I don't quite understand how anyone can be against this when it's intended to stop the greed of the PL destroying the lower leagues, as well as protect clubs against unscrupulous owners (you know, like the ones we recently experienced). If the proposals of this regulator were in place in 2013/14 we wouldn't have had to sweat on a vote going in our favour to block Hull Tigers, it just simply wouldn't have happened.
And how do you know the majority of fans wouldn’t object to a name change if some future owner wanted it? Who would be the fans who decide? There were fans who declared it didn’t matter hat we were called the last one it came up. Those on here wouldn’t but this forum is only a small proportion of the fan base. Who would be ones with a vote in a golden share? There would have to be some sort of membership scheme with an annual fee, and we know how reluctant a lot of our fans are to part with money.
I'm not against it, but it'll more than likely go the way as many other government white papers, kicked into the long grass. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Thinking it won't eventuate is different to being against the aims of the regulator though, which some in here seem to be.
Good read MARTIN SAMUEL: Fatal flaws riddled this populist fan-led review By Martin Samuel - Sport for the Daily Mail22:30 25 Nov 2021, updated 23:29 25 Nov 2021 please log in to view this image This Government thinks it knows what is best for football. Here's what is best for football. For all sport, in fact. Competition. A healthy, open competition is what makes football in this country so vital. We do not know who will win the league every season. We do not know who will make the top four or who will go down. More than half the professional clubs in this country have experienced the Premier League since its formation. Now one of its founding members, Oldham Athletic, are in serious danger of dropping into the fifth tier. And that is a terrible shame but it is also competition. Bournemouth, Wimbledonand Wigan went the other way for a time. The movement of clubs up and down a pyramid system is the vibrant core of the English game. Some will tell you it is all about community and, yes, that is important, too. Yet Leeds has a population of 1.89million and the average gate at Elland Road is 36,405. So, undeniably, any true focus on community for the majority would improve hospitals, schools, transport infrastructure and local facilities such as parks and libraries. Football cannot cure cancer. It cannot take your kids out of a minimum wage job, or provide the rail link to cities where better opportunities exist. please log in to view this image Tracey Crouch seemed to have made her mind up even before the fan-led review Yet it does have sexy footballers and charismatic managers and politicians love stuff like that. You have only got to look at the lists of gifts and hospitality for members of parliament. And it is an MP, Tracey Crouch, who has chaired the Government's fan-led review, which will now foist an independent regulator on the sport. Crouch was in favour of the idea before the review began, so has unsurprisingly come to precisely the conclusion she desired. And nobody would argue football has shown itself in the best light of late. Yet Crouch somehow ties the proposed breakaway Super League with the ruination of Bury and the sale of Newcastle United to the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, so it is a report that is not afraid to take the intellectual leap. Much like Shaun the Sheep, in fact. Want to take those topics in turn? Let's start with Newcastle. Asked if the independent regulator would have blocked the sale to the Saudis, Crouch intimated it might. She talked about a new integrity test, taking character into account. 'I think the test would have stressed the takeover more than the current test does,' she concluded. This is utterly fanciful. It is well known that the Premier League were placed under significant Government pressure to appease the Saudis, who are valued trading partners. Yet such was the League's reluctance to approve the sale it was held up for close on 18 months. Only when every last issue regarding ownership and broadcast piracy had been settled was it decided the League could resist no more. please log in to view this image The European Super League debacle has been nonsensically linked to other issues Now, given that entreaties to step in and help conclude the deal went all the way up to Boris Johnson, would a Government-appointed regulator truly have addressed the integrity and character of those involved in the takeover? That sounds unlikely considering the back-channelling taking place. And what is character anyway? It is such a vague, loose term. There are laws to protect football clubs from criminals but any regulator will have his or her work cut out halting a sale over the cut of the owner's jib. Newcastle supporters can argue that they did not like Mike Ashley's character but nothing that he did during his time there was legally wrong. Some owners will be better than others. That is football, too. It is the reason Huddersfield won three league titles in succession and nothing since. Bury's owners were ruinous. Yet in Crouch's report, the miserable fate of one club is seen as symptomatic of the whole system. Why is a handout the proposed answer to the problems of Bury and others further down the pyramid? A 10 per cent levy on Premier League transfers is said to deliver £160m for redistribution below. 