Wullie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/130129-football-gov-follow-up-rpt-publication/ As above, it's already been raised in Parliament, concerns about the way football is being run in England, but is it time to introduce legislation to prevent scum like Mike Ashley and the Venkys from getting their hands on football clubs? Or is it simply part of following the game, the rough with the smooth, swings and roundabouts etc etc? This "right and proper person" test that they supposedly run on potential owners is clearly not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it is no longer financially viable to force a German-style 50%+1 fan-owned system, so is it now simply a case that English football has made its bed and now has to lie in it? I just don't see how this can be allowed to continue - the red/blue shit with Cardiff, the Venkys treating a famous club as a wing of their chicken empire (geddit?) and Mike Ashley continuing to base football and business decisions on nothing but sheer spite - is it because we're football fans that we're allowed to be treat with such utter contempt in this country and basically told to embrace capitalism in all its glory - "they've got more money than you so tough fucking shit"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm not strongly versed in English politics as I'm American, but speaking entirely on just what crippling and mangling a club could do to people living within a city, local economy, and the community in general - Yes, 100% man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Surely these football clubs run in this kind of manner are exactly the type of businnes that the UK goverment supports though? The only people that could actually do anything about it are the fans I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Rip it up and start again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Good thread. Seems symptomatic of society's wider problems. It'd be fantastic, but there doesn't seem to be enough political will to push anything through because political will is usually driven by finance. Football is becoming depraved at every level. FIFA. The FA. Agents. Managers. Clubs with no corporate governance/accountability to its stakeholders. Players who are arseholes. The media. Growing increasingly disinterested by the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistle17 Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Totally agree with the OP. As you have said, Wullie; football in this country is far beyond the point of return. English football and its clubs, especially, is in ruins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 So what "fit and proper" criteria should/could be used to weed out an enormously successful British businessman who made his money in a related industry? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Not sure how it works with the FA, but in both the NFL and MLB, prospective owners must be approved by the league and the other owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenrot Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Unfortunately, it is no longer financially viable to force a German-style 50%+1 fan-owned system, so is it now simply a case that English football has made its bed and now has to lie in it? Why the hell not? Parliament is sovereign. If they want to legislate that all football clubs in England must be 50%+1 fan-owned with no compensation then they can and tough shit to the current owners. Obviously they won't, and it might break some international treaties but they can do it if they want. No balls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Not sure how it works with the FA, but in both the NFL and MLB, prospective owners must be approved by the league and the other owners. And I'll add that the test seems to actually do some decent vetting as well. FWIW, there is a process in the Premier League that obviously one can completely fraud when you look at what has gone on at Ewood as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 So what "fit and proper" criteria should/could be used to weed out an enormously successful British businessman who made his money in a related industry? Honestly, you could fraud your way through it I guess? but with you on that - I don't have the answer to that though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 The original definition of Catch-22 (from the book, for those who don't know its provenence) is "Catch-22 means we can do whatever it is that you can't stop us from doing." And thus, in the truest sense of the term, NUFC fans are in a genuine Catch-22 situation: Support the club and thus Ashley, or withdraw support of Ashley, and thus stop supporting the club. Fucking sucks balls. The only way to turn it around is to develop strategies for "stopping Ashley from what he is doing" PS Apply to Venky's/those Norwegians that bought Wimbledon years ago/Ridsdale destroying Leeds as required. They can, and will continue to, do whatever it is that we can't stop them from doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 If someone wants to run a business badly then its their choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Unfortunately, there is no real way of telling who is going to be a 'good' owner and who isn't ; its a complete lottery and sadly, even if there WERE a way, I wouldn't trust the scumbags who masquerade as our 'representatives' in Parliament to do this properly...the smallest hint of a bribe and they'd snatch anyone's hand off. In any event, 85% of laws - according to the Germans - now come from those paragons of virtue in the EU(who haven't had their accounts pass audit in 16 years...allegedly - so it would be them making the decisions. As the SOL was - allegedly - partly built with Euro Grants, would any NUFC fan want these people involved in any decision to appoint our owner ? Leaving all these practicalities aside, the only system which approaches anything like fairness seems to be the Bundesliga set up but now that SKY has such a grip of football finances, there is next to no chance of this ever being copied in the UK. Money talks...... As anyone who studies these things can work out, its devil take the hindmost in British business today - and that includes football. Ashley will remain free to wreak havoc on the club for as long as he likes and only fans/his customers can force any change - unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I guess, rather than specifying who is a fit owner and who isn't, you could limit the amount one person could own to 49% or something, so that they could never have absolute power. I think any fit and proper persons test would be passed easily by someone like Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 No, that time was six years ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Even if Mike Ashley were put up to a fit and proper persons test, he would pass with ease. I don't think you can even really accuse him of being a terrible owner in an objective sense. The results on the pitch have been much the same to the team he took over and the financial situation hasn't greatly deteriorated. I would say that there needs to be more checks and investigation into people wanting to own football clubs, but nothing is going to stop owners who are simply hated by the club's supporters, make poor decisions, or have no desire to compete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenrot Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Even if Mike Ashley were put up to a fit and