"A tall order from Crouch" - New pod out now.

I grant you that on the outside the bits you see on Sky on a Sunday look very shiny.

Underneath, the game lacks moral integrity and vast swathes of it are loss making and or mortgaged to the hilt. Listen to people like Kieran Maguire, if you don't believe me.

I actually feel that a fair chunk of the financial inequity will be removed by the phased removal of parachute payments and a fairly modest uplift in solidarity payments (25% is a figure that gets bandied around). We don't have to throw the Money Baby out with the bathwater.

Governance is a different kettle of fish, at club and national level. We are - for example - currently in a position where at least one relegation place in the Championship is going to be decided behind closed doors at an EFL tribunal for the second season in a row. Being concerned about that isn't nerdy in my book.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I grant you that on the outside the bits you see on Sky on a Sunday look very shiny.

Underneath, the game lacks moral integrity and vast swathes of it are loss making and or mortgaged to the hilt. Listen to people like Kieran Maguire, if you don't believe me.

I actually feel that a fair chunk of the financial inequity will be removed by the phased removal of parachute payments and a fairly modest uplift in solidarity payments (25% is a figure that gets bandied around). We don't have to throw the Money Baby out with the bathwater.

Governance is a different kettle of fish, at club and national level. We are - for example - currently in a position where at least one relegation place in the Championship is going to be decided behind closed doors at an EFL tribunal for the second season in a row. Being concerned about that isn't nerdy in my book.
Click to expand...
I don't watch Sky.... I can however see the actual massive progress that has been made from grassroots level upwards and the fact that our league structure remains resilient and strong, despite some of the issues you raise. Like I said, your comment was throw away, a Tony Blaire-like soundbite and slipped off the tongue as if it were true... It simply isn't... So why purvey that kind of lie, rather than be honest and simply challenge some of the real issues at face value?

And that (along with the lies about Bury, similar lies about our own situation, which reflect a totally skewed version of reality) being presented to some nodding dog type MP, from a party desperate to clean up on votes from the common man, does make me feel a bit concerned. 'Saving Football' or at least posturing about it is just the ticket as far as they are concerned and I wonder if this is a case of some backward thinking individuals seizing the opportunity to force their agenda...

In these conversations and also from the promoters of the legislation, I see little evidence of any recognition of the massive positives in football and that makes me wonder and question whether balance exists at all.... Easy to pick fault, but maybe not so easy to acknowledge the reality and positives.... Similar to Bury and Oyston.... Fans can spin a great yarn about the bad bits, but are extremely reticent to engage with some of the hard truths...
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That's probably because you realise it ain't as simple as taxing the rich and handing it to the poor... That other competing factors come into play, that might mean that attempting to tax the rich too much more, might result in the poor being worse off..

However this is the world of Football Fans where... "If we'd played Jerry instead of Madine we'd have won" is considered to be fact....
Click to expand...

x3

Not arguing with anything you say but to be honest, I hadn't really thought of it too deeply.

I was just explaining to TAM - his post may have been directed at me ? - that I had no problem with the bigger clubs having their TV revenues taxed but I just appreciated why they wouldn't want it too happen.

I missed any Jerry/big Gaz debate if there was one ?
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
x3

Not arguing with anything you say but to be honest, I hadn't really thought of it too deeply.

I was just explaining to TAM - his post may have been directed at me ? - that I had no problem with the bigger clubs having their TV revenues taxed but I just appreciated why they wouldn't want it too happen.

I missed any Jerry/big Gaz debate if there was one ?
Click to expand...
There isn't....

I'm just saying, that's how this football mentality works

There are no negative effects of Taxing TV Revenues, just like there are no negative effects of replacing Gary with Jerry.... Only positives😉

Of course, the reality is that there are negative consequences too.... Tax them too much and things might start to unravel.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don't watch Sky.... I can however see the actual massive progress that has been made from grassroots level upwards and the fact that our league structure remains resilient and strong, despite some of the issues you raise. Like I said, your comment was throw away, a Tony Blaire-like soundbite and slipped off the tongue as if it were true... It simply isn't... So why purvey that kind of lie, rather than be honest and simply challenge some of the real issues at face value?

And that (along with the lies about Bury, similar lies about our own situation, which reflect a totally skewed version of reality) being presented to some nodding dog type MP, from a party desperate to clean up on votes from the common man. 'Saving Football' or at least posturing about it is just the ticket as far as they are concerned and I wonder if this is a case of some backward thinking individuals seizing the opportunity to force their agenda...

In these conversations and also from the promoters of the legislation, I see little evidence of any recognition of the massive positives in football and that makes me wonder and question whether balance exists at all.... Easy to pick fault, but maybe not so easy to acknowledge the reality and positives.... Similar to Bury and Oyston.... Fans can spin a great yarn about the bad bits, but are extremely reticent to engage with some of the hard truths...
Click to expand...

x3

Not a criticism but I can't help think that you have changed your position over time.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not arguing with anything you say and it doesn't make you a bad man.

Some good people have changed their mind over matters in the past - and some not so good ones.

You've certainly got the number of the 'saviours of football' in your above post, I wouldn't have dared post what you have done.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
x3

Not a criticism but I can't help think that you have changed your position over time.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not arguing with anything you say and it doesn't make you a bad man.

Some good people have changed their mind over matters in the past - and some not so good ones.

You've certainly got the number of the 'saviours of football' in your above post, I wouldn't have dared post what you have done.
Click to expand...
You make a very fair point and my position hasn't changed.... I can see that there have been some negative consequences (particularly financial ones) in the modern football era, but that doesn't mean that I think the solution lies in a bunch of football anoraks running amok at boardroom level or having any other power or influence in the game for that matter..... It's the kind of stuff nightmares are made of.

Regardless of where I stand though, this discussion needs to be had and it is important that those who support these changes are challenged on their beliefs, the foundation of their thought processes and provide some answers.... Friendly promotional podcasts are one thing, but we shouldn't be afraid to scrutinise these ideas either.....

At the end of the day, if they are good ideas and well considered proposals then they ought to stand up to a bit of scrutiny / challenge.

What I will say is that I'm quite surprised that more people haven't commented on this..... As I said before, it maybe suggests people are pretty apathetic in the main.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don't watch Sky.... I can however see the actual massive progress that has been made from grassroots level upwards and the fact that our league structure remains resilient and strong, despite some of the issues you raise. Like I said, your comment was throw away, a Tony Blaire-like soundbite and slipped off the tongue as if it were true... It simply isn't... So why purvey that kind of lie, rather than be honest and simply challenge some of the real issues at face value?

And that (along with the lies about Bury, similar lies about our own situation, which reflect a totally skewed version of reality) being presented to some nodding dog type MP, from a party desperate to clean up on votes from the common man, does make me feel a bit concerned. 'Saving Football' or at least posturing about it is just the ticket as far as they are concerned and I wonder if this is a case of some backward thinking individuals seizing the opportunity to force their agenda...

