football governance needs emergency surgery

[basilrobbie]

Topical, given the discussion at the BST AGM on Friday night.

Football governance "requires emergency surgery" - MP tells Commons - Football Supporters' Association

In a Ten Minute Rule Bill brought to the House of Commons today, former sports minister Helen Grant said the country’s football governance requires radical reform to protect the game’s future.

thefsa.org.uk

 

[Plumbs]

Everyone seems to think that the top clubs are going to roll over and hand over barrels of cash, but that really isnt going to happen given the phenomenal potential of worldwide marketing.
Just been going through the new shareholding at Leeds where one of our newest guys is the co-founder of YouTube (they sold it to Google), and our value is now over £200 million (Ken Bates bought it second time around for less than a tenth of that)

If anyone takes a peek at what the SuperBowl rakes in then that gives the lead, and where for instance David Beckham is trying to get involved with the re-launch etc of 'soccer'.

The FSA would be better advised to push the boat out and start included ALL supporters and not just their membership,because unless it stops pussy footing around any chance of damage limitation will be lost

*feel free to comment OP

 

[coppiceman]

Interesting stuff. Looks like some people will be very busy, watched the video from the other night and hopefully Pool fans can get involved.

 

[Plumbs]

An interesting take on fans involvement here where Dundee United fans are donating 100k to their club and theres not a Trust in sight.
These sort of supporters are the ones who stick with the club through thick and thin and deserve a voice in whatever is happening nationally or otherwise.

 

[fcblackpool]

Everyone seems to think that the top clubs are going to roll over and hand over barrels of cash, but that really isnt going to happen given the phenomenal potential of worldwide marketing.
Just been going through the new shareholding at Leeds where one of our newest guys is the co-founder of YouTube (they sold it to Google), and our value is now over £200 million (Ken Bates bought it second time around for less than a tenth of that)

If anyone takes a peek at what the SuperBowl rakes in then that gives the lead, and where for instance David Beckham is trying to get involved with the re-launch etc of 'soccer'.

The FSA would be better advised to push the boat out and start included ALL supporters and not just their membership,because unless it stops pussy footing around any chance of damage limitation will be lost

*feel free to comment OP

Totally agree with you. The notion that PP's will stop and be redistributed is something that basil has said and it just won't happen.

People seem to think football is about the English game and that it should look after itself. But, as the post above shows you only have to look at what earnings can be made to know that FC's at the top end of the English game will strive to get as big a slice as they can, however they are competing with La Liga etc etc so the chance of them giving money away in any guise beyond tokenism is non-existent.

At lower levels there needs to be a realisation that they are community clubs and that there will be less money for them in the future. They will need to cut the cloth accordingly.

 

[straightatthewall]

Totally agree with you. The notion that PP's will stop and be redistributed is something that basil has said and it just won't happen.

People seem to think football is about the English game and that it should look after itself. But, as the post above shows you only have to look at what earnings can be made to know that FC's at the top end of the English game will strive to get as big a slice as they can, however they are competing with La Liga etc etc so the chance of them giving money away in any guise beyond tokenism is non-existent.

At lower levels there needs to be a realisation that they are community clubs and that there will be less money for them in the future. They will need to cut the cloth accordingly.

Agree with this. It's just not realistic to think that smaller clubs will be thought of in anything other than passing. It's stretching the realms of reality to think that 'real supporters' (i.e. those who are actually in the ground) of big clubs are considered - other than as customers to be milked - when clubs consider their forward strategies. I'd also add that the big clubs around the world have always had the power because they are generally the best supported in a local, regional, national and even international level.

Their strength and desire to increase it, doesn't automatically mean small clubs have to go to the wall. There is a place and potential to grow.

 

[fcblackpool]

Agree with this. It's just not realistic to think that smaller clubs will be thought of in anything other than passing. It's stretching the realms of reality to think that 'real supporters' (i.e. those who are actually in the ground) of big clubs are considered - other than as customers to be milked - when clubs consider their forward strategies. I'd also add that the big clubs around the world have always had the power because they are generally the best supported in a local, regional, national and even international level.

Their strength and desire to increase it, doesn't automatically mean small clubs have to go to the wall. There is a place and potential to grow.

Small clubs need to manage the problem, not spend fruitless time trying to flog dead horses.

I think there will be moves going forward to help small clubs (in future that may include a few c/ship Fc's too), but it won't involve redistribution of domestic money as it stands now, beyond face value.

One thing I'd like to see is baseline guaranteed sell on fees on a continuous basis. This would avoid owners taking a higher fee on sale with no deferred income for the club (if the owner leaves), as perhaps in BS. So if we sell CJ to, say Barnsle we would be g'teed 35% (fas). And then 20% from whoever sign him from there and then a gradually reduced %, depending on sale value.

 

[straightatthewall]

Small clubs need to manage the problem, not spend fruitless time trying to flog dead horses.

I think there will be moves going forward to help small clubs (in future that may include a few c/ship Fc's too), but it won't involve redistribution of domestic money as it stands now, beyond face value.

One thing I'd like to see is baseline guaranteed sell on fees on a continuous basis. This would avoid owners taking a higher fee on sale with no deferred income for the club (if the owner leaves), as perhaps in BS. So if we sell CJ to, say Barnsle we would be g'teed 35% (fas). And then 20% from whoever sign him from there and then a gradually reduced %, depending on sale value.

What’s the difference between being subsidised by PP’s and by guaranteed sell on fees? For me, it still encourages smaller clubs to look for handouts rather than control things within their own sphere of influence.

I think we all realise that the days of the lower leagues feeding talent up the chain are over, but part of the reason for that is clubs in our position, accepting players for ‘free’ and doing the hard and often fruitless development work for the big clubs; case in point, I’d rather Lubala or Bange got game time over Simms as only 1 in 10 of these kids from bigger clubs is actually good enough for our league anyway. (Simms may turn out to be the 1 of course...)

After that, it’s really all about doing the best you can. In some ways it’s actually adopting a measured progress approach, but one where you actually reinvest gains properly as opposed to pocketing it and blaming ITV Digital.

The gaps between the haves and the have nots is bigger, but paying customers and TV networks are still interested in the EFL. Stopping unscrupulous owners is vital, but so is recognising your own position and worth. Smaller clubs never were any more powerful then than now. It’s just the mega concept of the bigger clubs that has changed.