proper persons test, he would pass with ease. I don't think you can even really accuse him of being a terrible owner in an objective sense. The results on the pitch have been much the same to the team he took over and the financial situation hasn't greatly deteriorated. I would say that there needs to be more checks and investigation into people wanting to own football clubs, but nothing is going to stop owners who are simply hated by the club's supporters, make poor decisions, or have no desire to compete. Then how about preventing individuals from having a controlling stake in football clubs? It can be argued that football clubs are so ingrained in our culture that they should be owned by the people in the local community rather than held by wealthy businessmen as an investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Even if Mike Ashley were put up to a fit and proper persons test, he would pass with ease. I don't think you can even really accuse him of being a terrible owner in an objective sense. The results on the pitch have been much the same to the team he took over and the financial situation hasn't greatly deteriorated. I would say that there needs to be more checks and investigation into people wanting to own football clubs, but nothing is going to stop owners who are simply hated by the club's supporters, make poor decisions, or have no desire to compete. Is it not the point that no such suitable test exists though? Such a test would include a hiring policy procedure which would mean top jobs didn't just go to his mates? I understand that fans aren't owners of the club in any technical sense, so there is no obligation for Ashley to maximise their investment, but there should be an obligation for the club to use the money invested by the fans for the intended use under which it was given, because without the fans, for what good reason does the club exist? Under the status quo, I agree that fans are more akin to customers than, say donors to a charity who are obliged to use the funds towards specified charitable aims, but my point is that I don't think it should be this way. THATS MY BELIEVES, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 You think we've got it bad..you want to see Coventry City's position. Coventry's owners SISU, a privately owned hedge fund sponsor,took the club into administration as they couldn't pay the debt owed to the Ricoh Arena's landlords, who in effect are Coventry City Council. This cost Coventry City 10 points, and effectively ended their play off hopes. SISU selected the administrator, who then put the best 4 bids as the final bid winner would come from. The winner, Otium Entertainment Group, are owned by SISU who pit the club into administration in the first place!! They have also said they will play Coventry's home games at Walsall whilst they build a new ground close to Coventry. How they've been allowed to do this by the Football League beggars belief. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenrot Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 You think we've got it bad..you want to see Coventry City's position. Coventry's owners SISU, a privately owned hedge fund sponsor,took the club into administration as they couldn't pay the debt owed to the Ricoh Arena's landlords, who in effect are Coventry City Council. This cost Coventry City 10 points, and effectively ended their play off hopes. SISU selected the administrator, who then put the best 4 bids as the final bid winner would come from. The winner, Otium Entertainment Group, are owned by SISU who pit the club into administration in the first place!! They have also said they will play Coventry's home games at Walsall whilst they build a new ground close to Coventry. How they've been allowed to do this by the Football League beggars belief. Shouldn't Coventry City fans in effect blame the council? You'd think a massive campaign to vote out anyone who approved their stupid deal with the Ricoh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 You think we've got it bad..you want to see Coventry City's position. Coventry's owners SISU, a privately owned hedge fund sponsor,took the club into administration as they couldn't pay the debt owed to the Ricoh Arena's landlords, who in effect are Coventry City Council. This cost Coventry City 10 points, and effectively ended their play off hopes. SISU selected the administrator, who then put the best 4 bids as the final bid winner would come from. The winner, Otium Entertainment Group, are owned by SISU who pit the club into administration in the first place!! They have also said they will play Coventry's home games at Walsall whilst they build a new ground close to Coventry. How they've been allowed to do this by the Football League beggars belief. Shouldn't Coventry City fans in effect blame the council? You'd think a massive campaign to vote out anyone who approved their stupid deal with the Ricoh. Well whoever signed the million pound a year rent without any of the revenue from matchday inside the stadium really wants locking up. It was way before SISU incidentally...when they bought the club, to all intent and purpose ,all they had purchased were staff contracts and nothing else. But more fool them for not doing proper due diligence....sounds like some other cunt we know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Was thinking about something similar earlier on actually, mainly to do with the Bundesliga model and to see that if it could be implemented over here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Even if Mike Ashley were put up to a fit and proper persons test, he would pass with ease. I don't think you can even really accuse him of being a terrible owner in an objective sense. The results on the pitch have been much the same to the team he took over and the financial situation hasn't greatly deteriorated. I would say that there needs to be more checks and investigation into people wanting to own football clubs, but nothing is going to stop owners who are simply hated by the club's supporters, make poor decisions, or have no desire to compete. Then how about preventing individuals from having a controlling stake in football clubs? It can be argued that football clubs are so ingrained in our culture that they should be owned by the people in the local community rather than held by wealthy businessmen as an investment. That'll never happen, especially under this Govt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Even if Mike Ashley were put up to a fit and proper persons test, he would pass with ease. I don't think you can even really accuse him of being a terrible owner in an objective sense. The results on the pitch have been much the same to the team he took over and the financial situation hasn't greatly deteriorated. I would say that there needs to be more checks and investigation into people wanting to own football clubs, but nothing is going to stop owners who are simply hated by the club's supporters, make poor decisions, or have no desire to compete. Then how about preventing individuals from having a controlling stake in football clubs? It can be argued that football clubs are so ingrained in our culture that they should be owned by the people in the local community rather than held by wealthy businessmen as an investment. That'll never happen, especially under this Govt. Indeed. A Conservative government taking on an assortment of powerful interests -- Emirates, oligarchs, billionaires -- in the name of football fans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now