Football governance

[Gazzaschicken]

8 hours ago, mighty__mag said:

Unsure on what grounds? But Tracey Crouch was reported as saying Nufc would have struggled if the takeover would have happened after any changes. 

 

Tbf it was the Chronicle, but they used quotes?

I would totally expect our owners to fail the owners and directors test after it changes following them purchasing our club. It is the whole purpose of changing them. 

[bowlingcrofty]

The three yearly thing would surely only be a light touch “has anything changed”. 
 

They can’t change the rules once they’ve approved a takeover and then exclude us from the league, there would be legal bods all over that. 

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, Gazzaschicken said:

I would totally expect our owners to fail the owners and directors test after it changes following them purchasing our club. It is the whole purpose of changing them. 

 

It is time people got over the mindset of fear and assumption of automatic failure.

 

We are in for years, decades, of permanent fun and achievement - GET USED TO IT !!!! 

[Guest HTT II]

I’m all for football governance if it applies equally, if that was so, PIF wouldn’t be involved in football or get away with any shit and nor would say Ashley or the Glazers or Abramovic. It needs applied equally and ideally football would be reset.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by HTT II

[the fella]

Interesting snippet from the Palace chairman (Steve Parrish?) just there on 5Live. He said under the current ODT the PL had no grounds to block the takeover and if it had gone to court PL would have lost.

 

He also backed the takeover and said a football club is a UK asset and the govt trade with SA and allow them to purchase UK assets, so its ok to purchase a PL club. Was surprised by his attitude. 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by the fella
Typo

[xLiaaamx]

This new review would have done nowt about Ashley. They would have seen him as running us sensibly. 

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, xLiaaamx said:

This new review would have done nowt about Ashley. They would have seen him as running us sensibly. 

Exactly! Another whitewash of a ‘review’ IMO!

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I totally get the emotional side of things like moving stadia, changing badges etc but the single biggest factor that can change the direction of the club is buying and selling players - especially your star player.

 

look at Blackburn for an early example after selling Shearer, Spurs as a less drastic example with Bale. Closer to home and the opposite transaction - Xisco and Gonzalez. Nothing in these proposals prevents the buying and selling players on a whim.

[Guest]

How could that practically work anyway? If the club is worth say £800m in 3 years and they failed a test, if no-one could buy the club for that amount they couldn’t exactly make them sell to whatever bidder. 

[Whitley mag]

3 hours ago, bowlingcrofty said:

The three yearly thing would surely only be a light touch “has anything changed”. 
 

They can’t change the rules once they’ve approved a takeover and then exclude us from the league, there would be legal bods all over that. 

Exactly the recommendations will also be watered down considerably after the clubs start lobbying the govt.

 

Absolutely nowt to worry about and our owners will have lost no sleep over this report.

[nbthree3]

 

[Ronson333]

Debating the point with Gary Neville on Twitter, Parrish said: “Regulators are there so that governments can control markets or companies within a framework they set and can alter. Regulators are instruments of government and they are independant [sic] only up to enforcing the current remit which can be changed at any time by a new act of parliament. So Football will be – under this plan controlled by government.”
 

so this twat doesn’t want someone to control the market, yet he’s leading the charge for sponsorship restrictions against Newcastle.

[nbthree3]

 

The 20 Premier League clubs want an emergency meeting this week to outline their stance in opposition to the independent regulator proposed in Tracey Crouch MP’s government-led review, and row back on what many see as chief executive Richard Masters’ acceptance of it.

The clubs’ chief executives and chairs have been involved in intensive back-channel discussion via a WhatsApp group set-up around the time that doubts began to emerge around the now departed Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman - and they are clear that they do not want an independent regulator for football.

 

The opposition is chiefly coming from mid-table clubs not regularly involved in European football, like West Ham, Crystal Palace and Villa, as well as Brighton and Hove Albion. All of them believed that they were going to take a collective stance against the regulator principle. The Premier League executive said that it had proposed a meeting in its notes to the clubs last week to discuss the review.