 

[Wizaard]

Agree with this. It's just not realistic to think that smaller clubs will be thought of in anything other than passing. It's stretching the realms of reality to think that 'real supporters' (i.e. those who are actually in the ground) of big clubs are considered - other than as customers to be milked - when clubs consider their forward strategies. I'd also add that the big clubs around the world have always had the power because they are generally the best supported in a local, regional, national and even international level.

Their strength and desire to increase it, doesn't automatically mean small clubs have to go to the wall. There is a place and potential to grow.

The top clubs helping the rest was laid to rest in 1992 when football began. From then on, the separate competition run by the FA has been in direct competition with the Football League.

Just because we currently have promotion and relegation into that other competition doesnt mean it will continue.

We've had serious conversations about a Premier League 2. If that happens the drawbridge will be drawn up and everyone left behind will be stuffed.

I actually think a European Super League could be a good thing for the rest of football, as it will ensure focus is on those left behind and level up the competition It would be ironic of course, if we achieve Brexit while the top sides are desperate to be part of Europe. The novelty would wear off when they're playing a Sunday afternoon in Greece for the 4th time and football here can focus on local rivalries.

 

[straightatthewall]

The European Super League will be like NFL. Probably why Robbie is so up to speed on the topic....

 

[fcblackpool]

What’s the difference between being subsidised by PP’s and by guaranteed sell on fees? For me, it still encourages smaller clubs to look for handouts rather than control things within their own sphere of influence.

I think we all realise that the days of the lower leagues feeding talent up the chain are over, but part of the reason for that is clubs in our position, accepting players for ‘free’ and doing the hard and often fruitless development work for the big clubs; case in point, I’d rather Lubala or Bange got game time over Simms as only 1 in 10 of these kids from bigger clubs is actually good enough for our league anyway. (Simms may turn out to be the 1 of course...)

After that, it’s really all about doing the best you can. In some ways it’s actually adopting a measured progress approach, but one where you actually reinvest gains properly as opposed to pocketing it and blaming ITV Digital.

The gaps between the haves and the have nots is bigger, but paying customers and TV networks are still interested in the EFL. Stopping unscrupulous owners is vital, but so is recognising your own position and worth. Smaller clubs never were any more powerful then than now. It’s just the mega concept of the bigger clubs that has changed.

PP's money donated is basically charity, the g'teed sell on is protection.

I think the future of the media interest, nay media payments will be substantially reduced once the ESL 1& 2 take off. What are sky, bt going to do, pay the same to the Emerging PL and EFL or plough the money into competing with streaming services. And what are punters going to do? Watch Soton v Brighton or Juve v Barca. No contest. Betting sites alone would pull out, let alone fans.

There needs to be a realisation that fans in general don't give a poop, so why should the governing bodies.

Community clubs will need to rely on the community much more in the future. After all isn't that their 'Asda Price'?

 

[basilrobbie]

This was a Ten Minute Rule Bill, so it won't go anywhere, in Parliamentary terms.

It's significant because it was brought forward by the MP without any external prompting. That represents real progress. So I won't be joining in with the shrug your shoulders fatalism that seems to have pervaded the thread.

 

[straightatthewall]

This was a Ten Minute Rule Bill, so it won't go anywhere, in Parliamentary terms.

It's significant because it was brought forward by the MP without any external prompting. That represents real progress. So I won't be joining in with the shrug your shoulders fatalism that seems to have pervaded the thread.

You also didn’t join our clench of the fist realism when it was aimed at our former owners.

As with that situation, I would say that whilst I admire your faith in a true sporting ethos and spirit, you’re out of touch with a changing (or already changed) world. The MP is certainly out of touch, but that’s nothing new.
It’s interesting to me, your general politics are those of conservatism and about the have nots striving to be better through their own efforts. But in the case of football you seem to want an NFL style system that lets everyone have their day in the sun at some point over a sustained cycle.

 

[basilrobbie]

You also didn’t join our clench of the fist realism when it was aimed at our former owners.

As with that situation, I would say that whilst I admire your faith in a true sporting ethos and spirit, you’re out of touch with a changing (or already changed) world. The MP is certainly out of touch, but that’s nothing new.
It’s interesting to me, your general politics are those of conservatism and about the have nots striving to be better through their own efforts. But in the case of football you seem to want an NFL style system that lets everyone have their day in the sun at some point over a sustained cycle.

I think there is a lot to admire about the NFL, in terms of structure, financial framework, the draft and the way it generates huge revenues for good causes. However, I don't much like franchises, its college based system of recruitment is unique and it wouldn't work fully over here.

I make no apology for believing in a sporting ethos based upon fair competition. It's another form of meritocracy, and when that system works there is nothing better. The fact that such systems are rare, and rarely work properly, doesn't mean you shouldn't aspire to them.

I don't want to be in touch with a world where some of our traditional clubs are bought by foreign owners in order for them to use them to sustain debt. I don't want to be in touch with a world where club owners mortgage their club's stadium in order to be able to spend money they can't generate by other means. I don't want to be in touch with a world where crooks can buy football clubs and gamble with their fates while the authorities stand idly by.

As for the Oystons. It's all very well waving the clenched fist once a season, and it certainly has a value of its own. I wouldn't have been without those public displays, they meant a lot. But the rest of the time you often have to fight in a more stealthy way to get the things that you want. On that front, I'm proud of the contribution I've made.

 

[straightatthewall]

You were certainly stealthy

The point about ‘being in touch’ is not to get you to embrace things you can’t stand, but to point out that whatever you desperately want to be true sometimes can never happen. The football environment you want has gone and probably never existed in the first place.

Understand what you’re genuinely up against and you might have a chance of changing its direction.

 

[Blackpool_Rox]

Good thread this - think we are all singing off the same hymn sheet .... although some may be tenors whilst others baritone ...

UTP

LOVE BLACKPOOL

 

[basilrobbie]

You were certainly stealthy

You know how it is. Just because you didn't know something was happening, doesn't mean it didn't.

 

[Plumbs]

Understand what you’re genuinely up against and you might have a chance of changing its direction.

Exactly.Some suggestions on here that the MP in question wasnt prompted but she's been part of something thats already gaining some traction, although ultimately it needs the support of fans; not sure you'll get that if only one clique (ie the FSA) continue to exclude people.

