New government report insists fans’ voice must be listened to. A new government report launched today [Tuesday 19th January 2016] on supporter ownership and fan engagement says that the supporters’ voice must be listened to by the football authorities and clubs. The report says that clubs must meet with fans’ groups at least twice a year and tells the FA to consider “greater supporter representation on FA Council”. The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) was part of the group tasked with making recommendations to the government, along with Supporters Direct, the Premier League, Football League, National League and FA. The report follows 10 meetings of the group over the course of 12 months. Kevin Miles, chief executive of the FSF, said: "A government report, endorsed by the football authorities, that requires clubs to listen to supporters on strategic issues including finance, governance and ownership, has to be a step in the right direction. "All too often, crucial club decisions have been taken over the heads of fans, with the real financial and strategic position of clubs shrouded in mystery. "We welcome the recommendations in this report that supporters' representatives should be entitled to regular structured engagement with clubs, and that supporter representation within the FA should be strengthened. "Fans aren't only concerned with facilities and team performance; we also care deeply about the ownership, governance and strategic direction of the clubs we support. "We are under no illusions; for this report to have a meaningful impact, supporters' representatives must have access to the necessary financial and strategic information. "We call on government to join us in being vigilant in ensuring that clubs deliver on the commitments made in this report, so that fans' voices are genuinely heard." The report also looks at ways to give supporters more opportunities to bid for their own club when the opportunity arises and calls upon the Owners and Directors Test to be kept under “constant review” by the FA, including “structured dialogue” with the FSF and Supporters Direct. It’s also recommended that the government should look at tax breaks for supporter-owned clubs via the Social Investment Tax Relief and a new Community Owned Sports Club model. The group was independently chaired by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who was Director of Marketing and Communications for England Rugby 2015, organisers of the Rugby World Cup. She is a Portsmouth season ticket holder and member of Pompey Supporters’ Trust. As well as the FSF, Supporters Direct and football authorities, expert witnesses included supporters’ trusts at Portsmouth, Swansea City, Wrexham, and AFC Wimbledon. http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/v...-experting-working-group#sthash.jYkrtRKn.dpuf
These initiatives have a lot of support at the Premier League and the Football League, so they are likely to happen, though whether the fans are actually able to achieve anything or are just paid lip service by clubs remains to be seen.
Government should stay out of football. They have much bigger issues to deal with ffs. It wont happen. Lip service at best.
Government should absolutely interfere with football. The suits in football are a greed community who have had everything their own way for far too long.
It's not a government commitment. It's a commitment from an expert group that includes the FA, the Premier League and the Football League. They have made these commitments, not some minister.
It's unlikely to work if Football clubs are forced to meet with Fans Groups as this will more often lead to a confrontational meeting than a constructive one. MP's are not the best people to be making these "requirements".
HCST welcomes today's news - statement on the website .... http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/hcstfansengagement/
I appreciate there was some haste in whipping that out but you really need someone to proof read stuff like that. Interesting that you're demanding a change in stance from the owners, considering I can't see your current chairman changing his stance of being vehemently anti our owners and wanting them gone. Why exactly should the club deal with HCST under those circumstances? As it happens, 2 FWG a year, which includes a representative from HCST, and the conditions of those requirements are met. The club only has to listen, not act on your demands. It's really is not just the club that could do with a mindset change.
Interesting that people read things into this statement that aren't there - the Trust isn't "demanding" anything or seeking "confrontation", it simply welcomes the announcement and stands ready to cooperate with the club in enacting these recommendations when the club is ready. The FWG is really good as a concept, but it doesn't happen anymore and it is not attended by senior club executives. Typos have been corrected.
You don't think... We stand ready to build a positive relationship once the club changes its stance. Isn't confrontational? It really is. Like I said, your current chairman is 100% not for budging Allam Out. How is that not confrontational? Also like I said, it's not just the club that needs to change.
Building a positive relationship. That's not my idea of confrontation, but maybe it is yours. Fair enough.
You're still being confrontational... How can you build anything with a chairman who has publicly stated his completely negative views on our owner and his son and who is quite open he wants them gone? Actually your not being confrontational, you're evasive. Fair enough. I get that the questions are uncomfortable.
The Trust's opinions are not defined by one person who is currently chairman for another 30 days - as is perfectly evident from the statement that I posted last night. Are you saying that the Trust should only be populated by people that fully support the current owner? That's just not practical or reasonable or even desirable for an independent supporters body.
