fan led review : update on 16 June

B

BlackpoolSupportersTrust

Well-known member
As we indicated last week, this has been a busy couple of days for BST.

Yesterday, we gave oral evidence to the Panel supporting Tracey Crouch. This was a very successful meeting for us ; the Panel were intrigued by some of the challenges we faced in the period between 2014-19 and posed a number of questions about our written evidence, which we had shared with them in advance. A copy of this is now on our website and can be viewed at the link set out below. Be warned it is a fairly lengthy document as it contains a narrative about our struggle for regime change, a copy of the case review model we produced in 2018, and our ideas about reform on regulation, finance and the role of the FA and the Leagues :

https://www.blackpoolsupporterstrust.com/bst-full-submitted-evidence

and we have also prepared a somewhat shorter executive summary for convenience.

https://www.blackpoolsupporterstrust.com/bst-evidence-executive-summary

The Panel also held a more general discussion with the fans of clubs who were in Leagues 1 and 2 in 2020/21 yesterday evening, when a number of presentations were made to the Panel covering :

  • ownership (Leyton Orient, Accrington Stanley)
  • protection of assets (Oldham Athletic, Hull City)
  • fan-elected Directors (Grimsby Town, Cheltenham Town)
  • financial oversight and transparency (Northampton Town, Plymouth Argyle)
  • supporter engagement (Doncaster Rovers)

As we understand it, the FSA are giving their own evidence to the Panel today, and it is likely that they will publish their own submission sometime later. if this is the case, we will be putting some Q&A covering a couple of the more meaty chapters (covering independent regulation and club ownership / supporter engagement) on our website tomorrow.

BST
16 June 2021
 
There is some very impressive stuff in there, and I liked the graphs which illustrate some key points. The way that finance works really is a disgrace.

I guess one of the key questions for me is what are the key skills needed to be a regulator? That's a big job that is being described there.
 
Thanks for sharing - these matters a really important and give us the opportunity to provide our wisdom to improve the beautiful game in a befitting way

let us know if and when, we are needed again, as a group of fans providing valuable feedback to the general world of footie

this is an important review and piece we as a Fan Base have provided -

congrats to all involved especially those at the sharper ends and let’s pray it has the influence it deserves

utP too
 
Good work.

How ironic it would be if BRR was involved in this.

Tell me it is so ...LOL

A former defiant, misguided and stubborn Oyston leading fundamentalist for many years.

Maybe he listened to the fans after all, cos I heard he's had a Road To Damascus U-Turn, and is trying to repent for his sins 😉

Fair play if true.
 
Last edited:
I thought there was a lot of genuine goodwill amongst the panel towards Blackpool yesterday and they all seemed really impressed with our experience and our written evidence.

The most vocal members of the panel in terms of feedback and asking questions were : Tracey Crouch MP who chaired the session, congratulated the Pool on their promotion and demonstrated her knowledge by explaining how during the play off final game she corrected somebody that our kit is tangerine not orange ; Danny Finkelstein who was amazed at how poorly and inconsistently the EPL and EFL had interpreted and failed to enforce the Owners and Directors Test and commented there is more politics in football than in Westminster these days ; Clarke Carlisle who said he was indebted to BFC for giving him his chance in football and had some useful insight from his PFA role into our previous owners approach towards contracts and obligations ; Denise Barrett-Baxendale (Everton CEO) who was full of praise for tenacity of the BFC Supporters who boycotted en masse during the NAPM days (she also mentioned after Everton, BFC were her favourite second team) ; Godric Smith was full of praise for the evidence on the independent regulator and Kevin Miles (from the FSA who some of you will remember addressing the JD3 March outside the ground in 2017) who also offered really positive feedback on our sustained protests and how creative the supporters had been during the conflict.

That said let see what all this information gathering ultimately leads to - the evidence continues for the rest of this month (and is open to all not just football trusts btw) then we move to the reporting stage and in time hopefully legislation …. The mood music suggests regulation of some description will happen but what shape, size and power this regulator will have remains to be seen …
 
Great work and thanks for that update Rox

Makes me even more proud to be a Pool fan . What was achieved by fans from all groups working together has been truly remarkable.

Well done to those, that despite that we are now in a good position, are keeping up the pressure and campaigning for change.
 
Well worth the read and if that doesn't stir them into some pretty radical proposals then footy is well and truly fucked.
 
Very thorough but most of the first part is purely EFL bashing without giving the position some balanced consideration, however I was involved in organising the protest at EFL HQ and can understand that position.

The FFP test was brought in on the back of bad owners at clubs like Brum and an influx of foreign investors, but where fans were clamouring for that so they could get a 'moneybags' chairman in. Contrast that to say Newcastle's position now where they want a Saudi family in who have allegedly been involved in human rights issues, but they want anyone in except Ashley especially if they are minted.

The EFL actually brought in an independent arbiter in financial misconduct cases, but thats been criticised because they havent upheld the EFL disciplinary decisions, so I'm not sure what BST are expecting an independent body to do when running football?

The EFL can/could only act within the rules set out and agreed by its member clubs which has included limits on spending,but at a succession of AGMs the clubs have voted to reduce that and make it more 'flexible' thus bringing about the sale of stadia to get around those rules.
Several clubs overspent for promotion and therefore couldnt be dealt with until they were relegated (ie QPR) but others like Leicester still havent been brought to book;Wolves spent all of their permitted losses in one season and Dirty lost an incredible £60 million when they went up.

Retrospective action is impossible to take and then there is the threat of a legal challenge,which the EFL have been instructed (by the club) to avoid. Would you want your club to have to pick up a tab that arrived trying to bring say a Newcastle or Fulham to heel?