 

However, there is a strong sentiment within the clubs outside the elite that many of the proposals could cause major problems – not least in attracting new owners and investors. Parish wrote in The Sunday Times of proposals to investigate family connections of potential investors, “Wow, that's some power – ‘You can't buy something because I don't like your friends’. Sounds more like something from North Korea.”

 

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

 

The 20 Premier League clubs want an emergency meeting this week to outline their stance in opposition to the independent regulator proposed in Tracey Crouch MP’s government-led review, and row back on what many see as chief executive Richard Masters’ acceptance of it.

The clubs’ chief executives and chairs have been involved in intensive back-channel discussion via a WhatsApp group set-up around the time that doubts began to emerge around the now departed Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman - and they are clear that they do not want an independent regulator for football.

 

The opposition is chiefly coming from mid-table clubs not regularly involved in European football, like West Ham, Crystal Palace and Villa, as well as Brighton and Hove Albion. All of them believed that they were going to take a collective stance against the regulator principle. The Premier League executive said that it had proposed a meeting in its notes to the clubs last week to discuss the review.

 

However, there is a strong sentiment within the clubs outside the elite that many of the proposals could cause major problems – not least in attracting new owners and investors. Parish wrote in The Sunday Times of proposals to investigate family connections of potential investors, “Wow, that's some power – ‘You can't buy something because I don't like your friends’. Sounds more like something from North Korea.”

 

Don’t particularly like Parish but he’s spot on there.

 

Got no doubt it’ll be watered down massively.

[Ben]

This won't go down well with the breakaway clubs 

[LFEE]

 

[Numbers]

So are they saying they should qualify for Europe regardless of their league position?

[Abacus]

Essentially, yes. Although, it's about their more recent performances rather than forever, from what I can make out.

 

Either way, it's completely wrong.

 

The last paragraph of that article made me laugh;

 

At a previous Premier League meeting, one of the “big six” clubs argued that there should be room for manoeuvre around what was sporting merit, pointing out that in a league in Uruguay relegation was based on performances over three seasons.

 

They're right. It's the Uruguayan League we should be replicating.

[Conjo]

Can the FA kick the PL out of the "system" so to speak, and give the CL spots to the top 4 of the championship?

[Guest]

Scared. 

[sushimonster85]

I know the whole thing is abhorrent, but I always find the inclusion of Arsenal and Spurs in this 'big six' as a desperate/pathetic. Forget even a suddenly insanely rich NUFC, just decent well-run clubs like Leicester, Wolves and even Brighton are starting to knock on their door in terms of league position on a consistent basis. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said:

I know the whole thing is abhorrent, but I always find the inclusion of Arsenal and Spurs in this 'big six' as a desperate/pathetic. Forget even a suddenly insanely rich NUFC, just decent well-run clubs like Leicester, Wolves and even Brighton are starting to knock on their door in terms of league position on a consistent basis. 

 

Look at Arsenal's league placings - up until 2019/2020 there is 0 argument that they are one of the big six in English Football

 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/platzierungen/verein/11

 

Unfortunately the same can be said of Spurs over the past 10 years

 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tottenham-hotspur/platzierungen/verein/148

 

You'd definitely say they (Spurs more so) are at risk of being replaced in the 6 but in today's conversation they are there

[manorpark]

11 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said:

I know the whole thing is abhorrent, but I always find the inclusion of Arsenal and Spurs in this 'big six' as a desperate/pathetic. Forget even a suddenly insanely rich NUFC, just decent well-run clubs like Leicester, Wolves and even Brighton are starting to knock on their door in terms of league position on a consistent basis. 

 

The so-called "Big Six" is a Sky-TV invention - that has now gained hold generally.

 

Sky care mainly about their viewing figures, and so - of course - they had to include a number of London-based clubs within their invented list, even if (like Spurs particularly) they do not win trophies.  

 

It is a meaningless grouping, and the sooner its use is consigned to history, the better. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by manorpark

[LFEE]

Not sure if the thread for this…

 

 

[Yorkie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61211255

 

Government says it's bringing in a regulator.