I dont think it can be changed @straightatthewall because the money is colossal-how can a community based entity deal with players being paid salaries of £300k pw (top end) and in the Championship say £40pw which is what the top earners get there?
Wrexham is a good example of falling on the fan ownership sword;their Trust has been held up as an example of how clubs should be run,but as soon as a few zillionaire movie stars arrive its chucked in the bin and they all jump on.
Thats one club who could be 'doing a Fleetwood' very soon and no doubt soon be reaching the echelons of the PL etc, and leaving the Sadlers with the scraps-you've only got to see with the Nobbers that a glass ceiling exists for 'well run clubs' which is about mid table Championship.

Even with you guys Belekon might have slayed the evil dragon but he still walked away with his invetsment, which could/should have gone into club coffers and I think thats what going to happen even with a strict ownership criteria.

At Leeds our Trust is doing flips and cartwheels over Andre Radzianni because he gives them what they want to a degree,but they failed to stop the overcharging of away fans at ER and now wont push him on the deal on the Elland Road buyback.
A few seasons ago the club announced it had bought the stadium back but it was only by an AR company,where we're now paying a deferred rent (from then) which lasts until 2032. That means £21 million pounds goes anywhere but back into the club and £1.5 million of season ticket money has to be set aside for a rich mans benefit annually.

If anyone thinks that any of this will change then they're bonkers, because ultimately the 'FSA bible' on good governance gets thrown out of the window when its a chance for their club to get in on the act. The guy who runs the FSA is a Newcastle fan and their Trust is backing the buy out by the Saudis, who's record on human rights is absolutely appalling but doesnt compare to Ashley's tenure apparently.

You really couldnt make this nonsense up.

 

[straightatthewall]

Exactly.Some suggestions on here that the MP in question wasnt prompted but she's been part of something thats already gaining some traction, although ultimately it needs the support of fans; not sure you'll get that if only one clique (ie the FSA) continue to exclude people.

I dont think it can be changed @straightatthewall because the money is colossal-how can a community based entity deal with players being paid salaries of £300k pw (top end) and in the Championship say £40pw which is what the top earners get there?
Wrexham is a good example of falling on the fan ownership sword;their Trust has been held up as an example of how clubs should be run,but as soon as a few zillionaire movie stars arrive its chucked in the bin and they all jump on.
Thats one club who could be 'doing a Fleetwood' very soon and no doubt soon be reaching the echelons of the PL etc, and leaving the Sadlers with the scraps-you've only got to see with the Nobbers that a glass ceiling exists for 'well run clubs' which is about mid table Championship.

Even with you guys Belekon might have slayed the evil dragon but he still walked away with his invetsment, which could/should have gone into club coffers and I think thats what going to happen even with a strict ownership criteria.

At Leeds our Trust is doing flips and cartwheels over Andre Radzianni because he gives them what they want to a degree,but they failed to stop the overcharging of away fans at ER and now wont push him on the deal on the Elland Road buyback.
A few seasons ago the club announced it had bought the stadium back but it was only by an AR company,where we're now paying a deferred rent (from then) which lasts until 2032. That means £21 million pounds goes anywhere but back into the club and £1.5 million of season ticket money has to be set aside for a rich mans benefit annually.

If anyone thinks that any of this will change then they're bonkers, because ultimately the 'FSA bible' on good governance gets thrown out of the window when its a chance for their club to get in on the act. The guy who runs the FSA is a Newcastle fan and their Trust is backing the buy out by the Saudis, who's record on human rights is absolutely appalling but doesnt compare to Ashley's tenure apparently.

You really couldnt make this nonsense up.

Plumbs - it really depends on what you consider an acceptable level of change.

The idea that a small town club could dominate Europe like Forest, has long since gone and was anyway an exception rather than a rule. Same applies to the notion of the FA Cup and how the romance has gone. What's really happened is that it's taken a back seat to other competitions, but if you look at who wins it now vs then, the difference is not as marked as you'd think.

I can also accept there are major concerns over WHO invests in football clubs and WHY. Most owners make a big song and dance about how owning a football club loses you money and yet these people continue to invest. That doesn't add up. It's obvious that there's always something in it for them.

Where I applaud Robbie and his stance is that he's coming at this from a purely sporting position and a community position; in reality - as demonstrated by Newcastle supporters - most paying supporters are totally blinkered to the situation and look purely at how a new owner will make them bigger and better and have them winning things they never used to win. Most supporters would turn a blind eye to Jimmy Saville being owner if he bankrolled a league winning team...

I made my feelings clear some years ago re how a Trust can exist and be both part of a club and also independent. It involves money and being savvy. You have to make owners squirm in the limelight and show up some of their more questionable motives (if there are some). There's no reason at all that a smart owner shouldn't work hand in hand with a group of people who are willing to not just be a customer for your business, but actually invest time, man/woman hours and additional money into the business through nothing but good will. Shit on those people and you need a Trust that can bite back.

Long and short of all this though is pretty simple. The big six prior to the EPL forming were Man Utd, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham and ??? (I genuinely don't know who it would have been as no other club of size could seriously claim to be influential or relevant at that point). Now you can replace Everton with Man City and chuck Chelsea in as the 6th. Key point, the other 4 are still the same...Size has always dominated and other clubs have still existed within that arena and still will.

 

[Plumbs]

Plumbs - it really depends on what you consider an acceptable level of change.

I made my feelings clear some years ago re how a Trust can exist and be both part of a club and also independent. It involves money and being savvy. You have to make owners squirm in the limelight and show up some of their more questionable motives (if there are some). There's no reason at all that a smart owner shouldn't work hand in hand with a group of people who are willing to not just be a customer for your business, but actually invest time, man/woman hours and additional money into the business through nothing but good will. Shit on those people and you need a Trust that can bite back.

Long and short of all this though is pretty simple. The big six prior to the EPL forming were Man Utd, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham and ??? (I genuinely don't know who it would have been as no other club of size could seriously claim to be influential or relevant at that point). Now you can replace Everton with Man City and chuck Chelsea in as the 6th. Key point, the other 4 are still the same...Size has always dominated and other clubs have still existed within that arena and still will.

Thanks for that and as you say there are several clubs who think they can break into that elite 'top six', where for instance Kenwright at Everton has brought in an investor who's chucked in 40 million,and who is planning to mortgage them to the hilt to move away from Goodison.
I know you guys experienced something similar with Whyndyke but that seemed to be a distraction I guess in the end.