On the Blackpool FC position its of course right and proper that the O's were held accountable for their removal of money and also trying to stitch up VB, but in the end it was a business proposition that he undertook when most people in this town wouldn't have shaken hands with them let alone do any deal. Between 1987 and the failed WHU play off final bid by and large a significant number of Blackpool fans were supportive of the O's, where on an annual basis the running costs of the club were propped up by OO and any on the field investment came from 'running the club properly' as I was told by one iconic individual on here when Dirty hit the skids.
KO himself was praised for not wanting to pay agents and ended up on the EFL board, where some on here praised his ethics and saw him as a beacon of light in the financial meltdown gloom.

Not having a go but this oush for an independent regulator is a dangerous business because it needs someone who understands football and the effects of the PL monies, which ultimately have given BST much of its content with its submission.
At no point have any of the FSA delegations mentioned the underlying problem which is fans buying TV subscriptions, because that is the thing that sticks the logs on the fire and underpins the nonsense that is ruining the game.
Everyone complaining wants a well run,well administered game but equally they want a moneybags owner that would put them in a safe position in the PL-and is why in my view fans should have no say in running the game especially when the bulk of the nations fans are being ignored in this initiative.

The FSA have deliberately weaved a web of self interest on this and it ticks the box the government want, but its dangerous territory and for me not necessarily going to bring the improvements we all crave. Knee jerk responses from an overreaction to the ESL stuff.

IMO-I'll be back later and might even include parts of my/our own submission
 
"In recent years, Coventry City, Charlton Athletic, Leyton Orient, Blackpool, Blackburn Rovers, Hull City, Hereford United, Scarborough"

Coventry opted to spend their PL income on players wages and had to sell HR to survive.Nothing to do with the PL /EFL
Charlton were in a similar position-and like Blackburn- thought they had become an established PL club.
Blackburn have been stabilised by the Venkys who were battered by their Trust and the FSA, but are quite simply at a more sustainable level in the C/S.
Hull City had a superb run-Cup finals, 2 promotions and a new stadium but didnt have the fanbase to keep that going, so really blew a great opportunity.
Hereford's woes began long before the winding up in 2014 and they enjoyed success by spending recklessly. One of the owners who took full advantage of the fans backing,just as long as they were winning on the pitch
Scarborough did a 'Fleetwood' then ended up being owned by a family led committee. Its long been stated on here that FT arent a proper league club and that such clubs should be sneered at and ridiculed.

Bad choices there imo.

Some really good stuff later in the submission but you havent thought it through on parachute payments, where clubs will have huge wage bills when coming down and could end up like Sunderland. The PFA are one target that seems to have been missed given the money they take out of the PL (although they get a passing mention), but overall you'll have to convince them to get players to trim their post relegation pots.
 
Plumbs said:
The EFL can/could only act within the rules set out and agreed by its member clubs
Click to expand...

I thought that was a large part of the problem, You confirm it's an Old Boys Club, give umpteen examples of bad practice and then say there is no case for an independent regulator? It doesn't add up.
 
coppiceman said:
I thought that was a large part of the problem, You confirm it's an Old Boys Club, give umpteen examples of bad practice and then say there is no case for an independent regulator? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
They've introduced an independent arbiter to change all that and it hasnt worked. They've had a procession of member clubs pushing with legal action where (another) independent regulator would get the same treatment, so for me its doomed to practical failure.

Not so much and old boys club but asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, but at least in the EFL those clubs are very much reliant on its supporters for finance. Thats something the FSA/fans groups need to concentrate on in my view ie sort it out or we're withholding our money.

Best bet is to start a campaign to freeze out the TV subscriptions, but the FSA rely on millions of pounds per season* to fund its running.

*edit:grants from the PL fans fund.
 
Plumbs said:
Very thorough but most of the first part is purely EFL bashing without giving the position some balanced consideration, however I was involved in organising the protest at EFL HQ and can understand that position.

The FFP test was brought in on the back of bad owners at clubs like Brum and an influx of foreign investors, but where fans were clamouring for that so they could get a 'moneybags' chairman in. Contrast that to say Newcastle's position now where they want a Saudi family in who have allegedly been involved in human rights issues, but they want anyone in except Ashley especially if they are minted.

The EFL actually brought in an independent arbiter in financial misconduct cases, but thats been criticised because they havent upheld the EFL disciplinary decisions, so I'm not sure what BST are expecting an independent body to do when running football?

The EFL can/could only act within the rules set out and agreed by its member clubs which has included limits on spending,but at a succession of AGMs the clubs have voted to reduce that and make it more 'flexible' thus bringing about the sale of stadia to get around those rules.
Several clubs overspent for promotion and therefore couldnt be dealt with until they were relegated (ie QPR) but others like Leicester still havent been brought to book;Wolves spent all of their permitted losses in one season and Dirty lost an incredible £60 million when they went up.

Retrospective action is impossible to take and then there is the threat of a legal challenge,which the EFL have been instructed (by the club) to avoid. Would you want your club to have to pick up a tab that arrived trying to bring say a Newcastle or Fulham to heel?

On the Blackpool FC position its of course right and proper that the O's were held accountable for their removal of money and also trying to stitch up VB, but in the end it was a business proposition that he undertook when most people in this town wouldn't have shaken hands with them let alone do any deal. Between 1987 and the failed WHU play off final bid by and large a significant number of Blackpool fans were supportive of the O's, where on an annual basis the running costs of the club were propped up by OO and any on the field investment came from 'running the club properly' as I was told by one iconic individual on here when Dirty hit the skids.
KO himself was praised for not wanting to pay agents and ended up on the EFL board, where some on here praised his ethics and saw him as a beacon of light in the financial meltdown gloom.

