some can-kicking of the knottier issues. 

Then I read the terms of reference. 

Then I re - read the letter and was less enthusiastic. 

It seems that any independent regulatory body is envisaged to work alongside, rather than instead of, the existing structures. 

Some contentious issues eg parachute payments are being bathed in warm platitudinous comments that lead me to believe there is no appetite to tackle entrenched vested interests. 

And there were some areas in the terms not mentioned at all, such as the widely derided fit and proper test. 

Expect more heat than light. 

 

[Ken Tram]

On 22/07/2021 at 11:46, David said:

 

Surely that cannot have incorporated those survey replies that we were asked to do a week or two ago?

I heard it being mentioned on the radio this morning. Clubs could be required to have a licence from the regulator, and meet all (?) of the requirements that were on the survey, probably. I recognised some of them.

I wonder if any of our comments about the EFL got into the interim report!?

Edited July 23, 2021 by Ken Tram

[Ken Tram]

On 22/07/2021 at 16:16, Van der MoodHoover said:

I read the letter, which seemed a reasonable start, albeit with some can-kicking of the knottier issues. 

Then I read the terms of reference. 

Then I re - read the letter and was less enthusiastic. 

It seems that any independent regulatory body is envisaged to work alongside, rather than instead of, the existing structures. 

Some contentious issues eg parachute payments are being bathed in warm platitudinous comments that lead me to believe there is no appetite to tackle entrenched vested interests. 

And there were some areas in the terms not mentioned at all, such as the widely derided fit and proper test. 

Expect more heat than light. 

 

I think that I am a fan of "... working alongside ..." existing structures.

But, there is a vital need to address knottier issues!

A National League South team (tier 6) has lost £6.8m over the past three seasons!

It's just not sustainable!

[Ken Tram]

Here a short extract on the role of fans ... and financial controls.

It is no exaggeration to say that a number of clubs would not exist today had it not been for the activism of their fans in driving positive change. Its fans are a strength of our national game that should be both cherished and nurtured. 

If it was not already sufficiently clear before the start of the Review the evidence has been clear that football clubs are not ordinary businesses. They play a critical social, civic and cultural role in their local communities. They need to be protected - sometimes from their owners who are, after all, simply the current custodians of a community asset. Equally, although clubs are not ordinary businesses, they should not be immune from the ordinary financial controls, checks, balances and behaviours that are good practice in any multi-million-pound company but too often can be absent 
across the game.

 

[Ken Tram]

Parachute payments

If anyone has good alternatives to Parachute payments, why not ask your MP to drop the minister a line!

Personally, there must be a way to cover actual costs (so that clubs feel confident to find a Premiership level team) - but with quite stringent requirements to sell players, or to use relegation clauses.

On parachute payments, the letter reads ...

So called ‘parachute payments’ are seen as both a symptom and cause of some of the difficulties in ensuring club financial stability as clubs move, or aspire to move, or are threatened by a move, between divisions. I am in no doubt they distort competition and drive unsustainable financial activity but recognise that they do also assist the ambition of promoted clubs and stability of relegated clubs. Accordingly, I will undertake further work over the summer on revenue flows within the football pyramid with a view to a conclusive recommendation in the final report.