In these conversations and also from the promoters of the legislation, I see little evidence of any recognition of the massive positives in football and that makes me wonder and question whether balance exists at all.... Easy to pick fault, but maybe not so easy to acknowledge the reality and positives.... Similar to Bury and Oyston.... Fans can spin a great yarn about the bad bits, but are extremely reticent to engage with some of the hard truths...
Click to expand...
The positives in football are expressed very clearly by the multi million pound publicity campaigns of the EPL and the media that are largely in thrall to them.

As someone who sees problems in football it's not logical to start by celebrating what is already celebrated, especially when so little attention is given to the problems by the media. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing those positives but why do the EPL's job for them cos they sure as hell aren't going to acknowledge any validity in my argument.

Football is in rude health on one level but it's also more financially unstable than previous eras.

Football is more popular but it's also declining in popularity with younger supporters/players

Football is very rich but football is also saddled in lots of debt.

English clubs are dominant in Europe but overall the relative strengths of many European leagues is weaker than in previous eras because of the financial impact of TV money elevating some leagues spending power above others.

Gary is big but he's not very fast. Jerry is fast but he's not very big.

It's equally simplistic as anything anyone else has said to say 'but trickle down economics is the only way' because it palpably isn't. History, both sporting and social says so. It's not about ideology. Different contexts can require different approaches.

I see a lot of unthinking defence of what amounts to football colonialism where we look at the riches on our our doorstep and declare it 'good' and ignore how that effects football globally or even across Europe, let alone in our own backyard.

I want to discuss sport, not the ** importance of the next TV deal. Literally couldn't give a fuck. I don't give shit about marketing. I don't care about content strategy or any of that. I just like people kicking a ball about. In that I agree.

Where I also agree with you is that it's a global/continental issue that needs much bigger consideration. I also agree that it is complicated and declaring the fan led review a triumph and an end game is too simplistic.

However, I believe it contains *some* important ideas that can be positive in the further evolution of football.

I've had enough of this now. I've written reams on what I think and I still think it and I think very few people (if any) are still reading. The book linked below is quite dull but contains some very well researched and objective analysis of a lot of the stuff on this thread.

It's sort of what I'd like to write if I didn't have to earn a living and eat and sleep and speak to my family from time to time. The bits between the evidence are bland but the evidence is excellent.

I'd also highly recommend 'and the sun shines now' by Adrian Tempany in terms of an exploration of the impact of clubs social value, the value of community work and an exploration of how the premier league came to be what it was through political will.

NB, Gary wasn't the problem.


More Than a Game: Saving Football From Itself : Gregory, Mark: Amazon.co.uk: Books

More Than a Game: Saving Football From Itself : Gregory, Mark: Amazon.co.uk: Books
www.amazon.co.uk
 
td53 said:
I want to discuss sport, not the ** importance of the next TV deal. Literally couldn't give a fuck. I don't give shit about marketing. I don't care about content strategy or any of that. I just like people kicking a ball about. In that I agree.
Click to expand...
You can look forward endless coverage of the 'super-fan' elections once the new and improved circus rolls into town.....Months of endless campaigning by bobble hat & scarf clad anoraks selling half baked solutions to turn around your club's failing fortunes, by sweeping away the sand and building a future on firm foundations like the power of collective positive mindset, good old fashioned family values and the reintroduction of hobnailed boots and a leather casey ball.

We can do away with all this "foreign muck" like statistical analysis, nutritional science, training and the ** 'press'🙄 and get back to proper English stuff like shouting loudly, meat and gravy, downing as much booze as you can lay your hands on and lumping it into the 'bloody mixer'.


Enjoy...👍

On the positive side, it's probably a world in which Big Gaz would rise to the top in...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You can look forward endless coverage of the 'super-fan' elections once the new and improved circus rolls into town.....Months of endless campaigning by bobble hat & scarf clad anoraks selling half baked solutions to turn around your club's failing fortunes, by sweeping away the sand and building a future on firm foundations like the power of collective positive mindset, good old fashioned family values and the reintroduction of hobnailed boots and a leather casey ball.

We can do away with all this "foreign muck" like statistical analysis, nutritional science, training and the ** 'press'🙄 and get back to proper English stuff like shouting loudly, meat and gravy, downing as much booze as you can lay your hands on and lumping it into the 'bloody mixer'.


Enjoy...👍

On the positive side, it's probably a world in which Big Gaz would rise to the top in...
Click to expand...
That's my only agenda...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don't watch Sky.... I can however see the actual massive progress that has been made from grassroots level upwards and the fact that our league structure remains resilient and strong, despite some of the issues you raise. Like I said, your comment was throw away, a Tony Blaire-like soundbite and slipped off the tongue as if it were true... It simply isn't... So why purvey that kind of lie, rather than be honest and simply challenge some of the real issues at face value?

And that (along with the lies about Bury, similar lies about our own situation, which reflect a totally skewed version of reality) being presented to some nodding dog type MP, from a party desperate to clean up on votes from the common man, does make me feel a bit concerned. 'Saving Football' or at least posturing about it is just the ticket as far as they are concerned and I wonder if this is a case of some backward thinking individuals seizing the opportunity to force their agenda...

In these conversations and also from the promoters of the legislation, I see little evidence of any recognition of the massive positives in football and that makes me wonder and question whether balance exists at all.... Easy to pick fault, but maybe not so easy to acknowledge the reality and positives.... Similar to Bury and Oyston.... Fans can spin a great yarn about the bad bits, but are extremely reticent to engage with some of the hard truths...
Click to expand...
It's difficult to engage if you are going to depict any opinion that differs from yours as a lie. I do actually agree with you that the proof of all these proposals will be in the pudding.

I find it a bit curious that a Blackpool fan would be so seemingly dismissive about fan empowerment, but I wonder whether it is the process that turns you off as much as the concept. But others see it differently.

Your characterisation of people who care about this is a bit unfair, isn't it? The fact is that the FSA has managed to not only mobilise but also put forward a compelling case for potentially far reaching change. No amount of chit chat on AVFTT is going to change that.
 
Last edited:
basilrobbie3 said:
It's difficult to engage if you are going to depict any opinion that differs from yours as a lie. I do actually agree with you that the proof of all these proposals will be in the pudding.

I find it a bit curious that a Blackpool fan would be so seemingly dismissive about fan empowerment, but I wonder whether it is the process that turns you off as much as the concept. But others see it differently.

Your characterisation of people who care about this is a bit unfair, isn't it? The fact is that the FSA has managed to not only mobilise but also put forward a compelling case for potentially far reaching change. No amount of chi chat on AVFTT is going to change that.
Click to expand...
Opinion is one thing… To refer to a structure that is so highly regarded, has stood firm since the 1800’s and continues to flourish as weak or that it’s “foundations are based on sand” is stretching opinion and sits in the realm of being a falsehood to my mind. I mean you couldn't be further off the mark really... By all means state that members of the pyramid are showing signs of financial concern and their short to medium term future is may be at some degree of risk, but 'the structure'? The structure has shown itself to be virtually bomb proof and the solidity of that structure, along with the depth of foundations have seen many Clubs falter over years or even decades before re-establishing themselves (Had it not been for the solidity of the structure and the safety net that the League structure provides many clubs would have long since disappeared)... So yes, I struggle to take your contribution seriously when it has its 'foundations' based in such a 'sandy' footing..