Not having a go but this oush for an independent regulator is a dangerous business because it needs someone who understands football and the effects of the PL monies, which ultimately have given BST much of its content with its submission.
At no point have any of the FSA delegations mentioned the underlying problem which is fans buying TV subscriptions, because that is the thing that sticks the logs on the fire and underpins the nonsense that is ruining the game.
Everyone complaining wants a well run,well administered game but equally they want a moneybags owner that would put them in a safe position in the PL-and is why in my view fans should have no say in running the game especially when the bulk of the nations fans are being ignored in this initiative.

The FSA have deliberately weaved a web of self interest on this and it ticks the box the government want, but its dangerous territory and for me not necessarily going to bring the improvements we all crave. Knee jerk responses from an overreaction to the ESL stuff.

IMO-I'll be back later and might even include parts of my/our own submission
Click to expand...
Some interesting points there Plumbs. I've often wondered why the Os took on the football club and kept it afloat in the late 80s and up to VB getting involved. One golden rule I fall back on is to 'follow the money trail'. And by doing this I got to the following....

Oyston's business was predominantly property
Blackpool FC came with some potentially very lucrative property
Land value of property has steadily grown throughout the Os ownership of club

And I think the third point is critical because it may be the key reason to explain, why OO initially bought the club and held on to it for such a long period of time. I would hazard a guess and suggest that if property prices were instead falling over this period they would have been long gone way before our Latvian assassin came on the scene 👍
 
Atletico_Seasider said:
And I think the third point is critical because it may be the key reason to explain, why OO initially bought the club and held on to it for such a long period of time. I would hazard a guess and suggest that if property prices were instead falling over this period they would have been long gone way before our Latvian assassin came on the scene 👍
Click to expand...
Yup and I think Wyndyke was (at one point) important to them as long term land developers. Funnily enough I was driving past the Harbour today and was thinking how much they made from that land, and also the other parts of the Fylde which passed through without much fuss.

Anyway-for anyone who's interested- here's what the EFL said about the independent adjudicator they introduced and their own review which seemed pretty thorough at the time (shrugs shoulders) https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/reviews/

Part of my review and I'll give you the meaty bits when prying eyes arent focused on here 😉

"Owners: A foreign high profile owner need not necessarily be a bad thing as Manchester City, Chelsea and Leicester would prove.
Stoke City are owned by one of the wealthiest families in the UK but they won't invest as they had previously, due to the vagaries of
a professional footballer on exceptionally high wages getting them relegated.

Other clubs have been dealt with for their financial shortcomings so it would appear that apart from a handful of cases there has
been some settling down, although there are obvious exceptions to the rule such as Bury FC.
At one point there was an initiative to have a stadium held as an 'asset of community value' but many clubs still rent their ground,
including Leeds United where the Supporters Trust for years campaigned for its return to club ownership.
Due to being given privileged priority engagement the Leeds Trust still hasn't achieved its aim of having Elland Road in direct club
ownership.

The present situation regarding the European Super League is of no surprise to more tuned in supporters, set against a backdrop of
the armchair fan paying his subscriptions for nearly 30 years now.
Alex Ferguson led Manchester United to unparalleled success whilst under the Glazer family tenure and there were no protests then,
from either the fans nor players who've moved onto punditry and owning clubs themselves.
Its ironic that as Bury lost their league status that Salford City rather artificially achieved theirs in an area that already had a full quota
of professional and lower league clubs.

Arsenal fans complained about the management of Arsene Wenger who had helped with the move to the Emirates, but who are now
blaming their owners who replaced the guy as requested.
Newcastle United Trust has campaigned for some years about the tenure of Mr Ashley, but who gave full backing to a foreign based
entity with alleged abuse on civil rights-where apparently the size of the investment is the only criteria on the agenda.

Everton fans protested against the long term and stable governance of Mr Kenwright who brought in the foreign investment they craved,
but who since haven't really pushed on to the next desired level.

At Blackburn the Venky family were rounded upon after their fall from grace in the PL but they've made their club sustainable and solid,
with a decent chance of a promotion push from the Championship

I could go on but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at"
 
Outstanding 👏👏👏 A lot of hard work and effort has gone into that for the benefit of all clubs - thanks to all at BST who contributed in putting this together - it’s definitely got a touch of the Robbie’s about it (As someone previously mentioned) - glad you came round eventually! 😜

I hope the publicity around our submission helps in some small way in convincing others to sign up as members to BST, keep up the good work 👍
 
An excellent submission, including actual experience and some clear recommendations.
There are 4 points I would have also added :
1. That within individual leagues, the current big clubs (and rich owners) have too much power. That was illustrated with the outcry over the ESL. Their existing powers must be curtailed / rebalanced within each league, in addition to rebalancing the resources between leagues / divisions.
2. Football in this country has been built around community origins of the clubs. Whilst the more successful / bigger clubs operate on an international front the owners need to recognise the importance of their community origins and their local supporter base and not become US style franchises. They must also properly recognise the origins and value of the football pyramid in this respect.
3. The majority owners of our clubs should be UK registered, UK based and be UK taxpayers.
4. There should be a regulatory requirement that the owners / management of clubs should hold an independently led annual meeting with supporters to account for their performance and set out their future plans. They should therefore be accountable to their supporters as well as their shareholders.

I suspect that both the EPL and the EFL will both rigorously defend themselves by saying they have a successful product which is the envy of the world. The reality though is that most clubs (even in the EPL) are riddled with debt and the EPL and the EFL have consistently given in to the bigger clubs and shown a complete failure in terms of football governance (especially the EFL which has been managed by incompetent fools). An independent regulator with teeth is certainly required.
 
