http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140318/halltext/140318h0002.htm I am posting this as a new thread simply for information and to show that the debate in the political arena progressing. The issue of preference towards football creditors is long overdue for reform. References in the debate are in favour of supporters and community involvement.
I was looking for something else and came upon this post, which had slipped through. There is lots of interesting comment in the attachment. I'm not in a position to comment at length, but notice it hits at all of the key arguments, with emphasis on transparency. I wonder if, after reading it more thoroughly, we can take from it any seriously relevant parallels with our own financial situation. Some may have some thoughts.
"Mr Wright: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my lifetime, Hartlepool United will become a Manchester United or a Liverpool, and I will live to see us lift the champions league trophy, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect." I can't believe the football creditors rule wasn't challenged and scrapped years ago, it's a ludicrous rule. There have been changes relating to supporters trust recently, which now make them far more viable, particularly the rules with regard to generating substantial revenue for developments at, or around clubs. If that was further strengthened with pitches/stadiums being designated community assets and protected in a similar way to listed buildings, then that would be another major step forward. Oh and they can introduce safe standing while they're at it.
What they need to do is have a blanket ban on football in Manchester, Liverpool and London. Get rid of the FA, and appoint the Japanese to construct some robot referees with eyes in the backs of their heads.