Just to pick up your bit above because I think thats important to how we go as a national fanbase. Unfortunately groups like yours (ie BASIL) are by and large excluded by the FSA because you are only given associate status. I know I rant on about it but it really needs an wholly inclusive effort to make any sort of impact imo, and that will involve asking people for their views rather than being simply given a ride on the bus as it were.
In short I'm not convinced the FSA can deliver this even after merging Supporters Direct and the FSF , where there seems to be some sort of inverted snobbery towards the ordinary fan. (ie "they are too thick to understand the complexities of governance etc")

**for the record I think BST's engagement is the module to follow but it needs big changes with the FSA top table and those looking to get a seat on it.

 

[straightatthewall]

Thanks for that and as you say there are several clubs who think they can break into that elite 'top six', where for instance Kenwright at Everton has brought in an investor who's chucked in 40 million,and who is planning to mortgage them to the hilt to move away from Goodison.
I know you guys experienced something similar with Whyndyke but that seemed to be a distraction I guess in the end.

Just to pick up your bit above because I think thats important to how we go as a national fanbase. Unfortunately groups like yours (ie BASIL) are by and large excluded by the FSA because you are only given associate status. I know I rant on about it but it really needs an wholly inclusive effort to make any sort of impact imo, and that will involve asking people for their views rather than being simply given a ride on the bus as it were.
In short I'm not convinced the FSA can deliver this even after merging Supporters Direct and the FSF , where there seems to be some sort of inverted snobbery towards the ordinary fan. (ie "they are too thick to understand the complexities of governance etc")

**for the record I think BST's engagement is the module to follow but it needs big changes with the FSA top table and those looking to get a seat on it.

The real roadblock stopping football supporters getting better representation and influence is probably football supporters...

 

[Plumbs]

The real roadblock stopping football supporters getting better representation and influence is probably football supporters...

Absolutely and of the many excluded in mainstream dialogue are paying supporters eg season ticket holders and members etc, who might be able to make a significant contribution to the cause.

On the other hand there are tens of thousands who's support lends to subscribe and watch, so difficult to put an argument together against those economics.

 

[20togo]

You were certainly stealthy

The point about ‘being in touch’ is not to get you to embrace things you can’t stand, but to point out that whatever you desperately want to be true sometimes can never happen. The football environment you want has gone and probably never existed in the first place.

Understand what you’re genuinely up against and you might have a chance of changing its direction.

Spot on. It seems Robbie wants to turn the clock back over fifty years or more because of this vision in his mind of how it was. But what is in his mind and the reality of what it was are two totally different things.

 

[basilrobbie]

Spot on. It seems Robbie wants to turn the clock back over fifty years or more because of this vision in his mind of how it was. But what is in his mind and the reality of what it was are two totally different things.

I don't think I want to go back to the 1970s, actually. Decrepit stadia, mud heap pitches, football "fans" behaving like animals wherever they went..... no, not for me.

I'd like to see football clubs functioning far more like social enterprises (which takes us back to the late 19th century, in some respects, ironically).

Specifically I would like to see :

• more equitable distribution of TV money to promote competition
• proper scrutiny of owners and directors conduct across the piece
• proper support networks for clubs in financial difficulty
• independent, transparent and risk-based regulation, carried out by.....
• ..... a regulatory body that is responsible for set-piece reporting and identification and promulgation of best practice
• football clubs in part judged upon the contribution they make to local social well-being
• preservation of football stadia as assets of community value to be the norm
• a proper role for supporters in reviewing and challenging regulatory activity

Which would be a reality that defied being judged on the basis of the clock - because it has probably never existed before.

All my own views, naturally.

 

[20togo]

I don't think I want to go back to the 1970s, actually. Decrepit stadia, mud heap pitches, football "fans" behaving like animals wherever they went..... no, not for me.

I'd like to see football clubs functioning far more like social enterprises (which takes us back to the late 19th century, in some respects, ironically).

Specifically I would like to see :

• more equitable distribution of TV money to promote competition
• proper scrutiny of owners and directors conduct across the piece
• proper support networks for clubs in financial difficulty
• independent, transparent and risk-based regulation, carried out by.....
• ..... a regulatory body that is responsible for set-piece reporting and identification and promulgation of best practice
• football clubs in part judged upon the contribution they make to local social well-being
• preservation of football stadia as assets of community value to be the norm
• a proper role for supporters in reviewing and challenging regulatory activity

Which would be a reality that defied being judged on the basis of the clock - because it has probably never existed before.

All my own views, naturally.

I was pondering over how many years to go back. And neither was it a particular dig at you either. It was more a general point regarding nostalgia and how we perhaps remember the good things but seem to forget the bad. For instance the game has never been more open than it is now for not only women to play the game to a high level but to also attend gsmes in far greater numbers than they did. I'd suggest the game is a lot more family friendly now too.

 

[fcblackpool]

...and who is going to vote for fairer real distribution of TV money?

It does seem to me that your good intentions, which I agree with, in the main, are reliant on the distribution of money. I don't think that will happen to any great degree, and the likelihood in the future is even bleaker with smaller domestic revenue almost certain. And if money was available for lower leagues it would attract bad owners who would see it as free money- like Oyston did.

Your point about the MP is really the way forward for smaller clubs. It needs heavy pressure to actually force the abolition of the EFL and a new body heavily weighted to FC's support.

Sad, but true fans are only interested in their own club and if that's functioning visibly OK they don't give a rat's bum. So why would anyone with influence search to destroy regulatory bodies. As plums said with Wrexham, all fans are chasing the dream.

No easy answer.

 

[basilrobbie]

I was pondering over how many years to go back. And neither was it a particular dig at you either. It was more a general point regarding nostalgia and how we perhaps remember the good things but seem to forget the bad. For instance the game has never been more open than it is now for not only women to play the game to a high level but to also attend gsmes in far greater numbers than they did. I'd suggest the game is a lot more family friendly now too.

I didn't take it as a dig - I thought it was a fair point, actually. And as regards fcb's point about money being key, and vested interests being threatened - he's right.

I'm suggesting that the current model is unsustainable. I think that is driven by self-interest at the very top and supine behaviour by the bodies who are supposedly in charge. I think the trigger for change will almost certainly have to come from outside. If it doesn't, nothing will change and the game will implode before very long.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

I didn't take it as a dig - I thought it was a fair point, actually. And as regards fcb's point about money being key, and vested interests being threatened - he's right.