Last edited:
coppiceman said:
I thought that was a large part of the problem, You confirm it's an Old Boys Club, give umpteen examples of bad practice and then say there is no case for an independent regulator? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought as well.

The whole point is that the independent regulator would be truly independent and would be created by statute. It wouldn’t be created by the EPL or EFL, wouldn’t therefore be dependent on the EPL or EFL agreeing or not, and those organisations certainly wouldn’t have some sort of veto. So examples of what’s gone before, and failed, is completely irrelevant.

There’s also plenty of stuff on the PFA and salary caps that the poster says has been overlooked.
 
Plumbs said:
Yup and I think Wyndyke was (at one point) important to them as long term land developers. Funnily enough I was driving past the Harbour today and was thinking how much they made from that land, and also the other parts of the Fylde which passed through without much fuss.

Anyway-for anyone who's interested- here's what the EFL said about the independent adjudicator they introduced and their own review which seemed pretty thorough at the time (shrugs shoulders) https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/reviews/

Part of my review and I'll give you the meaty bits when prying eyes arent focused on here 😉

"Owners: A foreign high profile owner need not necessarily be a bad thing as Manchester City, Chelsea and Leicester would prove.
Stoke City are owned by one of the wealthiest families in the UK but they won't invest as they had previously, due to the vagaries of
a professional footballer on exceptionally high wages getting them relegated.

Other clubs have been dealt with for their financial shortcomings so it would appear that apart from a handful of cases there has
been some settling down, although there are obvious exceptions to the rule such as Bury FC.
At one point there was an initiative to have a stadium held as an 'asset of community value' but many clubs still rent their ground,
including Leeds United where the Supporters Trust for years campaigned for its return to club ownership.
Due to being given privileged priority engagement the Leeds Trust still hasn't achieved its aim of having Elland Road in direct club
ownership.

The present situation regarding the European Super League is of no surprise to more tuned in supporters, set against a backdrop of
the armchair fan paying his subscriptions for nearly 30 years now.
Alex Ferguson led Manchester United to unparalleled success whilst under the Glazer family tenure and there were no protests then,
from either the fans nor players who've moved onto punditry and owning clubs themselves.
Its ironic that as Bury lost their league status that Salford City rather artificially achieved theirs in an area that already had a full quota
of professional and lower league clubs.

Arsenal fans complained about the management of Arsene Wenger who had helped with the move to the Emirates, but who are now
blaming their owners who replaced the guy as requested.
Newcastle United Trust has campaigned for some years about the tenure of Mr Ashley, but who gave full backing to a foreign based
entity with alleged abuse on civil rights-where apparently the size of the investment is the only criteria on the agenda.

Everton fans protested against the long term and stable governance of Mr Kenwright who brought in the foreign investment they craved,
but who since haven't really pushed on to the next desired level.

At Blackburn the Venky family were rounded upon after their fall from grace in the PL but they've made their club sustainable and solid,
with a decent chance of a promotion push from the Championship

I could go on but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at"
Click to expand...
Plumbs, I don't for one moment call into question your undoubted knowledge and expertise in this field. However, your posts on this thread are mixed with a tint of 'been there, done it, don't work' and reminders of the obvious hypocrisy of football fans down the years. I think we all need to be supportive of BST's efforts here. They may not deliver what we all hope for - proper governance of professional football in this country - but each step closer is a move in the right direction. This submission to the fan-led review is one such step.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
That’s what I thought as well.

The whole point is that the independent regulator would be truly independent and would be created by statute. It wouldn’t be created by the EPL or EFL, wouldn’t therefore be dependent on the EPL or EFL agreeing or not, and those organisations certainly wouldn’t have some sort of veto. So examples of what’s gone before, and failed, is completely irrelevant.

There’s also plenty of stuff on the PFA and salary caps that the poster says has been overlooked.
Click to expand...
There was reference to the independent football ombudsman who many have complained about, because it hadnt given the decision they wanted, and the EFL have done the same on financial sanctions which reduced penalties ; calling for the same might not necessarily get the outcome wanted and you'd also have to allow for appeals, legal action and the nonsense that the EPL/EFL have had to put up with.

The PFA issue is a huge complex one because its like some sort of super agent or trade union if you like. There was almost a strike a few years back because its TV cut was being withheld,but since we've seen its CEO and others take huge pay hikes and generally seen it become another 'gas guzzling' entity. Good luck in trying to bring them to heel where they are right at the hub of the whole moneybags argument; huge wages driven by TV money by the bucket load leaving ordinary people struggling to afford their football.

The salary caps are a purely theoretical idea where they dont allow the rewarding of well run clubs nor beneficial owners who want to improve their own.(aside from FFP rules). If say the Seasiders went on a Cup run and made a couple of million then they ought to be able to spend that how they see fit, and possibly bring in a new striker to make a push for promotion. A salary cap wouldn't allow that and also doesnt figure into players bonuses where (for instance) a player with a poor injury record might be on an appearance related wages package.