'One year's money could provide a grant to ensure League One and League Two clubs could break even,' the report concludes. Alternatively, Leagues One and Two could live within their means. please log in to view this image Bury FC's Gigg Lane gates were locked for the last time following expulsion in August 2019 If Bury cannot meet their wage bill, they have to buy cheaper players. If those players are not as good it will impact on performance. And if performance drops they could fall into the National League. And that's the way it goes. No club has the right to exist in any league. If Bury could only afford National League standard players then they would have become a National League club. Like Torquay, Yeovil, Grimsby, Wrexham, Aldershot, Chesterfield, Dagenham and Redbridge, Notts County, Halifax, Barnet or Southend, who all once enjoyed Football League status. Why the handout? And who decides how much? The report says 10 per cent but what if Rick Parry gets his begging bowl out again and the Government regulator decides it isn't enough? Who stops this levy becoming 20 per cent, or 30? And who exactly is being helped? The owner of Bristol Rovers is Wael Abdulkader Al-Qadi. His family founded the Arab Jordan Investment Bank. And he needs a financial lift from Delia Smith, at Norwich? Smith's club are a good example because they go up and down. Their plan is to be in the top 26 in the country: either in the Premier League, or in the play-offs to return. Yet the transfer tax would see Norwich indirectly donating to a club such as Stoke, who are in direct competition to replace them. Stoke are owned by the Bet365 Group where, in 2020, founder and joint chief executive Denise Coates earned a salary of £422m and dividends of £48m. But again, Stoke need a hand-out from Delia Smith to help usurp her club. Coates' salary is more than 15 times Smith's total worth. please log in to view this image It makes no sense whatsoever for Norwich owner Delia Smith to effectively fund rivals One of the panel members, Baron Finkelstein, said he was greatly stirred talking to Gary Neville, and his mother Jill, about Bury. 'The story of how Bury foundered was a scandal but just as much, it was a tragedy,' he wrote. 'It was moving to see what it meant to the family.' Yet Gary Neville is reported to have a net worth of £25m. He had the money to save Bury. He chose not to. That's fair, that's his decision. But Baron Finkelstein did not explain why it then became the responsibility of Delia Smith, again. Premier League clubs already pay a four per cent transfer levy to the Professional Footballers' Association pension fund and Premier League and EFL academies. There is also a proposed six per cent levy from FIFA. Add the Government's 10 per cent and that brings a £20m transfer in at £24m. Nothing to the elite but a significant hit on the budget at Norwich or Burnley, that could affect squad improvement. This widens the gap and makes the league less competitive. But no doubt the Al-Qadis will be most appreciative. The problem is nobody knows what each club can afford, other than the owner. Certainly not some Government-appointed overseer. All owners have differing wealth and are split on investment issues. Roman Abramovich is prepared to spend considerably more on Chelsea than Ashley was on Newcastle. Tottenham have just announced pre-tax losses of £150m across the two years of the pandemic. The majority of clubs in the Premier League are striving with all their might to stay ahead of Stoke and keep up with Liverpool. And then in comes the Government to give their money away. please log in to view this image Newcastle's LGBT+ supporters group backed the Saudi-led takeover of the club And to think it all began as a reaction to the Super League, which seems the least of it now. Fans will get a golden share, apparently to veto any breakaways, changes of location, colours or badge. Yet, what fans? A lot of people can be described as fans. Season-ticket holders, regulars, club members, and there is a wider community, particularly when clubs now have global fanbases. What if all Manchester United's fans were polled, including those on far continents? Would they be as married to the English pyramid system as a Stretford End regular? A binding charter would have been better because fans are malleable. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and the Milan clubs did not endure anywhere near the pushback over the Super League proposals and still don't. Fortunately for the English game, the idea came at a time when the six English clubs were at their strongest. Turning it down should have been obvious, as it was for the supporters. But imagine, in different circumstances, if Arsenal couched the breakaway as a matter of survival — that they joined this Super League or became Queens Park Rangers in two years? What then? Fans do not always see the bigger picture. United With Pride, an LGBT+ supporters group at Newcastle, warmly backed the Saudi takeover. They momentarily lost sight of gay rights because embracing a repressive regime was better for Newcastle. Still, Government regulation is coming, so let's see where it goes. The Premier League has successfully created the best competition in domestic club football, envied across the world. It has made, and continues to make, super clubs that rule European competition and have provided half of the finalists in UEFA tournaments across the last four seasons. And all this was achieved from a business strategy document running to six pages. Crouch's review numbers 160. The people that put Dido Harding in charge of Test and Trace will now run your club. And all because Bury would not buy cheap.