As a Blackpool Fan, our Club and our fans have been through our own trials, I have no wish / desire to get involved in the trials and tribulations of other Clubs. I'm happy for Blackpool F.C. to capitalise on the demise (temporary or otherwise) of other Clubs who might suffer a similar fate. When considering some of the measures under review, I can see how they would have both helped and also harmed my football club. As I said earlier in this discussion, bureaucracy, regulation and restrictive powers over financial management are potential big turn off's for those individuals (owners / custodians) who we rely on to fund our local football clubs.

TBH Robbie (I assume it actually is you, rather than an infiltrator) I tend to view all sources of power as corrupt and these Supporters Associations BST, FSA etc. etc... are no different. Ultimately power corrupts individuals and they utilise the organisation / association etc.. and the power vested in them to serve their own means / agenda IMHO.... So I don't particularly trust them and I don't trust entirely in the motivations of those concerned either, nor do I necessarily trust in their capabilities or suitability as collectives or individuals to establish policy that seeks to make radical change to our national game. I'm not saying that people do not set out with best intentions or that there aren't some very hard working individuals, simply that I do not trust in the process at all. I can't say I particularly trust in the Government and / or the reasons why they might want to align themselves with Football Supporters either...

I've made my feelings on fans on boards clear on many occasions.... I do not want fans anywhere near the boardroom at Blackpool ...Simple as... I just see it as meddling from people who are simply unqualified to be involved.... And frankly anyone who wants to be involved is unqualifies simply by virtue of that fact alone...

In listening to some of the discussion on the subject around Bury F.C. for example and also our own situation, I also find that equally as concerning as the talk of the League Structure as weak, because again it reinforces my belief that this process is underpinned with misinformation or at least a failure to acknowledge reality as it is vs reality with a football fans typical spin put on it...

Blackpool is a classic example, where our fans have continued to make the argument that these new regulations might have saved us from Oyston's clutches and prevented our recent issues.... But they forget to acknowledge that those same regulations would very likely have meant that OO never got involved in the first place and our club went out of business and our ground bulldozed, 30 years before we ever got anywhere near the Premier League.... It forgets to acknowledge how our club spent 20 years on an Oyston life support machine etc. and how that was actually beneficial for our club.. Now I say that through gritted teeth, because it's an uncomfortable truth, but it is the truth (though not a truth that our fans would have put forward to Tracey Couch no doubt).... Bury again, will have its own 'fan embellished' version of reality and I've made my point about them above....

I can't see how any changes that are borne our of such circumstances (i.e. essentially the failure to rest the process and review in a truthful or unbiased account of the circumstances from it's inception) could ever result in positive change. I can't see how the propensity to simply ignore anything which might pose inconvenient to the 'agenda' and focus instead on confirming existing bias could deliver a workable solution...

And that's where I come from when I talk about acknowledging the positives... Because to my mind if you guys cannot even recognise the significant positives that exist in our game, if you genuinely view the league structure as weak, then your solutions cannot possibly have given due consideration to any negative consequences.....They cannot possibly be balanced solutions, because as I see it, they are rested in a totally false or biased interpretation of the system as it stands.
 
Last edited:
We're not going to agree on much, are we? I can see why you might be suspicious of change on the scale proposed, but I think your views on what motivates others are quite jaundiced.

It's also clear that you have a very low opinion of football fans as a collective : why, God only knows. But it's your opinion.

I think there is a big opportunity to change the game for the better, and it's both very energising and worth fighting for. Converting that opportunity into something real is now the challenge and as long as the current political goodwill stays with us I think it can be done - and needs to be.

On the Oystons, you make some worthwhile points about the history, and the pivotal moments were 2006 (when VB turned up) and May 2010 when EVERYTHING changed.

But the points that have been made about the period since are that the EPL money radically changed their behaviour for the worse, and the ruling bodies could not, or would not respond adequately.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the period from 1987 to 2006. But for the purposes of this debate it has very limited relevance.
 
Last edited:
basilrobbie3 said:
We're not going to agree on much, are we? I can see why you might be suspicious of change on the scale proposed, but I think your views on what motivates others are quite jaundiced.

It's also clear that you have a very low opinion of football fans as a collective : why, God only knows. But it's your opinion.

I think there is a big opportunity to change the game for the better, and it's both very energising and worth fighting for. Converting that opportunity into something real is now the challenge and as long as the current political goodwill stays with us I think it can be done - and needs to be.

On the Oystons, you make some worthwhile points about the history, and the pivotal moments were 2006 (when VB turned up) and May 2010 when EVERYTHING changed.

But the points that have been made about the period since are that the EPL money radically changed their behaviour for the worse, and the ruling bodies could not, or would not respond adequately.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the period from 1987 to 2006. But for the purposes of this debate it has very limited relevance.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of how best to put this, but you will recall the group Q-Anon during the Trump Presidency.... I can't help but feel (much like them) that those involved in this process have somehow managed to shut out reality and create an alternative reality that they genuinely believe in, when it comes to football. And I suppose if you read enough Kieran Maguire blogs / books and reside within an echo chamber, then your version of reality can become very skewed.

So yes, these are potentially big changes..... and it is a concern that they seem to be based in a rather one sided view of the world as it is...

Personally, I think that things would evolve naturally regardless, but I can see that it is possible that some change and intervention could have a positive impact on the game. I think I'd have felt rather more comfortable if i'd heard more understanding of the positives that exist, because it feels very much to me like no value at all or very little value is placed on the system and structure as things stand.... That to my mind leads to a thought process that believes that it really doesn't matter what we do, because anything is better than the current system.....

The reason I brought the period from 1987 into it is because whilst the changes might well have resolved the situation with Oyston after we reached the (EPL Positive), those same changes would have prevented OO from saving the club in 1987...(Negative)

And that's the point.... You can't just consider the positive impact of the changes, you must also give due consideration to the negatives....

I'll end with a question....

HAs anyone involved in this process undertaken any kind of risk assessment, spoken to the Clubs, League etc... to try and evaluate the potential risks that they pose to the game?
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'm trying to think of how best to put this, but you will recall the group Q-Anon during the Trump Presidency.... I can't help but feel (much like them) that those involved in this process have somehow managed to shut out reality and create an alternative reality that they genuinely believe in, when it comes to football. And I suppose if you read enough Kieran Maguire blogs / books and reside within an echo chamber, then your version of reality can become very skewed.

So yes, these are potentially big changes..... and it is a concern that they seem to be based in a rather one sided view of the world as it is...