The suggestion that parachute payments should be stopped is a bit small club syndrome (which is something the FSA are consistent with). The Seasiders were able to blitz some of the bigger turnover clubs in the Championship for a while and offer better salaries to the better players, yet there were no complaints at the time, nor any explanation in the submission on how exactly clubs are supposed to deal with the effects of PL relegation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1966_and_all_that said:
Plumbs, I don't for one moment call into question your undoubted knowledge and expertise in this field. However, your posts on this thread are mixed with a tint of 'been there, done it, don't work' and reminders of the obvious hypocrisy of football fans down the years. I think we all need to be supportive of BST's efforts here. They may not deliver what we all hope for - proper governance of professional football in this country - but each step closer is a move in the right direction. This submission to the fan-led review is one such step.
Click to expand...
No-one is being unsupportive indeed its good to see fans being on the centre stage,but the way that the FSA have approached this is to hijack it for their own agenda rather than have everyone join in.
I'd love proper governance and also a fair opportunity for everyone,fan,club and owner but I think this has been a reaction in the main to the ESL proposal; rather than a balanced long term approach to the issues we all face in football.

I agree though its a step in the right direction and on balance I think BSTs submission is very good. 8/10 for me.
 
bfcpete said:
An excellent submission, including actual experience and some clear recommendations.
There are 4 points I would have also added :
1. That within individual leagues, the current big clubs (and rich owners) have too much power. That was illustrated with the outcry over the ESL. Their existing powers must be curtailed / rebalanced within each league, in addition to rebalancing the resources between leagues / divisions.
2. Football in this country has been built around community origins of the clubs. Whilst the more successful / bigger clubs operate on an international front the owners need to recognise the importance of their community origins and their local supporter base and not become US style franchises. They must also properly recognise the origins and value of the football pyramid in this respect.
3. The majority owners of our clubs should be UK registered, UK based and be UK taxpayers.
4. There should be a regulatory requirement that the owners / management of clubs should hold an independently led annual meeting with supporters to account for their performance and set out their future plans. They should therefore be accountable to their supporters as well as their shareholders.

I suspect that both the EPL and the EFL will both rigorously defend themselves by saying they have a successful product which is the envy of the world. The reality though is that most clubs (even in the EPL) are riddled with debt and the EPL and the EFL have consistently given in to the bigger clubs and shown a complete failure in terms of football governance (especially the EFL which has been managed by incompetent fools). An independent regulator with teeth is certainly required.
Click to expand...
Thats a very good,well balanced post.
 
Plumbs said:
nor any explanation in the submission on how exactly clubs are supposed to deal with the effects of PL relegation.
Click to expand...
I’m busy at the moment so don’t really have time to address all the points you make but, on the above issue and an end to parachute payments, again I’m afraid you’re wrong. This is addressed in the submission (as was the issue of the PFA which you also claimed hadn’t been addressed) and in short the answer lies in the player contracts and linking salary to promotion and relegation, with clauses drawn appropriately.

Edit to add: It may be that you’ve only read the Executive Summary? If so you should probably should read the full submission.
 
Just registered to take part in this thread. I'm a Wednesday fan, so all this stuff feels very real for us.

I also think you really need to read the whole thing, rather than just the summary. The summary is fine (very good actually), but there is a lot of well argued stuff in the main document.

I think Mexboroseasider makes some good points, and your Trust are bang on about parachute payments. What the Leagues were thinking about when they were brought in God only knows. Anyway, that section that says you could take just a fraction of PP (that goes to about eight clubs), and use it to give security for a hundred and thirty odd lower down really registered with me.

Our Trust gave evidence last week and the point they made was that the EFL in particular only react to events - they don't anticipate problems, and can't crisis manage either. We are pretty disappointed with the lack of support, so all the things you say at the front end of your submission ring true.

I also think we all need to stop thinking about this on the basis of what is in place now. As I understand it, if there is going to be a statutory regulator, it will be completely independent and that is 100% different from what we've got now.

Final thing, I know Blackpool Supporters Trust have been advising our Trust behind the scenes lately, and it is much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m busy at the moment so don’t really have time to address all the points you make but, on the above issue and an end to parachute payments, again I’m afraid you’re wrong. This is addressed in the submission (as was the issue of the PFA which you also claimed hadn’t been addressed) and in short the answer lies in the player contracts and linking salary to promotion and relegation, with clauses drawn appropriately.

Edit to add: It may be that you’ve only read the Executive Summary? If so you should probably should read the full submission.
Click to expand...
No and I'm sorry for the confusion.I've read the full summary but the the submission references the pp being shared further down the pyramid which is something that BRR and I have disagreed over previously and theyve asked for it to be removed.

Its an important if not critical part of being able to compete in the PL because you know they will be a safety net should you fail,which is something for instance that Norwich have become very adept at.

I'd agree that the TV money needs to be shared around more equitably but its difficult to see how the EFL can do something about that, and also an independent ruling body couldnt unilaterally decide to how to do that without massive legal challenges and costly subsequent expenditure. It'd only push the top PL clubs even further towards an EPL which is the thing we'ere supposed to be campaigning against.
 
callmeshirley said:
Just registered to take part in this thread. I'm a Wednesday fan, so all this stuff feels very real for us.

I also think you really need to read the whole thing, rather than just the summary. The summary is fine (very good actually), but there is a lot of well argued stuff in the main document.

I think Mexboroseasider makes some good points, and your Trust are bang on about parachute payments. What the Leagues were thinking about when they were brought in God only knows. Anyway, that section that says you could take just a fraction of PP (that goes to about eight clubs), and use it to give security for a hundred and thirty odd lower down really registered with me.

Our Trust gave evidence last week and the point they made was that the EFL in particular only react to events - they don't anticipate problems, and can't crisis manage either. We are pretty disappointed with the lack of support, so all the things you say at the front end of your submission ring true.

I also think we all need to stop thinking about this on the basis of what is in place now. As I understand it, if there is going to be a statutory regulator, it will be completely independent and that is 100% different from what we've got now.