I'm suggesting that the current model is unsustainable. I think that is driven by self-interest at the very top and supine behaviour by the bodies who are supposedly in charge. I think the trigger for change will almost certainly have to come from outside. If it doesn't, nothing will change and the game will implode before very long.

Also not a dig Robbie but nothing is sustainable if you don't live within your means.

Changes in Regulation and increased scrutiny as you recommend will perhaps see clubs more likely to live within their means but those who fail to live to do so only have themselves to blame and should perhaps look closer at their own failings than expect a greater share of revenues that they don't generate themselves.

I don't think anybody would argue with some of your suggestions - proper scrutiny of directors/owners etc - but some of them need more consideration.

 

[fcblackpool]

Agree, the current model is unsustainable, but where we differ is I see a path of divergence and not convergence. And I don't think convergence can be achieved.

Far better to act on the assumption that the change will mean less money in the ll's and to create a structure to support that. And clubs to be self funding.

 

[Plumbs]

...and who is going to vote for fairer real distribution of TV money?

It does seem to me that your good intentions, which I agree with, in the main, are reliant on the distribution of money. I don't think that will happen to any great degree, and the likelihood in the future is even bleaker with smaller domestic revenue almost certain. And if money was available for lower leagues it would attract bad owners who would see it as free money- like Oyston did.

Your point about the MP is really the way forward for smaller clubs. It needs heavy pressure to actually force the abolition of the EFL and a new body heavily weighted to FC's support.

Sad, but true fans are only interested in their own club and if that's functioning visibly OK they don't give a rat's bum. So why would anyone with influence search to destroy regulatory bodies. As plums said with Wrexham, all fans are chasing the dream.

No easy answer.

Some excellent points and there is an air of The Luddites regarding the FSA and the things its trying to promote via its campaigns.When the PL clubs (as was) decided to start up in 1993 there was never a question of that not succeeding once the TV rights had been sorted, and of course footballers salaries started to rise accordingly.Theres no danger of the PFA ever stepping into debate because they know from where the gravy train is flowing, indeed the FSA take bundles themselves for self governance via the grants that pay for their own salaries and offices.

@20togo made some great points on how some things have progressed eg the womens game, but there isnt a chance in hell that all of a sudden the top earning clubs are going to bale out those below.I'm surprised to see educated and well informed people cant accept this and think that a few campaigns will make a significant difference because it just aint going to happen.

To be fair the present EFL deal isnt that bad as a stand alone deal. Its significant by comparison to what clubs take at the turnstiles and its down to the clubs if they want to spunk it all on players wages, rather than use some to upgrade facilities and provide say free coaches for away games etc.

Just as an eye opener into what the future may hold where we seem to be following the NFL model. It was announced today that a 30 second advert for the Super Bowl break will cost just over 5 million dollars,which is where the owners of our top clubs are trying to get to.

 

[straightatthewall]

The point about the governing bodies reiterates what I was meaning about understanding what you're up against (or whatever it was I said...) The EPL, the EFL etc...have no other interest than to ensure their business continues to generate revenues from TV, sponsors etc...They're more likely to accept anyone who comes in with a promise to maintain the 'unsustainable' spending as it's clearly a key element to promoting the 'quality' of the product. But if we know this already, there's no point in expecting them to do anything different.

 

[fcblackpool]

The point about the governing bodies reiterates what I was meaning about understanding what you're up against (or whatever it was I said...) The EPL, the EFL etc...have no other interest than to ensure their business continues to generate revenues from TV, sponsors etc...They're more likely to accept anyone who comes in with a promise to maintain the 'unsustainable' spending as it's clearly a key element to promoting the 'quality' of the product. But if we know this already, there's no point in expecting them to do anything different.

Those bodies are basically trade unions for owners and the Clubs. Fans are only considered as revenue generators.

They need abolishing, but by who?

 

[Plumbs]

Those bodies are basically trade unions for owners and the Clubs. Fans are only considered as revenue generators.

They need abolishing, but by who?

Bang on the money again. Not being funny but when the Seasiders were flying high you guys had bundles of cash* and we couldnt get near you, just like the others who had PP money in the bank. There would have been no intent from you to give us a few million to make a bit of a game of it, and given that PL clubs have to spend to stay up now I just cant see a philanthropic attitude being adopted.

If the government stepped in to get an already huge commercial venture to start handing out cash by legislation, then all the PL would do is challenge in that courts and effectively say they were doing nothing wrong especially since they already have promotion for the ELF clubs and already distribute consolidarity payments.

In effect the PL is simply maximising its income streams and using marketing strategies adopted successfully elsewhere. Dont like it? Then stop feeding the beast but fans wont do that-Arsenal supporters for instance simply pay their £1k pa season tickets and get on with it.

 

[Plumbs]

Talking of governance-lets see what happens over this. It'll be interesting to see what Chelsea and Everton fans think of this, where a clean up at the top might mean these guys taking their money out of the respective clubs.

I wonder if the FSA will take a stance on this or indeed the respective Trusts do the same?

Sanctions urged against Russian figures in English football

Detained Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny says action could put pressure on President Putin.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Phil_bfc deux]

I think there is a lot to admire about the NFL, in terms of structure, financial framework, the draft and the way it generates huge revenues for good causes. However, I don't much like franchises, its college based system of recruitment is unique and it wouldn't work fully over here.

I make no apology for believing in a sporting ethos based upon fair competition. It's another form of meritocracy, and when that system works there is nothing better. The fact that such systems are rare, and rarely work properly, doesn't mean you shouldn't aspire to them.

I don't want to be in touch with a world where some of our traditional clubs are bought by foreign owners in order for them to use them to sustain debt. I don't want to be in touch with a world where club owners mortgage their club's stadium in order to be able to spend money they can't generate by other means. I don't want to be in touch with a world where crooks can buy football clubs and gamble with their fates while the authorities stand idly by.

As for the Oystons. It's all very well waving the clenched fist once a season, and it certainly has a value of its own. I wouldn't have been without those public displays, they meant a lot. But the rest of the time you often have to fight in a more stealthy way to get the things that you want. On that front, I'm proud of the contribution I've made.

Lol .....

 

[td53]

Plumbs - it really depends on what you consider an acceptable level of change.