Personally, I think that things would evolve naturally regardless, but I can see that it is possible that some change and intervention could have a positive impact on the game. I think I'd have felt rather more comfortable if i'd heard more understanding of the positives that exist, because it feels very much to me like no value at all or very little value is placed on the system and structure as things stand.... That to my mind leads to a thought process that believes that it really doesn't matter what we do, because anything is better than the current system.....
Click to expand...
I can probably meet you halfway. There are a lot of things about the game that are positive - it captures large numbers of people because of its inherent power and engenders tremendous loyalty.

That said, there is a lot about the way it is managed, the people it attracts and its inherent inequities that need to be changed. I don't want corrupt global bodies setting the framework. I don't want a game that attracts owners who see clubs as fashion accessories or vehicles to service debt. I don't want a system that encourages owners to over-extend themselves and then walk away from the mess that results. All these things need to be confronted.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I can probably meet you halfway. There are a lot of things about the game that are positive - it captures large numbers of people because of its inherent power and engenders tremendous loyalty.

That said, there is a lot about the way it is managed, the people it attracts and its inherent inequities that need to be changed. I don't want corrupt global bodies setting the framework. I don't want a game that attracts owners who see clubs as fashion accessories or vehicles to service debt. I don't want a system that encourages owners to over-extend themselves and then walk away from the mess that results. All these things need to be confronted.
Click to expand...
So have you completed any kind of risk assessment to try and understand the risks / potential risks and harms posed by the proposed measures?

So maybe spoken to clubs, owners, TV Companies, EPL / EFL / FA Reps etc.. to try and understand how different scenario's might impact ?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So have you completed any kind of risk assessment to try and understand the risks / potential risks and harms posed by the proposed measures?

So maybe spoken to clubs, owners, TV Companies, EPL / EFL / FA Reps etc.. to try and understand how different scenario's might impact ?
Click to expand...
I thought you'd resigned from this thread On Friday. 🤣
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I have a tendency to get sucked into these things..... It's very addictive
Click to expand...
The thread is over now.

We concluded that Gary Madine is the new Messi in the brave new old world.

That only came to fruition thanks to your engagement. The committees and steering groups are in action and the Ballon d'Or etchers are preparing to mark the trophy with "Gary Goals 2022"

You've made the world a better place.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So have you completed any kind of risk assessment to try and understand the risks / potential risks and harms posed by the proposed measures?

So maybe spoken to clubs, owners, TV Companies, EPL / EFL / FA Reps etc.. to try and understand how different scenario's might impact ?
Click to expand...
Not me personally. But the FSA and the expert Panel have done a lot of due diligence, including finance distribution modelling (Maguire again, I believe). The Panel also included a regulatory impact expert. The FSA evidence was over four months in preparation and they had a look at what happens in Germany, Sweden and Spain.

We did a form of modeling of our (BST) own, in that we tried to model what could be done if you simultaneously redistributed parachute payments, reintroduced the salary cap in L1 and L2 and set one for the the Championship at around £11.5-12.0m.

The impact of that would have been to create a distribution model that took all the EFL clubs close to, or slightly above cap. A fairly crude approach to parity that didn't pretend to address transitional arrangements - but a form of impact assessment nevertheless.
 
td53 said:
The thread is over now.

We concluded that Gary Madine is the new Messi in the brave new old world.

That only came to fruition thanks to your engagement. The committees and steering groups are in action and the Ballon d'Or etchers are preparing to mark the trophy with "Gary Goals 2022"

You've made the world a better place.
Click to expand...

If Gary ascends to his natural place in the footballing hall of fame and they put a stop to multicoloured football boots, I'd probably have to take my hat off and accept it's been a job well done....👍
 
Last edited:
basilrobbie3 said:
Not me personally. But the FSA and the expert Panel have done a lot of due diligence, including finance distribution modelling (Maguire again, I believe). The Panel also included a regulatory impact expert. The FSA evidence was over four months in preparation and they had a look at what happens in Germany, Sweden and Spain.

We did a form of modeling of our (BST) own, in that we tried to model what could be done if you simultaneously redistributed parachute payments, reintroduced the salary cap in L1 and L2 and set one for the the Championship at around £11.5-12.0m.

The impact of that would have been to create a distribution model that took all the EFL clubs close to, or slightly above cap. A fairly crude approach to parity that didn't pretend to address transitional arrangements - but a form of impact assessment nevertheless.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to see the modelling and studies completed tbh. Are they available for fan / public consumption?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'd be interested to see the modelling and studies completed tbh. Are they available for fan / public consumption?
Click to expand...
You would have to ask them. But given there is still a Parliamentary debate to be had I doubt private research would be published.

You can read the BST evidence on our website though, it is designed to be illustrative of what could be done, rather than a polished answer.
 
td53 said:
The thread is over now.

We concluded that Gary Madine is the new Messi in the brave new old world.

That only came to fruition thanks to your engagement. The committees and steering groups are in action and the Ballon d'Or etchers are preparing to mark the trophy with "Gary Goals 2022"

You've made the world a better place.
Click to expand...
I don't recall being consulted. 🤠

Anyway, I'm just delighted to see Basil interfering with market forces in the interests of fairness and the benefit of the majority instead of the minority. 👍
 
basilrobbie3 said:
You would have to ask them. But given there is still a Parliamentary debate to be had I doubt private research would be published.

You can read the BST evidence on our website though, it is designed to be illustrative of what could be done, rather than a polished answer.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it sounds like that process has been undertaken with much rigour or balance which is a bit of a worry really. It's a shame, because it's clear that a lot of effort has gone into highlighting the problems that exist and proposing solutions. I think in particular the redistribution of wealth and also salary caps (any financial restriction or regulation for that matter) will have significant knock on effects (potentially devastating effects).
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'm not sure it sounds like that process has been undertaken with much rigour or balance which is a bit of a worry really. It's a shame, because it's clear that a lot of effort has gone into highlighting the problems that exist and proposing solutions. I think in particular the redistribution of wealth and also salary caps (any financial restriction or regulation for that matter) will have significant knock on effects (potentially devastating effects).
Click to expand...
You may feel differently when you have had a chance to read it.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
You may feel differently when you have had a chance to read it.
Click to expand...
I've read some of the fan led review and as I've alluded to, it feels very much like the required outcome informs much of the input as opposed to the other way around.

An example of this in say Chapter 2 where we are supposed to believe that 'the very last resort is to have an independent regulator' yet both the alternative proposals put forward and the review of them is so incredibly biased that only one conclusion could have ever been drawn....To that extent, it feels more like a marketing document than a genuine review.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I've read some of the fan led review and as I've alluded to, it feels very much like the required outcome informs much of the input as opposed to the other way around.

An example of this in say Chapter 2 where we are supposed to believe that 'the very last resort is to have an independent regulator' yet both the alternative proposals put forward and the review of them is so incredibly biased that only one conclusion could have ever been drawn....To that extent, it feels more like a marketing document than a genuine review.
Click to expand...
I think you are showing a lack of understanding of context and history.