Final thing, I know Blackpool Supporters Trust have been advising our Trust behind the scenes lately, and it is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
The more we have of this positive inter-Club communication the better will be the chances of fulfilling the need for proper, independent governance. I can't help but feel that the FA, EPL and EFL have always, to an extent, relied on the lack of any cross-club coherence as an excuse to do as little as possible.
 
callmeshirley said:
Just registered to take part in this thread. I'm a Wednesday fan, so all this stuff feels very real for us.

I also think you really need to read the whole thing, rather than just the summary. The summary is fine (very good actually), but there is a lot of well argued stuff in the main document.

I think Mexboroseasider makes some good points, and your Trust are bang on about parachute payments. What the Leagues were thinking about when they were brought in God only knows. Anyway, that section that says you could take just a fraction of PP (that goes to about eight clubs), and use it to give security for a hundred and thirty odd lower down really registered with me.

Our Trust gave evidence last week and the point they made was that the EFL in particular only react to events - they don't anticipate problems, and can't crisis manage either. We are pretty disappointed with the lack of support, so all the things you say at the front end of your submission ring true.

I also think we all need to stop thinking about this on the basis of what is in place now. As I understand it, if there is going to be a statutory regulator, it will be completely independent and that is 100% different from what we've got now.

Final thing, I know Blackpool Supporters Trust have been advising our Trust behind the scenes lately, and it is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Aye ok but going back a while Chansiri tried to do what other clubs have done and bankrolled a push for promotion,in fact it mirrors very well the plan adopted by Leeds last season where fans too had to up their contribution.
That resulted in a play off final spot but since its fallen apart as the wages have been a millstone and subsequently its been eating away to a point of near insolvency.

I'll say again-the real problem is the EPL/TV monies itself which has caused a huge disparity between the top divisions and the rest,where btw consolidarity payments and TV loot has yielded an income* that wasnt there before.

If an independent regulator can get control of the entire PL budget for a season then fine,but for me its pie in the sky and wholly unworkable.

*edit:for EFL clubs
 
Plumbs said:
Its an important if not critical part of being able to compete in the PL because you know they will be a safety net should you fail,which is something for instance that Norwich have become very adept at.

I'd agree that the TV money needs to be shared around more equitably but its difficult to see how the EFL can do something about that, and also an independent ruling body couldnt unilaterally decide to how to do that without massive legal challenges and costly subsequent expenditure. It'd only push the top PL clubs even further towards an EPL which is the thing we'ere supposed to be campaigning against.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't need a safety net if they didn't agree daft deals and spend like there is no tomorrow in the first place. You are arguing for them to be protected from their own stupidity, in effect. I think part of the answer is to reduce their share of the money a fair bit, and the temptation that goes with it. Wednesday are in the position we are in partly because our owner behaved like a kid in a sweet shop and nobody tried to stop him.

I also don't quite follow why you think an independent ruling body would be unable to act. if it is created by statute and given powers to do things, it can do whatever the law permits, within reason. That was what I meant in my last para., sorry if unclear. You're right that the EFL struggles to anything, but it is trying to run the whole thing like a Members Club. That will never work. It clearly doesn't work.
 
callmeshirley said:
They wouldn't need a safety net if they didn't agree daft deals and spend like there is no tomorrow in the first place.
Click to expand...
Its not daft given that the top players are on £500k pw and Haaland's agent is looking for a million a week.Have a look at how it works with the NFL because thats the business model although we could learn from the 'college picks' at the end of the season.
callmeshirley said:
You are arguing for them to be protected from their own stupidity, in effect. I think part of the answer is to reduce their share of the money a fair bit, and the temptation that goes with it. Wednesday are in the position we are in partly because our owner behaved like a kid in a sweet shop and nobody tried to stop him.
Click to expand...
Not I'm not trying to protect anyone because a number of clubs ie Norwich,West Brom and even Hull City for while managed it well and got back to the PL. Wednesday as you know had some years as a PL club and to be fair never opted for administration, but essentially you needed big pockets like say Leicester did and this guy never had that.
callmeshirley said:
I also don't quite follow why you think an independent ruling body would be unable to act. if it is created by statute and given powers to do things, it can do whatever the law permits, within reason. That was what I meant in my last para., sorry if unclear. You're right that the EFL struggles to anything, but it is trying to run the whole thing like a Members Club. That will never work. It clearly doesn't work.
Click to expand...
'Law permits' is the phrase that opens up the pandora.s box because it would go against open trading rules, and also have the legal teams sharpening their pencils; look at what happened when the EFL tried to impose a sanction on you guys (whether that was fair or otherwise)- the independent arbiter backed the appeal in a situation that has existed for year (with points dedcutions)

The EFL is governed by its clubs who incidentally keep changing the financial rules at its AGMs, so that now there is so much 'wriggle room' that they are almost ineffective. The clubs caused this to try to get around the disparity of PL monies rather than say budget accordingly, and pointing the finger at the executive board is simply excuse making imo.

I'd agree that the EFL is pretty impotent given its ability to maximise funding but the real issue is at the top end, where all that cash is drawing in the wrong sort of owner-Burnleys new board for instance are buying the club through a huge debt, which has largely gone unnoticed with very little protests from the national fans groups.

Malcolm Clarke and his top table were also notable in their lack of action on the stadia sales issue,where Derby,Villa and I think yourselves tried getting around the rules.That should have been nailed at the time as it had a major effect on the clubs in the pyramid where btw BST have no little mention of that in their submission.

