Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest HTT II

They couldn’t run a bath so won’t make any difference to how football is run. If anything it will end up more corrupt!

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be like their "Corruption Tzar" overseeing things like the £37BILLION pumped into Dido Harding's Test & Trace scam. 

John Harding MP who, by amazing coincidence, is her husband. 

 

Remember, when the ESL was being touted, Boris Johnson was all for it until the shit hit the fan. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulators aren't corrupt, but they do tend to be slow and bureaucratic. Given they're usually concerned with balancing the interests of the industry vs the interests of the public/customer/end user it's interesting to see what it's remit will be and how it goes about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111
1 hour ago, elbee909 said:

Like a kind of 'football association' I guess?

 

No, the FA is their to run the game.  When things get too big and too many stakeholders then you need a regulator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that all twenty clubs will be registered or licenced and part of the terms of that registration will be to abide by a Code of Conduct. That Code of Conduct will encompass everything from finances to general behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, about 16% of the PL's revenue goes to the lower leagues, with approximately half of that in the form of parachute payments.

 

For me, one simple thing would be to abolish parachute payments altogether and redistribute that money more fairly instead. They massively distort competition in the lower leagues and so do more harm than good.

 

Incidentally, the sports minister also confirmed that with a new regulator any new owners and directors' test would be stricter financially on terms of sources of funding, but wouldn't impose any new rules on state ownership, which seems a pretty direct reference to us and Man City.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really odd that clubs in lower divisions are apparently seen as deserving of support without any examination into how they are managed. Why should a well-run Brentford, say, be effectively taxed into supporting a badly run club lower down even though it is innovative and careful husbandry that has got Brentford to where they are and they need to maximise their revenue to stay there, not transfer funds to a basket case lower down. Is there any detail at all as to how the proposals would have prevented Bury going to the wall, it all seems to be the pitches at the local rec are crap so Premier League clubs need to give more money to Sunderland or Burton or whatever other failing club

 

I do agree that parachute payments are ridiculous mind if the £100m Fulham wage bill story is true

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite a sobering thought about parachute payments if you've effectively got 8% of Premier League revenue circulating among a dozen or so of the 72 Football League clubs. No wonder things are skewed, then you throw in owners the likes of Bury, Macclesfield, Oldham have to endure and what a fine mess we've got. 

 

AND IT'S LIVE... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

Regulators aren't corrupt, but they do tend to be slow and bureaucratic. Given they're usually concerned with balancing the interests of the industry vs the interests of the public/customer/end user it's interesting to see what it's remit will be and how it goes about it.

Yet OFGEM have just allowed the energy companies put prices up by 50%, despite the majority of them making record profits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Without them, we get clubs running up massive debts and trying to reach the premier league. Also very odd that the Tories want to impose revenue sharing amongst competitors. 

You’ll start seeing them buying small clubs and them milking the new money really.

 

 

Edited by Stifler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111
Just now, Stifler said:

Yet OFGEM have just allowed the energy companies put prices up by 50%, despite the majority of them making record profits.


No.

The retail side of those businesses are not making those profits, did you not see the 50+ companies going bust over the last year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, neesy111 said:


No.

The retail side of those businesses are not making those profits, did you not see the 50+ companies going bust over the last year?

 

29 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Yet OFGEM have just allowed the energy companies put prices up by 50%, despite the majority of them making record profits.

 

Aye - as discussed in general chat the energy companies have indeed put their prices up hugely but their still making a loss on the domestic side. This why theres talk of another huge increase in October so that they can break even.

 

And by 'they', i mean the retail suppliers, as Neesy pointed out. The exporation, drilling and research side of the industry are separate companies, at least in a legally defined companies house way.

 

Getting off topic i know but a few domestic energy suppliers are basically nothing more than call centres.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...