Remember that article. Still relevant. The point about if Norwich went up you could have a situation where a club could be paying another club whose chairperson has an annual salary 10 times the worth the owner of the club stumping up still stands. And would apply to a degree with other clubs.Samuel raises some other good points such as who gets to vote in this golden share proposal. The fans who watch via TV from far away will have different priorities those forking out to go home and away regularly, or even those who go to games less frequently but who do attend.
I usually quite like and respect what Samuel has to say, but his intimation that the PL in its current guise is competitive and we don't know who will win the league is a nonsense. Man City have won four of the last five titles. He lists the number of clubs who have played PL football but (rather deliberately) ignores the fact that of the last 15 sides promoted to the PL (so the last 5 years) Fulham have been promoted in 3 of the 5 seasons (and relegated in the other two), Norwich have been promoted twice (and relegated in two), West Brom promoted twice (relegated in two), Bournemouth promoted once after being relegated two seasons prior, Watford promoted once after being relegated two seasons prior, and so on. There is a clearly anti-competitive slant developing in English football as the rich (Man City at the top, relegated clubs at the bottom) get richer, and the rest are left behind. The notion that 'anyone can win the title' and 'anyone can be promoted' is becoming increasingly stretched as a concept. You just need to look at this season as a further case study as Man City will very likely win the title (granted, Arsenal have given them a good run for their money) and four of the top five in the Championship are all clubs who have been in the PL in the last two seasons prior, with Blackburn starting to fall away. He has a clear issue with the motivations and the definitions the independent regulator would use to manage the sport, but to say that nothing should be done because potentially there will be issues with definitions the regulator would use is quite silly. Anyone picking apart the minutiae of a decision to denigrate the decision in totality is looking at things with an ulterior motive in my mind. Justifying the Newcastle takeover by a nation state as somehow being ok because it makes the PL more competitive is utterly silly and underlines just how absurd the PL is becoming. His implication that the Championship/EFL clubs are the greedy ones and how dare they demand a handout is also a poor one and really can only suggest he's licking the boot of PL clubs by penning this piece. By picking out individually wealthy clubs in the EFL is to ignore the vast majority which are community clubs. As he notes, if Bury could not afford to pay the wages of League One clubs, they should have bought cheaper players, but that's not what happened with Bury and surely he knows it? They ceased to exist as a club, they didn't merely fall down the league. Surely that indicates there needs to be stronger regulation to save clubs from themselves in that situation? Surely it indicates issues with the Owner and Directors' Test?
They have a golden share, except for 2 or 3 clubs, in Germany. Doesn’t make it competitive, the only unknown is who will be runners up to Bayern Munich each season.. Though they are the only league with a higher average attendance per game than the PL. Which suggests “the match day experience” with standing and alcohol allowed in the stadiums is better.
I don't believe there has been any suggestion that the regulator would just implement a golden share and then sit on their arse. That is just one item the regulator would be seeking to implement, as well as more equal funding, something Germany does not do well. Samuel's strawman argument that it would lead to a locally funded club like Norwich subsidising a Bet365 owned Stoke is ridiculous when the funding could quite easily be means tested based.
Equally, it could not be means tested. It could go on a tax on income of the club. Which will always be higher for PL clubs than ones in the divisions below.
I think this a very good post. You only have to look at the parties who desperately didn't want this to happen, to see that it's probably a good idea. The regulator may turn out to be brilliant or it might turn out to be not so effective. But the status quo is a right old mess so I can't see why anyone without a vested interest would want to oppose the idea of a regulator.
‘The people that put Dido Harding in charge of Test and Trace will now run your club’. What a ridiculous claim to make. And if the best reason you can come up with for not having a fairer distribution of PL money, is Delia Smith’s net worth, you’ve lost the argument. The article reads like it was written by the Finance Director at Man United.
I don’t understand why the article seems to suggest that football clubs live within their means but also says clubs shouldn’t receive more money because they have rich owners? Which is it? If a rich owner pumps money in the club becomes unsustainable for future owners. It’s a different argument to suggest Premier League money shouldn’t filter down more, but I would argue that the PL is richer for lower league clubs they can take talent from.
I just listened to an episode of the price of football and an interview with Alex Fynn who was involved with the forming of the EPL. An interesting listen, particularly the FL turning down an offer that would have given the EFL 25% of the TV monies The current deal is apparently worth 935m over 5 years, which is 186m to be shared amongst all EFL clubs, and previous year much less than this. The current deal with the EPL is 6.7 billion, which over 5 years is 1.34 billion a year. 25% of that figure is 335 million, the football league must be kicking themselves. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-price-of-football/id1482886394