The idea that a small town club could dominate Europe like Forest, has long since gone and was anyway an exception rather than a rule. Same applies to the notion of the FA Cup and how the romance has gone. What's really happened is that it's taken a back seat to other competitions, but if you look at who wins it now vs then, the difference is not as marked as you'd think.

I can also accept there are major concerns over WHO invests in football clubs and WHY. Most owners make a big song and dance about how owning a football club loses you money and yet these people continue to invest. That doesn't add up. It's obvious that there's always something in it for them.

Where I applaud Robbie and his stance is that he's coming at this from a purely sporting position and a community position; in reality - as demonstrated by Newcastle supporters - most paying supporters are totally blinkered to the situation and look purely at how a new owner will make them bigger and better and have them winning things they never used to win. Most supporters would turn a blind eye to Jimmy Saville being owner if he bankrolled a league winning team...

I made my feelings clear some years ago re how a Trust can exist and be both part of a club and also independent. It involves money and being savvy. You have to make owners squirm in the limelight and show up some of their more questionable motives (if there are some). There's no reason at all that a smart owner shouldn't work hand in hand with a group of people who are willing to not just be a customer for your business, but actually invest time, man/woman hours and additional money into the business through nothing but good will. Shit on those people and you need a Trust that can bite back.

Long and short of all this though is pretty simple. The big six prior to the EPL forming were Man Utd, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham and ??? (I genuinely don't know who it would have been as no other club of size could seriously claim to be influential or relevant at that point). Now you can replace Everton with Man City and chuck Chelsea in as the 6th. Key point, the other 4 are still the same...Size has always dominated and other clubs have still existed within that arena and still will.

Yes and no.

The 'size' of club and size of *brand* are different things. Chelsea are a huge brand but never historically one of the very biggest clubs. They're certainly not a small club but they are comparable in historic terms of ground capacity, honours, crowds with a number of clubs who not only aren't Chelsea sized in terms of their brand, but also, more or less since the inception of the Premier League have not been able to compete for honours or with Chelsea.

That's my problem. Size is always relevant and there's no way around that. But some clubs have an entrenched advantage due to the timing of a particular takeover and the scale of investment at a point in their history which has allowed them to become global brands for whom anything other than a top 6 finish is unthinkable.

Clearly, at all points in football, the timing of investment matters but I don't think at any point has their been such difficulty in imagining a club like Chelsea not challenging for European competition or winning honours.

It's also notable that by that standards expressed on this thread - that 'smaller' clubs should live within their means and not speculate - Chelsea are an *atrociously* run club who have posted huge losses year after year.

How can we accept that Chelsea can literally lose billions but then say 'ah, well, should have managed themselves better' when smaller clubs are in crisis. That makes no sense. Yeah, we can observe what the situation is and say who has power but if we can't appeal for some kind of logic in the way sport is governed then what can we hope for really?

Particularly as we can observe that everytime a club such as Chelsea ups the going rate for players/transfers (as they did) that creates an inflationary effect whereby everyone else's costs rise as well.

That's another point. When you have such finances in the game it is in the interests of the richest to push the cost of competition up as naturally, that means the competition is less in number and therefore, it acts almost like protectionism. It really means any upstarts have to be prepared to risk a hell of a lot, absolutely absurd amounts in order to join that group which is precisely what clubs are chided for wanted to do.

Therefore, the essential concept of the league is broken. The idea that you aspire to go higher. If 'smaller' clubs must balance the books and bigger ones don't need to just exacerbates what is already an almost insurmountable gap.

When it comes down to it, we're a town club.

 

[Plumbs]

Yes and no.


That's my problem. Size is always relevant and there's no way around that. But some clubs have an entrenched advantage due to the timing of a particular takeover and the scale of investment at a point in their history which has allowed them to become global brands for whom anything other than a top 6 finish is unthinkable.

True but size is now defined by its marketable value where for instance last season Bournemouth were one of the top 20 clubs in Europe (based on turnover)

How can we accept that Chelsea can literally lose billions but then say 'ah, well, should have managed themselves better' when smaller clubs are in crisis. That makes no sense. Yeah, we can observe what the situation is and say who has power but if we can't appeal for some kind of logic in the way sport is governed then what can we hope for really?

It makes sense because Chelsea have guaranteed TV millions coming in ad finitum as do the others who are now seeking to gold plate that with the European Super League.

That's another point. When you have such finances in the game it is in the interests of the richest to push the cost of competition up as naturally, that means the competition is less in number and therefore, it acts almost like protectionism. It really means any upstarts have to be prepared to risk a hell of a lot, absolutely absurd amounts in order to join that group which is precisely what clubs are chided for wanted to do.

Absolutely which is why the NFL brought in their own version of 'fair play' because it needed a competitive edge,although it'd be interesting to see their attitude towards automatic promotion and relegation.

Therefore, the essential concept of the league is broken.

Yup you bet it is. Simply layers upon layers of glass ceilings that can only be smashed by huge spending as clubs attempt to climb the divisions.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

This is a very interesting thread with contributions from posters who know what they're talking about and from experience in fan-based pressure groups as well. I will not add to most of what's been said but I agree with a lot of it and, although there is cynicism in the mix it is clear that it is justified.
The only issue that I will comment on, however, comes from a statement made by Straighters, when he wrote, "Most owners make a big song and dance about how owning a football club loses you money and yet these people continue to invest. That doesn't add up. It's obvious that there's always something in it for them." Sadly, I think that the 'something' includes a ready-made vehicle for money laundering, soft power political influence (PR) and access to a wider circle of international business interests than might otherwise seem (in some cases) appropriate.

 

[td53]

True but size is now defined by its marketable value where for instance last season Bournemouth were one of the top 20 clubs in Europe (based on turnover)

It makes sense because Chelsea have guaranteed TV millions coming in ad finitum as do the others who are now seeking to gold plate that with the European Super League.

Absolutely which is why the NFL brought in their own version of 'fair play' because it needed a competitive edge,although it'd be interesting to see their attitude towards automatic promotion and relegation.

Yup you bet it is. Simply layers upon layers of glass ceilings that can only be smashed by huge spending as clubs attempt to climb the divisions.

Chelsea's historic losses are spectacular. They've never ever turned a profit under Abramowich despite all the income. It's perverse. They get a little slap on the wrist and have to use their England international academy graduates for 6 months for breaking spending rules. Oh poor them.