Not having a go at anyone but balance is needed in a one off opportunity to get it right
 
Plumbs said:
'Law permits' is the phrase that opens up the pandora.s box because it would go against open trading rules, and also have the legal teams sharpening their pencils; look at what happened when the EFL tried to impose a sanction on you guys (whether that was fair or otherwise)- the independent arbiter backed the appeal in a situation that has existed for year (with points dedcutions)

The EFL is governed by its clubs who incidentally keep changing the financial rules at its AGMs, so that now there is so much 'wriggle room' that they are almost ineffective. The clubs caused this to try to get around the disparity of PL monies rather than say budget accordingly, and pointing the finger at the executive board is simply excuse making imo.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling a bit to follow your reasoning here, because I think the second paragraph fairly succinctly describes the problem with a system where the clubs set the rules that govern themselves. How can an independent regulator with statutory powers NOT be a big improvement? And again, the statute will provide for how appeals work, I would imagine. That's a question worth asking though. I don't think the open trading rules issue is real, by the way. There are regulators governing commercial markets elsewhere and they work alright.

I agree with you about Burnley, that is a concern. But what are the EPL doing about it? The answer is almost certainly nothing.

It's kind of you not to put the boot into Wednesday, but we are in the mess we are in now because our owner is an overgrown, incompetent child, who shouldn't be trusted with anything, let alone a famous old football club. And he has been dragging the club down since 2017 and the EFL have not done anything to stop him. My big regret is that we did not have a Trust to fight our corner back then in the way that you lot at Blackpool did. You are very, very lucky.

Anyway, going back to the Blackpool evidence, that bit in the middle about the case review is novel, I'd not seen anything like that before. It sort of bridges the two main parts of the document which works quite well, I think. I'm amazed nobody has made more about that period after you went back down to the EPL and the Championship being undermined. That's quite shocking, if you really think about it.

Anyway, I'm signing off for now. Good talking to you all. I'm off to start the week long build up to the exciting moment when I find out when we play at Morecambe. 😒
 
I do like the idea of an independent football governing body with teeth, that can control the money.

Real life hat on: Not a chance in hell, the lawyers are about to clean up EPL style if it even looks like it is happening.
 
callmeshirley said:
I'm struggling a bit to follow your reasoning here, because I think the second paragraph fairly succinctly describes the problem with a system where the clubs set the rules that govern themselves. How can an independent regulator with statutory powers NOT be a big improvement? And again, the statute will provide for how appeals work, I would imagine. That's a question worth asking though. I don't think the open trading rules issue is real, by the way. There are regulators governing commercial markets elsewhere and they work alright.
Click to expand...
Good reply that but the EFL have (so to speak) blazed a mini trail with an independent arbiter and thats gone pear shaped, indeed when points sanctions kicked in the first casualties with that were Leeds-but momentum was lost when Southamptons legal bods found a way round it.Interesting that Blackpool Trust havent picked up that they got away with a points sanction after the mess their owners left the club in , when others had to endure it notably Bournemouth who really took a tumble.
Point here being that when it comes to our own clubs we tend to be inconsistent, and I only mention it because a hard and fast (say) 15 point deduction with no appeals would work a treat with a subsequent ban on irresponsible owners,
callmeshirley said:
I agree with you about Burnley, that is a concern. But what are the EPL doing about it? The answer is almost certainly nothing.

It's kind of you not to put the boot into Wednesday, but we are in the mess we are in now because our owner is an overgrown, incompetent child, who shouldn't be trusted with anything, let alone a famous old football club. And he has been dragging the club down since 2017 and the EFL have not done anything to stop him. My big regret is that we did not have a Trust to fight our corner back then in the way that you lot at Blackpool did. You are very, very lucky.

Anyway, going back to the Blackpool evidence, that bit in the middle about the case review is novel, I'd not seen anything like that before. It sort of bridges the two main parts of the document which works quite well, I think. I'm amazed nobody has made more about that period after you went back down to the EPL and the Championship being undermined. That's quite shocking, if you really think about it.

Anyway, I'm signing off for now. Good talking to you all. I'm off to start the week long build up to the exciting moment when I find out when we play at Morecambe. 😒
Click to expand...
Overall with me the real momentum would be gained from having dialogue right across the board from all fans,because a unified voice from every match attending fan would produce a better and faster resolution. Like you say these owners kid fans they are the real deal with some short term success, with the best/worse example being Bury.
 
Plumbs said:
Good reply that but the EFL have (so to speak) blazed a mini trail with an independent arbiter and thats gone pear shaped, indeed when points sanctions kicked in the first casualties with that were Leeds-but momentum was lost when Southamptons legal bods found a way round it.Interesting that Blackpool Trust havent picked up that they got away with a points sanction after the mess their owners left the club in , when others had to endure it notably Bournemouth who really took a tumble.
Point here being that when it comes to our own clubs we tend to be inconsistent, and I only mention it because a hard and fast (say) 15 point deduction with no appeals would work a treat with a subsequent ban on irresponsible owners,

Overall with me the real momentum would be gained from having dialogue right across the board from all fans,because a unified voice from every match attending fan would produce a better and faster resolution. Like you say these owners kid fans they are the real deal with some short term success, with the best/worse example being Bury.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the BST submission at one point also talks about the regulator punishing the owners/directors, not the club or the fans. I took that to mean that points deductions are the wrong sanction and punishment should instead be targeted at the persons responsible.

I came to that conclusion years ago with Luton when they (ie the fans) got clobbered because of a dodgy owner. I just don’t get the logic of punishing supporters because they have a maverick owner.
 
