Having watched over the past few years different clubs sell their shareholdings to a strange selection of overseas buyers, I wonder just how you control ownership of a football club. Their have been different models for the takeovers, Man Utd getting saddled with large debts when Americans came in, Chelsea with a man who wants a plaything, Blackburn who have a flock of chicken farmers who think it will sell their birds, Cardiff and Hull where the new owner ignores the fact that without the fans there is nothing and now Leeds who are rushing to embrace a convicted maverick because he is promising a way out of the dire financial plight they are in. Yes I know that I haven't mentioned our own disaster, but he passed the test and there was no great apology when they banned him from football for three years. Just how do these people get approved as suitable? They tell us that they cannot afford to have an in-depth investigation into these people, but the current rubber stamping simply calls the authorities into disrepute. Either they should stop altogether making out that they are doing a proper job, or find some money to do a complete check and publish the results. That may include lawyers becoming involved if they try to stop a sale, but the situation at present is just plain crazy.
Totally agree, there should be a set of about 20 to 50 parameters that should be measured against and decision based without any "art" against that, simples...
I suppose that when they operate in a country where the government aren't fit and proper to govern, the FA can't really be blamed for only playing lip service to the idea...
Am I right in saying that there is no test in Scotland? Rangers seem to be able to get away with almost anything. Still I expect that the leader of the SNP will have some to say before long.
They (the wasters that run football in this country) are only interested in keeping the money flowing in so that that can maintain the lovely safe world. Nice fat salary, all expenses paid to go and watch any game they want to - why should they give a flying **** about whether some shyster is fit and proper? All they will do is doll out the fines and points deductions when it all goes horribly wrong again.
I honestly can't say whether or not there is one - only that I'm not aware of it if there is. Not too sure about Rangers getting away with anything - it took a while, but they got their just desserts in the end - and if they're not careful, they may get them again by all accounts, with more financial problems looming. I don't think that Wee Eck will have too much to say about football for a while though - he's a Hearts supporter & they've been in dire straits financially for a while now without a peep from him. And if anyone wasn't fit and proper to own a club it was Vladimir Romanov....
It seems that the weasel muppets who 'run' football were/are so terrified to a legal challenge, they set the bar to avoid anything that could be contestable in court. Hence the fact that 'corn on the cob' taking over Leeds is a convicted fraudster doesn't matter as his conviction(s) is/are 'spent'. In fact all it needs is a 'catchall' in the Football Leagues rules that would allow them to disbar the more disreputable elements (Bates anyone?). Sadly it reflects the standards of behaviour that seem to be the norm these days for anyone with money. From which it follows that we shouldn't expect honesty on the pitch, as there is so precious little off it. Depressing, but it's a depressing state of affairs.
And unfortunately of course once a club is owned by someone not fit and proper, the likelihood is they will have no scruples about selling it on to someone who is equally unfit. I do like the idea which I believe operates in Germany where it is required that a percentage of the club is owned by its supporters.
1. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26137234 + 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Cellino = 4. He'll be ok this time round, after a few bottles of red, say the FL.