I'm not altogether about the NFL model but I think that it would be an interesting thought experiment to see how the EPL brand fared if the EFL refused to promote any teams or accept any relegated ones. I think initially people would go 'ok' but a few years down the line people would bemoan the lack of narrative, drama freshness and so on.

The point of such a thought experiment is that the value of the EPL comes from being on the top of a pyramid that produces those teams that keep it interesting.

Of course, it wouldn't happen!

 

[fcblackpool]

Bang on the money again. Not being funny but when the Seasiders were flying high you guys had bundles of cash* and we couldnt get near you, just like the others who had PP money in the bank. There would have been no intent from you to give us a few million to make a bit of a game of it, and given that PL clubs have to spend to stay up now I just cant see a philanthropic attitude being adopted.

If the government stepped in to get an already huge commercial venture to start handing out cash by legislation, then all the PL would do is challenge in that courts and effectively say they were doing nothing wrong especially since they already have promotion for the ELF clubs and already distribute consolidarity payments.

In effect the PL is simply maximising its income streams and using marketing strategies adopted successfully elsewhere. Dont like it? Then stop feeding the beast but fans wont do that-Arsenal supporters for instance simply pay their £1k pa season tickets and get on with it.

It's 'I'm alright Jack' football watching.

The key for me is to accept that money will not be redistributed, and tbh why should it ? And then to address the medium term reality.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

It's an old chestnut but if rules required a limit to the maximum number of overseas-born players (now that we're out of the EU?), might that not increase the competitive chances of clubs outside the EPL? That is, the potential value of bringing on talented youngsters that would, henceforth, be more attractive to clubs in the Prem?

 

[straightatthewall]

This is a very interesting thread with contributions from posters who know what they're talking about and from experience in fan-based pressure groups as well. I will not add to most of what's been said but I agree with a lot of it and, although there is cynicism in the mix it is clear that it is justified.
The only issue that I will comment on, however, comes from a statement made by Straighters, when he wrote, "Most owners make a big song and dance about how owning a football club loses you money and yet these people continue to invest. That doesn't add up. It's obvious that there's always something in it for them." Sadly, I think that the 'something' includes a ready-made vehicle for money laundering, soft power political influence (PR) and access to a wider circle of international business interests than might otherwise seem (in some cases) appropriate.

You might say that, I couldn’t possibly comment...

 

[Wizaard]

Also not a dig Robbie but nothing is sustainable if you don't live within your means.

Changes in Regulation and increased scrutiny as you recommend will perhaps see clubs more likely to live within their means but those who fail to live to do so only have themselves to blame and should perhaps look closer at their own failings than expect a greater share of revenues that they don't generate themselves.

I don't think anybody would argue with some of your suggestions - proper scrutiny of directors/owners etc - but some of them need more consideration.

There isnt a Premier League team living within its means, if you consider means to be gate and TV money. Every club is being subsidised by their owners to some degree. Those challenging at the top even more so.

 

[fcblackpool]

It's an old chestnut but if rules required a limit to the maximum number of overseas-born players (now that we're out of the EU?), might that not increase the competitive chances of clubs outside the EPL? That is, the potential value of bringing on talented youngsters that would, henceforth, be more attractive to clubs in the Prem?

The key is to protect the clubs who have these good young un's. I've speculated that we may never have had a sell on with OB-S because the Oyscums would want a larger up front fee rather than a decent sell on. Opportunism. What about a mandatory sell on clause only negotiable upwards, with multiple sell on after? Protecting clubs investment.

 

[Plumbs]

Chelsea's historic losses are spectacular. They've never ever turned a profit under Abramowich despite all the income. It's perverse.

The point of such a thought experiment is that the value of the EPL comes from being on the top of a pyramid that produces those teams that keep it interesting.

Yup Chelsea have been financial basket cases for even years before Ken Bates, but they still make the cut on financial fair play every year, and City were another who needed taking to task. Factor in what the Glazers did and continue to do then you really do have to question the sanity of the top teams, but it brings in the supporters and piles of money.

Some years ago the Bolton chairman suggested a PL L2 which was rightly rounded upon, but as it stands now that might not be a bad idea because of the financial requirements needed to compete at the higher levels.
Talking to my fellow Leeds fans we reckon we need to stay in the PL at least one more season, thus allowing us to build up and mount a challenge to the top six IF we can get a an appropriate investor.
Not so much enjoying the ride but fear driven from being left behind...

 

[straightatthewall]

TD,

my reference to Chelsea wasn’t for any other purpose than to define a ‘big 6’ and to show that they haven’t really changed that much since the inception of the EPL. It’s not lost on me that the 2 new names on the list have gained ‘entry’ through colossal amounts of investment from an individual/state (in effect) and not too long ago were classic yo-yo clubs from Div 1 and 2.
In regards to Chelsea’s rise, it’s really immaterial when they did it. The only issue is whether it was done fairly. I’d argue that new investment- done within the right framework around the individuals concerned- is critical to breaking the monopoly and allowing the dream of achieving more to exist. City fans were in their neighbours shadow for nigh-on 40 years before the Qatari’s came along. Their dreams coming true as football fans are no less important than mine or yours.

And I’ve never actually believed in things like salary caps or equal distribution of tv money because it will do even more to keep smaller clubs small and widen the gap.
As always with these things, the issue is not how businesses act, but how they are punished for reckless spending that at one time provided glory and then brought pain and defaults on debts to small and in need businesses.

 

[td53]

Why *shouldn't* money be redistributed? The premier league clubs earn money from the notion of English football. The brand is essentially 'top flight english football' - it's just a rebrand.

If there's no pyramid, the premier league is the Chinese league with a different name. It's just another closed shop superstar knockabout.

Manchester United are a global brand because their historic achievements in the English game. FC Shengzou aren't that same brand because they, despite what they may spend, do not have the allure of being a historically successful English club. (I don't know if there is an FC Shengzou, which sort of illustrates the point. I can name 200 global clubs in a row, none of them are Chinese super league clubs though,despite them spending mad money...)

Money should be redistributed. Whether it will be or not ior how realistic or naive it is is a moot point. It doesn't change that it should as the brand value of English clubs comes from the status of the English league system. We take certain countries more seriously than others because we know they have a long history and football is rooted deeply in their cultures.