The history is that the FSA and predecessor groups formally reported on these issues in 2018. Even at that late stage they were prepared to trust the FA to oversee regulation.

It was principally Bury and Macclesfield that changed all that as far as they were concerned. But by then the wider context had become overwhelming. Given the evidence being offered by supporters of clubs like Blackpool, Blackburn, Coventry, Hull, Derby, Swindon, Sheffield Wednesday, Wigan, Charlton, Leyton Orient and others it would have been perverse for the FSA to conclude that what we have is working. It plainly isn't.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I think you are showing a lack of understanding of context and history.
Click to expand...

That’s quite funny given the strategic omission of the inconvenient half of Blackpool F.C. history from the BST submission.

You can’t blame me for questioning the bias, based on that alone. I responded myself to the survey and felt that the questions to were geared towards eliciting the ‘right’ result..

Fair play to you for responding to some of the matters raised. It’s up to other people to do their own research and ask questions if they wish to do so.

I can’t say I feel particularly reassured that this isn’t a prepackaged solution devised by a like-minded collective as opposed to a genuine research led solution…. It certainly feels like the answer informed the questions as opposed to the other way around….

Of course that doesn’t mean the proposed measures won’t make things better (depending on what better actually is), but it does create some doubts over the integrity of the process and therefore the conclusions reached.
 
The BST submission was about regulatory failure, in the main. It was our experience of that (and the factors that led to it) that earned us an in-person interview with the Panel. What happened in the late 80s and 90s wasn't directly relevant. Indeed, one of the main thrusts of our experience was that all that EPL money can bring perverse consequences with it.

As for pre-determination, two points :

1) the evidence of inadequacy in our ruling bodies goes back many years. In our own case, arguably the most egregious failure was in 2010/11. If the FSA and others had already reached any conclusions, it was based upon multiple failures over a long period

2) in any case, I think you are seeing Conspiracy or group think that doesn't exist. Over seventy supporter groups submitted evidence and there were some strong, common themes. I know we didn't collude with anyone else and the only input we had from the FSA was simply encouragement to tell our story.

Anyway I'm out for now. I'm supposed to be on holiday...
 
basilrobbie3 said:
The BST submission was about regulatory failure, in the main. It was our experience of that (and the factors that led to it) that earned us an in-person interview with the Panel. What happened in the late 80s and 90s wasn't directly relevant. Indeed, one of the main thrusts of our experience was that all that EPL money can bring perverse consequences with it.

As for pre-determination, two points :

1) the evidence of inadequacy in our ruling bodies goes back many years. In our own case, arguably the most egregious failure was in 2010/11. If the FSA and others had already reached any conclusions, it was based upon multiple failures over a long period

2) in any case, I think you are seeing Conspiracy or group think that doesn't exist. Over seventy supporter groups submitted evidence and there were some strong, common themes. I know we didn't collude with anyone else and the only input we had from the FSA was simply encouragement to tell our story.

Anyway I'm out for now. I'm supposed to be on holiday...
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying Baz, but to my mind it’s a very distorted account of our history and even the circumstances that led immediately led up to our EPL promotion.

It’s no great shakes, but clearly each individual Club’s story is going to be subject to similar bias. I do the same myself, there’s a story that I can trot off about our plight (similar to the submission) and then there’s a different one, which is more akin to a balanced reality.

On the positive side, submissions have been sought from Clubs / owners and other bodies, so hopefully there may have been some balance added from that perspective.

I think your points 1 & 2 confirm my suspicions really. It was kind of obvious when reading the document.

So we move forward with the objective of challenging the financially corrupted system and putting right the issues caused by dodgy owners and the first significant ‘official’ step in that process… A report taking several months in the process is already riddled with corruption…

It happens every time 😂

And that’s the rub, we’re essentially transitioning from one corrupt system to another. Each organisation prepared to do what is required to justify and achieve their own ends.

Anyway enjoy your holiday… I’ve nothing more to add 👍
 
Good thread this well done guys ...

But to honest I side more with BFC on this, a couple of things from me;

- The biggest issue in football for me is the rising cost to watch games live, not who owns what and how somebody else's money gets spent or the need for some independent regulatory

- I'm still to be convinced football club trusts are the way to go and unsure if fans actually need any further say in football polices .I've re joined BST after a long break so will watch closely

Nice to have you back btw Robert.....
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Good thread this well done guys ...

But to honest I side more with BFC on this, a couple of things from me;

- The biggest issue in football for me is the rising cost to watch games live, not who owns what and how somebody else's money gets spent or the need for some independent regulatory

- I'm still to be convinced football club trusts are the way to go and unsure if fans actually need any further say in football polices .I've re joined BST after a long break so will watch closely

Nice to have you back btw Robert.....
Click to expand...
It's nice to be back Philip.

On your two points (personal views only) :

Re the first, Biff said something similar. I agree with you to the extent that a Trust that loses sight of these issues is not doing all the job. Hence the ticket pricing survey **, work on crowd control, shirt initiative, supporting Foodbanks to name but four examples we have been very active on this year.

On the second, unsurprisingly I disagree with you about the need for fans to be politically active : what is happening now is in some part because there is such a thing as the FSA and it has done a formidable lobbying job this year to the extent that the debate is being conducted largely on its terms. We have come a long way since 2017 when we were given irrefutable evidence that the EFL was not interested in helping us. That change is a product of fans playing the politics game, and playing it well.

** I know you didn't like the way it was handled, but a lot of people did and around a thousand took part
 
voyeur said:
Well done everyone that has played a part. Some great things done by BST. Big progress.

Long way to go yet and tricky battles ahead I reckon, though.

I've not followed it closely or even thought about it in much depth. Is the main aim to get more of the EPL cash into the EFL? If not, why bang that drum so much? Or is to improve the governance of EFL clubs so that owners like Oyston and Dale can't do what they did? I'm sure it's both, and other things too, but I hope the thinking is clear and focused on the key issues as things can fall apart if not. I have read the Guardian piece yesterday and the list of recommendations seems, to me at least, a bit like a wish list that might get pulled around in different directions. I'm sure those more involved can clarify. Be good to hear Robbie's take on the way forward.
Click to expand...
Voy

Just picked this up, belatedly.

The short answer is that it is both the things you picked out - and others.

On governance, part of it is about screening out or dealing with poor owner behaviour. But it is also about having a broad range of powers that match the nature of the intervention to the seriousness of the problem, including quite spectacular powers to deal with catastrophic failure.

Equally though, good regulation involves creating a framework for peer support, incremental intervention, promoting good practice, doing "thematic" reporting (making recommendations to football authorities where appropriate) and (I hope) set-piece annual reporting of much the same sort the main Ombudsmen do.

On finance, it is in part about more equitable distribution that helps tiers 2-5 in particular and grassroots in general (Tim spoke about this). But is also about smoothing the distribution curve to remove some of the cliff edges that exist now (I expect this to be difficult and possibly confrontational).