Plumbs said:
Good reply that but the EFL have (so to speak) blazed a mini trail with an independent arbiter and thats gone pear shaped, indeed when points sanctions kicked in the first casualties with that were Leeds-but momentum was lost when Southamptons legal bods found a way round it.Interesting that Blackpool Trust havent picked up that they got away with a points sanction after the mess their owners left the club in , when others had to endure it notably Bournemouth who really took a tumble.
Point here being that when it comes to our own clubs we tend to be inconsistent, and I only mention it because a hard and fast (say) 15 point deduction with no appeals would work a treat with a subsequent ban on irresponsible owners,

Overall with me the real momentum would be gained from having dialogue right across the board from all fans,because a unified voice from every match attending fan would produce a better and faster resolution. Like you say these owners kid fans they are the real deal with some short term success, with the best/worse example being Bury.
Click to expand...
Good point about us avoiding a points deduction.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Good point about us avoiding a points deduction.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't. Our situation was clearly not an "insolvency event", which is I think the phrase that was bandied around at the time. If it had been, we would have been penalised.

But our problem wasn't a lack of technical solvency. It was that most of it was wrapped up in loans that were only notionally repayable. What the interim Board had to do was to convince the EFL that the clubs could complete the season, which they did by convincing them that revenue from tickets sales and merchandising would rise sharply once the O's were out.

It's all addressed in the evidence anyway, if you read it thoroughly.
 
coppiceman said:
Actually, it isn't. Our situation was clearly not an "insolvency event", which is I think the phrase that was bandied around at the time. If it had been, we would have been penalised.

But our problem wasn't a lack of technical solvency. It was that most of it was wrapped up in loans that were only notionally repayable. What the interim Board had to do was to convince the EFL that the clubs could complete the season, which they did by convincing them that revenue from tickets sales and merchandising would rise sharply once the O's were out.

It's all addressed in the evidence anyway, if you read it thoroughly.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be anti. Thank you for clarifying
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Not trying to be anti. Thank you for clarifying
Click to expand...
Not having a go at you my friend. But it is easy to be misled when people say things as fact when they clearly aren't. Our situation was pretty unique, and certainly not even close to being the same as all those clubs who went into administration because they spent money they didn't have. We were quite the reverse.
 
coppiceman said:
Not having a go at you my friend. But it is easy to be misled when people say things as fact when they clearly aren't. Our situation was pretty unique, and certainly not even close to being the same as all those clubs who went into administration because they spent money they didn't have. We were quite the reverse.
Click to expand...
A number of issues at a number of clubs were unique including Southampton whos club didn't have an insolvency event as such, but -similar to the O's stewardship- a holding company went bust.
The issue here however is mismanagement of club finances which the O's clearly did in respect of Belekons investment, and that brings in sanctions in respect of fit and proper; it'd need clarifying but I dont think OO would now be able to pass any EFL tests.

That said clubs below any side in the pyramid would legitimately claim poor financial stewardship should merit a points sanction, because it would go against the rules set aside for governance.
It might seem a moot point now but fundamentally the EFL have been (and are) being challenged on that, and consistency is one thing that we're looking for.
 
Plumbs said:
A number of issues at a number of clubs were unique including Southampton whos club didn't have an insolvency event as such, but -similar to the O's stewardship- a holding company went bust.
The issue here however is mismanagement of club finances which the O's clearly did in respect of Belekons investment, and that brings in sanctions in respect of fit and proper; it'd need clarifying but I dont think OO would now be able to pass any EFL tests.

That said clubs below any side in the pyramid would legitimately claim poor financial stewardship should merit a points sanction, because it would go against the rules set aside for governance.
It might seem a moot point now but fundamentally the EFL have been (and are) being challenged on that, and consistency is one thing that we're looking for.
Click to expand...

Agree with you about the O's. And on the need for consistency.
 
seasideone said:
I do like the idea of an independent football governing body with teeth, that can control the money.

Real life hat on: Not a chance in hell, the lawyers are about to clean up EPL style if it even looks like it is happening
Click to expand...

seasideone said:
I do like the idea of an independent football governing body with teeth, that can control the money.

Real life hat on: Not a chance in hell, the lawyers are about to clean up EPL style if it even looks like it is happening.
Click to expand...
That doesn't necessarily follow
The legal / financial / press sectors are all heavily regulated reasonably successfully
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
That doesn't necessarily follow
The legal / financial / press sectors are all heavily regulated reasonably successfully
Click to expand...
Totally agree lots of sectors are regulated.

However, as far as I am aware NONE dictate how the majority of money Is distributed between private or listed companies or dictate salary caps to their employees??
 
seasideone said:
Totally agree lots of sectors are regulated.

However, as far as I am aware NONE dictate how the majority of money Is distributed between private or listed companies or dictate salary caps to their employees??
Click to expand...

Salary caps aren't applied to individual employees. And the way money is distributed attaches to Leagues, which position you finish in and how many times you appear live on TV - which is determined by a third party. There are no guarantees for any named club, or the companies that own them.

I am with TAM on this. It ought not to be a problem, but it does need the force of law.
 
coppiceman said:
Salary caps aren't applied to individual employees. And the way money is distributed attaches to Leagues, which position you finish in and how many times you appear live on TV - which is determined by a third party. There are no guarantees for any named club, or the companies that own them.

I am with TAM on this. It ought not to be a problem, but it does need the force of law.
Click to expand...
We will end up with a new regulator I am convinced - but with teeth as sharp as jelly.

There is not a cat in hell’s chance they will be able to decide who gets the cash, and no chance of universal salary caps per division.

We may even get a decent owners test that’s enforced - but who knows.

The thing people forget is as a country we are bound by many trade agreements etc that things like this can fall foul of.

Reality is, nobody knows where this will end up, but I hope someone book marks this for when we know 👍

UTMP always 🧡
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top