The game had to be careful because if it loses that, then suddenly, what really distinguishes English football from some kind of Dubai based global mega league?

That's not even taking into account the cultural/social importance of football clubs in the country itself. It's only giving an argument as to why the continuation or the competitiveness of the rest of football isn't a bad thing for the top of football.

I agree that profligate spending in the lower leagues and insane ownership decisions need to be tackled but it also needs to happen at all levels and there is literally no reason on a *sporting* level that the premier league needs to take the proportion of money it does. It is wasted on morally unjustifiable wages and as I said above, a lot of it's brand value comes from the history it is associated with.

To say otherwise is like saying that Levi's jeans coolness doesn't come from them being associated with American cowboys.

I'm making a moral argument. Yes. But isn't that the point of governance. If it's not on some level moral, what is for?

If governance is simply about facilitation of the strongest or most devious or whatever winning, then why bother having governance as they'll win anyway unless everyone gets together and clubs them to death.

At the moment of governance of the game protects the cowardly clubs who darent compete in a sporting sense so insulate themselves by spending. It is financial doping. It is protecting the ego of sheiks, conglomerates and oligarchs who happened to invest at the right time above protecting the game itself.

It might be idealistic to talk about changing it, but if we don't project ideals onto sport, where do we project ideals?

To be quite honest I'd nationalise it. I'm only half joking. Though, to be fair, the soviet game wasn't exactly 'pure...'

 

[fcblackpool]

Why *shouldn't* money be redistributed? The premier league clubs earn money from the notion of English football. The brand is essentially 'top flight english football' - it's just a rebrand.

If there's no pyramid, the premier league is the Chinese league with a different name. It's just another closed shop superstar knockabout.

Manchester United are a global brand because their historic achievements in the English game. FC Shengzou aren't that same brand because they, despite what they may spend, do not have the allure of being a historically successful English club. (I don't know if there is an FC Shengzou, which sort of illustrates the point. I can name 200 global clubs in a row, none of them are Chinese super league clubs though,despite them spending mad money...)

Money should be redistributed. Whether it will be or not ior how realistic or naive it is is a moot point. It doesn't change that it should as the brand value of English clubs comes from the status of the English league system. We take certain countries more seriously than others because we know they have a long history and football is rooted deeply in their cultures.

The game had to be careful because if it loses that, then suddenly, what really distinguishes English football from some kind of Dubai based global mega league?

That's not even taking into account the cultural/social importance of football clubs in the country itself. It's only giving an argument as to why the continuation or the competitiveness of the rest of football isn't a bad thing for the top of football.

I agree that profligate spending in the lower leagues and insane ownership decisions need to be tackled but it also needs to happen at all levels and there is literally no reason on a *sporting* level that the premier league needs to take the proportion of money it does. It is wasted on morally unjustifiable wages and as I said above, a lot of it's brand value comes from the history it is associated with.

To say otherwise is like saying that Levi's jeans coolness doesn't come from them being associated with American cowboys.

I'm making a moral argument. Yes. But isn't that the point of governance. If it's not on some level moral, what is for?

If governance is simply about facilitation of the strongest or most devious or whatever winning, then why bother having governance as they'll win anyway unless everyone gets together and clubs them to death.

At the moment of governance of the game protects the cowardly clubs who darent compete in a sporting sense so insulate themselves by spending. It is financial doping. It is protecting the ego of sheiks, conglomerates and oligarchs who happened to invest at the right time above protecting the game itself.

It might be idealistic to talk about changing it, but if we don't project ideals onto sport, where do we project ideals?

To be quite honest I'd nationalise it. I'm only half joking. Though, to be fair, the soviet game wasn't exactly 'pure...'

The notion of English football has gone in the way you mean it. English football is the PL for media rights. The PL earn that money, not Blackpool or Blackburn, or Portsmouth.

People are expecting the non rich to feed at the foodbanks of the PL. Not happening. The sooner people accept that, the sooner a solution can be agreed and pushed.

 

[td53]

TD,

my reference to Chelsea wasn’t for any other purpose than to define a ‘big 6’ and to show that they haven’t really changed that much since the inception of the EPL. It’s not lost on me that the 2 new names on the list have gained ‘entry’ through colossal amounts of investment from an individual/state (in effect) and not too long ago were classic yo-yo clubs from Div 1 and 2.
In regards to Chelsea’s rise, it’s really immaterial when they did it. The only issue is whether it was done fairly. I’d argue that new investment- done within the right framework around the individuals concerned- is critical to breaking the monopoly and allowing the dream of achieving more to exist. City fans were in their neighbours shadow for nigh-on 40 years before the Qatari’s came along. Their dreams coming true as football fans are no less important than mine or yours.

And I’ve never actually believed in things like salary caps or equal distribution of tv money because it will do even more to keep smaller clubs small and widen the gap.
As always with these things, the issue is not how businesses act, but how they are punished for reckless spending that at one time provided glory and then brought pain and defaults on debts to small and in need businesses.

Yes but the point is this. If we buy into 'its ok, cos a billionaire can invest' there are, by the nature of billionaires not that many. You end up therefore pricing out most potentially decent human beings who might want to run a club.

You portray it as if my problem is that I don't want chelsea to do well. I don't give a fuck. I just see the price of football rising all the time and therefore the potential number of investors diminishing. That's partly down to Chelsea. That's problematic.

If clubs further down are subject to different standards than larger ones that further diminishes their attractiveness to those investors because it means they're less likely to get what they want by spending.

I agree that partially applied salary caps is daft. Sensibly tiered ones throughout the whole game. Why not? How does that advantage the large teams?

I also don't understand how distribution of the income throughout the game disadvantages the lesser teams. Yes, I understand it can get pissed up the wall but that's a different point.

 

[td53]

The notion of English football has gone in the way you mean it. English football is the PL for media rights. The PL earn that money, not Blackpool or Blackburn, or Portsmouth.

People are expecting the non rich to feed at the foodbanks of the PL. Not happening. The sooner people accept that, the sooner a solution can be agreed and pushed.

You miss my point completely. The PL media rights are worth what they are as it is english football. The main tv earners are nations with a history of football.

Therefore, to protect the brand you protect the game.

The premier league didn't make anything. It just rebranded what already existed. It's not a new product. It was already there.

As I say. Try stopping promotion and relegation for 5 years. The 'product' will suffer.