Also look out for good stuff on supporter representation and better support for kids who don't make it through the academy system.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It's nice to be back Philip.

On your two points (personal views only) :

Re the first, Biff said something similar. I agree with you to the extent that a Trust that loses sight of these issues is not doing all the job. Hence the ticket pricing survey **, work on crowd control, shirt initiative, supporting Foodbanks to name but four examples we have been very active on this year.

On the second, unsurprisingly I disagree with you about the need for fans to be politically active : what is happening now is in some part because there is such a thing as the FSA and it has done a formidable lobbying job this year to the extent that the debate is being conducted largely on its terms. We have come a long way since 2017 when we were given irrefutable evidence that the EFL was not interested in helping us. That change is a product of fans playing the politics game, and playing it well.

** I know you didn't like the way it was handled, but a lot of people did and around a thousand took part
Click to expand...
Some of the initiatives are great, although I'm not sure where the shirts are coming from as I'm led to believe there aren't any kids shirts in stock and non are on order as the kit is changing next season

The food bank stuff again.. its fantastic

You are correct about the survey, its a decent idea in principle however i don't believe it did any good. Infact i think it was counter productive in that the majority of people who completed it were already season ticket holders and of a certain age so the information collated just gave the club a skewed picture

Looking at walk up sales numbers i believe I've been proven right

I do have a bee in my bonnet about how the club can increase our fanbase and i don't believe BST or the SLO are doing enough on this matter

To me increasing our fanbase and getting as many fans through the gate is critical to the long term future of our club

And should be top of any agenda...

Much more important to me than any football governance issues

As for the second point i haven't really got anything else to say at the moment, will just have a watch to see how things pan out
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Some of the initiatives are great, although I'm not sure where the shirts are coming from as I'm led to believe there aren't any kids shirts in stock and non are on order as the kit is changing next season

The food bank stuff again.. its fantastic

You are correct about the survey, its a decent idea in principle however i don't believe it did any good. Infact i think it was counter productive in that the majority of people who completed it were already season ticket holders and of a certain age so the information collated just gave the club a skewed picture

Looking at walk up sales numbers i believe I've been proven right

I do have a bee in my bonnet about how the club can increase our fanbase and i don't believe BST or the SLO are doing enough on this matter

To me increasing our fanbase and getting as many fans through the gate is critical to the long term future of our club

And should be top of any agenda...

Much more important to me than any football governance issues

As for the second point i haven't really got anything else to say at the moment, will just have a watch to see how things pan out
Click to expand...
Just to say a mate of mine went to The Pool v WBA game. He is a Stockport County fan and went with his mate who is a Baggie. He texted to say "well done Blackpool, only 23 quid for a Championship game, I pay more than that at some National League games." Which I find surprising but most of our games have been Band B and it was the Band A price that freaked me out a bit. I realise it's initiatives like young adult prices that you have been mainly pushing, correctly I think. But there needs to be a balance. the club now knows what the demand is within the current price structure, hopefully it will seek ways to fill the empty seats. A full noisy stadium benefits the team on match days, as well as helping to sustain the club into the future.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Much more important to me than any football governance issues
Click to expand...
Absolutely and even with poor ownership it was never a case of fans wanting a change.
For instance Bury's supporters were quite happy with their owner when they won promotion and were beating everyone in sight.
Bolton fans loved it challenging in the PL for a European place.
Manure had no issues with the Glazers when SAF was winning trophy after trophy
Leeds fans 'lived the dream' under Ridsdale who then went and messed up Cardiff

Seasiders fans* thought the sun shone from KOs backside and even applauded his placing on the EFL board at the time.

At present the CEO of the FSA is a big Newcastle fan and has argued for a long time against Mike Ashley's tenure, but now all of a sudden
its ok to have a new owner who Amnesty International are saying is/are tied in with human rights issues that include murder.

If there was some consistency with these fans 'political' (small p) then I'd be right behind it, but it seems inconsistent and hypocritical and to be honest I wouldnt trust anyone of them to speak/represent anyone but themselves.

edit: some...
 
nameless said:
Absolutely and even with poor ownership it was never a case of fans wanting a change.
For instance Bury's supporters were quite happy with their owner when they won promotion and were beating everyone in sight.
Bolton fans loved it challenging in the PL for a European place.
Manure had no issues with the Glazers when SAF was winning trophy after trophy
Leeds fans 'lived the dream' under Ridsdale who then went and messed up Cardiff

Seasiders fans* thought the sun shone from KOs backside and even applauded his placing on the EFL board at the time.

At present the CEO of the FSA is a big Newcastle fan and has argued for a long time against Mike Ashley's tenure, but now all of a sudden
its ok to have a new owner who Amnesty International are saying is/are tied in with human rights issues that include murder.

If there was some consistency with these fans 'political' (small p) then I'd be right behind it, but it seems inconsistent and hypocritical and to be honest I wouldnt trust anyone of them to speak/represent anyone but themselves.

edit: some...
Click to expand...
That’s a very good post and mirrors my own thoughts in many ways. It’s that lack of honesty (honesty with ourselves really) about our own contribution as supporters to many of the issues that exist in football today that I struggle with…. It’s kind of OK to spin a yarn when you are in open warfare with your owner and seeking to oust them, but very different if you are seeking to effect / implement regulatory change within the game…. To my mind the latter needs to come from a point of recognition of the warts and all reality.

I experienced a lot of the same attitude in the anti-fracking movement, whereby small groups assume ‘right is on our side’ and therefore any means necessary is justified. It leads to a corrupt approach and a lack of integrity in the process.
 
Last edited:
basilrobbie3 said:
Voy

Just picked this up, belatedly.

The short answer is that it is both the things you picked out - and others.

On governance, part of it is about screening out or dealing with poor owner behaviour. But it is also about having a broad range of powers that match the nature of the intervention to the seriousness of the problem, including quite spectacular powers to deal with catastrophic failure.

Equally though, good regulation involves creating a framework for peer support, incremental intervention, promoting good practice, doing "thematic" reporting (making recommendations to football authorities where appropriate) and (I hope) set-piece annual reporting of much the same sort the main Ombudsmen do.

On finance, it is in part about more equitable distribution that helps tiers 2-5 in particular and grassroots in general (Tim spoke about this). But is also about smoothing the distribution curve to remove some of the cliff edges that exist now (I expect this to be difficult and possibly confrontational).

Also look out for good stuff on supporter representation and better support for kids who don't make it through the academy system.
Click to expand...
Cheers Robbie. Good to see you getting your teeth into it, you obviously have the experience/ skill set to be a big help to the cause.

I guess with the EPL and EFL being separate organisations there are two clearly separate issues, the finance and the EFL governance. I think the EFL governance is probably the key issue and the most ripe for change. Maybe that needs sorting first? Get the EFL's house in order, then debate and negotiate the relationship with the EPL? It's surely in the EPL's interests to some extent at least to have a good relationship and a strong EFL. And it's also in the interests of the national game at all levels.
 
voyeur said:
I guess with the EPL and EFL being separate organisations there are two clearly separate issues, the finance and the EFL governance. I think the EFL governance is probably the key issue and the most ripe for change. Maybe that needs sorting first? Get the EFL's house in order, then debate and negotiate the relationship with the EPL? It's surely in the EPL's interests to some extent at least to have a good relationship and a strong EFL. And it's also in the interests of the national game at all levels.
Click to expand...
The EFL position is like living next door to a neighbour who has everything ie nice car,holidays and a swimming pool in the landscaped back garden. You want what he has but cant afford it so borrow up to your hilt and run up credit card debts, just to keep the missus and kids happy.

In practical terms the EFL can only govern within the parameters their own clubs accede and agree to, and is driven by fans wanting to invest and push for success; in the same way the Seasiders did when there were calls for such pre Belekon. That doesnt excuse poor governance but just remember that clubs pushing/ entering the PL must now meet the ownership requirements, so at some point they would have to meet that criteria or get knocked back.

Any club that gets promoted to the PL might not want to give up some of its parachute money anyway, and might argue that good management means you dont run up the credit card. Norwich have shown its possible to at least get there but without going into debt its almost impossible to defy gravity.

Any objective observer can see that the PL has worked hard to market its product,get a premium price for it and improve its stock by expanding to the global market. The bloke in the Far East isnt really interested in what goes on outside the top division just as much as you are I are about Exeter City, and meddling by a group of supporters who cant even put together a genuine and workable alternative isnt going to get much traction.
 
It's hard to take basilrobbie3 too seriously.

He's the secretary of BST but uses a different username on this thread to ask, "Would be interested to know from Christine how one Trust like ours manages to have influence when there are lots of others".
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That’s a very good post and mirrors my own thoughts in many ways. It’s that lack of honesty (honesty with ourselves really) about our own contribution as supporters to many of the issues that exist in football today that I struggle with…. It’s kind of OK to spin a yarn when you are in open warfare with your owner and seeking to oust them, but very different if you are seeking to effect / implement regulatory change within the game…. To my mind the latter needs to come from a point of recognition of the warts and all reality.

I experienced a lot of the same attitude in the anti-fracking movement, whereby small groups assume ‘right is on our side’ and therefore any means necessary is justified. It leads to a corrupt approach and a lack of integrity in the process.
Click to expand...
It's not wholly accurate though as Manure fans literally set up an alternative club when the Glazers took over and did the whole Newton Heath colours thing.

Liverpool have Spirit of Shankly who are highly critical of FSG (and not simply because they don't spend) as another example of a successful club with active disenchantment with ownership.

Granted these haven't really had a noticable impact on attendance but these clubs have waiting lists as long as your arm.

It's also true that most fans aren't interested and generally want to trust ownership.

I could create an argument whereby Sadler is taking the club into a risky place, offering long contracts and spending last year when no prospect of income and what if he just walks off and leaves us?

Who really wants to think about that?

I think there's a lot of truth that most fans are happy if the team is winning, yes, but it's as big a generalisation as anything else on the thread and also, Leeds in particular had their problems exacerbated (as with Sheff Wed and others) by the massive disparity between spending and income in leagues below the EPL.

On a point of possible agreement - Thats something that concerns me about removing parachute payments. Yes, they distort the division below, but without them, you essentially force everyone who comes up to 'do a Norwich'

Yes, compulsory relegation clauses but that will mean instability and difficulty in securing players for clubs expected to struggle.

Far better to smooth the payments and value the championship and pyramid as a whole a bit more than have weird compensation payments for dropping a division imo.

I dunno, that just seems more natural. The cliff edge feels a false construction. Nature has a certain beauty and all that.
 
td53 said:
It's not wholly accurate though as Manure fans literally set up an alternative club when the Glazers took over and did the whole Newton Heath colours thing.

Liverpool have Spirit of Shankly who are highly critical of FSG (and not simply because they don't spend) as another example of a successful club with active disenchantment with ownership.

Granted these haven't really had a noticable impact on attendance but these clubs have waiting lists as long as your arm.

It's also true that most fans aren't interested and generally want to trust ownership.

I could create an argument whereby Sadler is taking the club into a risky place, offering long contracts and spending last year when no prospect of income and what if he just walks off and leaves us?

Who really wants to think about that?

I think there's a lot of truth that most fans are happy if the team is winning, yes, but it's as big a generalisation as anything else on the thread and also, Leeds in particular had their problems exacerbated (as with Sheff Wed and others) by the massive disparity between spending and income in leagues below the EPL.

On a point of possible agreement - Thats something that concerns me about removing parachute payments. Yes, they distort the division below, but without them, you essentially force everyone who comes up to 'do a Norwich'

Yes, compulsory relegation clauses but that will mean instability and difficulty in securing players for clubs expected to struggle.

Far better to smooth the payments and value the championship and pyramid as a whole a bit more than have weird compensation payments for dropping a division imo.

I dunno, that just seems more natural. The cliff edge feels a false construction. Nature has a certain beauty and all that.
Click to expand...

td

Just on the Man Utd supporters, I hear what you say but those green and yellow scarves came out when the Glazers came, went away when they won the league and did well in Europe and came back when it went a little pear again on the field.

That's not everybody and I'm sure some will continually voice their concerns but the voices are far louder when results aren't going their way.

Maybe that's human nature ?

I guess we should have been protesting against the Oyston's when we were in the Premier League but that was never going to happen.
 
td53 said:
It's not wholly accurate though as Manure fans literally set up an alternative club when the Glazers took over and did the whole Newton Heath colours thing.

Liverpool have Spirit of Shankly who are highly critical of FSG (and not simply because they don't spend) as another example of a successful club with active disenchantment with ownership.

Granted these haven't really had a noticable impact on attendance but these clubs have waiting lists as long as your arm.

It's also true that most fans aren't interested and generally want to trust ownership.

I could create an argument whereby Sadler is taking the club into a risky place, offering long contracts and spending last year when no prospect of income and what if he just walks off and leaves us?

Who really wants to think about that?

I think there's a lot of truth that most fans are happy if the team is winning, yes, but it's as big a generalisation as anything else on the thread and also, Leeds in particular had their problems exacerbated (as with Sheff Wed and others) by the massive disparity between spending and income in leagues below the EPL.

On a point of possible agreement - Thats something that concerns me about removing parachute payments. Yes, they distort the division below, but without them, you essentially force everyone who comes up to 'do a Norwich'

Yes, compulsory relegation clauses but that will mean instability and difficulty in securing players for clubs expected to struggle.

Far better to smooth the payments and value the championship and pyramid as a whole a bit more than have weird compensation payments for dropping a division imo.

I dunno, that just seems more natural. The cliff edge feels a false construction. Nature has a certain beauty and all that.
Click to expand...
You only have to look at the gradually decreasing support in the Fan Led Review Survey for measures that the fans might think would affect the specific ability of their own Club to spend money to see that the majority of fans tend to adopt an I'm alright Jack approach on the subject.... Look at Newcastle Fans for goodness sake, they are falling over themselves to try and justify their willingness to go along with the new ownership There are no principles in football...

Post 1996, Blackpool fans were chanting "He shagged your wife" to opposition supporters in reference to Oyston being convicted of rape.... Roll the clock on a decade or two and we develop a case of collective memory loss.

These things are always the same, we point the finger of blame in every other direction, but our own and adopt this 'right is on our side' / 'holier than thou' mentality that now allows us to justify further corruption, through the development of a solution that is essentially conjured up by a few power hungry fans.....

Whilst I understand that a lot of this stuff is done with the best of intentions any changes to our game shouldn't be led by fans or anyone else with a vested or biased interest in the game.... Like everyone else, fans have shown themselves to be totally damned foolish and just as blinded by success and finance as the next man.... Any review should ideally be completely independent of all parties and give equal balance to each and every party involved...
 
Last edited:
SEASIDE2020 said:
It's hard to take basilrobbie3 too seriously.

He's the secretary of BST but uses a different username on this thread to ask, "Would be interested to know from Christine how one Trust like ours manages to have influence when there are lots of others".
Click to expand...
C'mon, we've had a whole thread of grown up chat! I can't be arsed with another thread of 'is Robbie actually SEASIDE2020 in a deeply surprising twist' type stuff...
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You only have to look at the gradually decreasing support in the Fan Led Review Survey for measures that the fans might think would affect the specific ability of their own Club to spend money to see that the majority of fans tend to adopt an I'm alright Jack approach on the subject.... Look at Newcastle Fans for goodness sake, they are falling over themselves to try and justify their willingness to go along with the new ownership There are no principles in football...

Post 1996, Blackpool fans were chanting "He shagged your wife" to opposition supporters in reference to Oyston being convicted of rape.... Roll the clock on a decade or two and we develop a case of collective memory loss.

These things are always the same, we point the finger of blame in every other direction, but our own and adopt this 'right is on our side' / 'holier than thou' mentality that now allows us to justify further corruption, through the development of a solution that is essentially conjured up by a few power hungry fans.....

Whilst I understand that a lot of this stuff is done with the best of intentions any changes to our game shouldn't be led by fans or anyone else with a vested or biased interest in the game.... Like everyone else, fans have shown themselves to be totally damned foolish and just as blinded by success and finance as the next man.... Any review should ideally be completely independent of all parties and give equal balance to each and every party involved...
Click to expand...
That's true, yes. We did sort of 'own' Oyston's behaviour in a way that seems a bit odd in hindsight... But in a situation where fans have no power or say or influence, them the natural tendency is to just crack on with it.

I always used to think of Karl "he's a knob but at least he won't do what that Chester City guy did"

That's a low bar to be fair but then what recourse or alternative did we have? What recourse do we have if Sadler (unlikely I accept) turns out to be totally different than we think he is?

None.

Therefore, the natural tendency is to accept things - exactly as you said in your opening.

If there was a body, a regulator perhaps or football authorities who represented all stakeholders holistically, then it's possible that supporters would be more likely to hold owners to higher standards.

I appreciate that many fans just want money spent and that it's a pissing competition for billionaires and the two things combined create a toxic culture but it's unfair to slate fans for not caring about ownership when there's no real function of them caring.

I ** hate privatized utilities but to be honest, what can I do about it, so I don't really think about it. I have at least got tbe ability to vote once every five years about it but as a football fan, all I can do is boycott, chant/protest. I have no say at all and thus, like the water bill, I just kind of go 'meh'

Tbh I would much rather see a body with a holistic overview of the game. That should have been the FA but it's been asleep for years and only gives a fuck about income from Wembley and not a lot else.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
td

Just on the Man Utd supporters, I hear what you say but those green and yellow scarves came out when the Glazers came, went away when they won the league and did well in Europe and came back when it went a little pear again on the field.

That's not everybody and I'm sure some will continually voice their concerns but the voices are far louder when results aren't going their way.

Maybe that's human nature ?

I guess we should have been protesting against the Oyston's when we were in the Premier League but that was never going to happen.
Click to expand...
To be fair to some of them, they abandoned Utd forever and set up another club. But yeah, I take the point. I said below, it's probably human nature to just accept things, especially when it seems you can't change them.
 
td53 said:
C'mon, we've had a whole thread of grown up chat! I can't be arsed with another thread of 'is Robbie actually SEASIDE2020 in a deeply surprising twist' type stuff...

That's true, yes. We did sort of 'own' Oyston's behaviour in a way that seems a bit odd in hindsight... But in a situation where fans have no power or say or influence, them the natural tendency is to just crack on with it.

I always used to think of Karl "he's a knob but at least he won't do what that Chester City guy did"

That's a low bar to be fair but then what recourse or alternative did we have? What recourse do we have if Sadler (unlikely I accept) turns out to be totally different than we think he is?

None.

Therefore, the natural tendency is to accept things - exactly as you said in your opening.

If there was a body, a regulator perhaps or football authorities who represented all stakeholders holistically, then it's possible that supporters would be more likely to hold owners to higher standards.

I appreciate that many fans just want money spent and that it's a pissing competition for billionaires and the two things combined create a toxic culture but it's unfair to slate fans for not caring about ownership when there's no real function of them caring.

I ** hate privatized utilities but to be honest, what can I do about it, so I don't really think about it. I have at least got tbe ability to vote once every five years about it but as a football fan, all I can do is boycott, chant/protest. I have no say at all and thus, like the water bill, I just kind of go 'meh'

Tbh I would much rather see a body with a holistic overview of the game. That should have been the FA but it's been asleep for years and only gives a fuck about income from Wembley and not a lot else.
Click to expand...
I think there's a reasonable argument to say that fans have been the key drivers behind the financial situation in football.... Any focus on governance or financial prudence is really only a very recent phenomenon and really only as a direct result of seeing some consequences... For the most part, fans have been more than willing to prostitute themselves to money men and call for their heads if sufficient money wasn't being pumped into the club and success delivered. In essence it was us lot who farted and now we're all pointing in the opposite direction "It wasn't me" etc..

Quite ironic really when you think about it, that we have subsequently managed to position ourselves as 'guardians of the game'... when for years, old fashioned local Club owners were being forced to break themselves just to keep up with our collective demands. And of course, it's now those same owners, the ones who spunk millions / billions of their own cash funding our game, who are made out to be pariahs.

Going back to your other point, the whole parachute payment thing is a big dilemma.... The very simplest answer to resolve the immediate issue (as has been said) is to smooth the cliff edge with bigger payments to all Championship Clubs.... The issue of course is how far you can go with that approach, before you limit the revenue potential of the PL by impacting on the quality. It is best that the EPL and EFL sort that conundrum and hopefully they will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top