Football governance

[nbthree3]

 

The Government should create a new independent regulator for English football (IREF) established by an Act of Parliament based upon specialist business regulation adapted to the football industry. IREF should operate a licensing system for professional men’s football.

 

To ensure financial sustainability of the professional game, IREF should oversee financial regulation in football which should be based upon prudential regulation in other industries recognising that football is obviously sport but also now big business.

New owners’ and directors’ tests for clubs should be established by IREF replacing the three existing tests to ensure that only good custodians and qualified directors can run these vitally important community and cultural assets.

 

There should be a new corporate governance code to support a long-term sustainable future of the game. This should be mandatory for all professional clubs with common requirements tailored to different leagues.

 

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) plans should be mandatory for all clubs with EDI Action Plans regularly assessed by IREF.

 

As every club’s most important stakeholder, supporters should be properly consulted by their clubs in taking key decisions by means of a Shadow Board. Effective supporter engagement should be a licence condition and overseen by IREF.

 

There should be additional protection for key items of club heritage through a “Golden Share” requiring supporter consent and overseen by IREF.

 

There is a strong case for additional contributions from The Premier League to further support the future of the football pyramid including a new solidarity transfer levy paid by top-flight on buying players from overseas or from other Premier League clubs.

 

Women’s football should be treated with parity and given its own dedicated review to guarantee its future recognising the significant steps forward taken in recent years but also the unique challenges facing the game.

 

The welfare of players exiting the game needs to be better protected – particularly at a young age – and all stakeholders should work together on improving this including the provision of proactive mental health care and support. 

[jack j]

Don't think I'd want many of our supporters making key decisions within the club mind. Most them are fucking nackas

[Joe_F]

 

 

 

[Armchair Pundit]

I can't help feeling a bit pissed off and aggrieved about this. Nobody kicked up at all when Ashley near destroyed the club over the last 14 years, or when the Premier League fucked us about almost finishing us off for the last year. I don't see how there's calls against our owners being given the keys any more than several other clubs owners with possibly dubious backgrounds either. In general, I feel like we're being targeted more than any others have in the past - it just fills me with the feeling that something nasty is around the corner, waiting to drop on us, to stop us by any means possible.

[Joey Linton]

47 minutes ago, Joe_F said:

 

 

 

Oh well, maybe next time. 

[Raconteur]

4 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

 

The Government should create a new independent regulator for English football (IREF) established by an Act of Parliament based upon specialist business regulation adapted to the football industry. IREF should operate a licensing system for professional men’s football.

 

To ensure financial sustainability of the professional game, IREF should oversee financial regulation in football which should be based upon prudential regulation in other industries recognising that football is obviously sport but also now big business.

New owners’ and directors’ tests for clubs should be established by IREF replacing the three existing tests to ensure that only good custodians and qualified directors can run these vitally important community and cultural assets.

 

There should be a new corporate governance code to support a long-term sustainable future of the game. This should be mandatory for all professional clubs with common requirements tailored to different leagues.

 

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) plans should be mandatory for all clubs with EDI Action Plans regularly assessed by IREF.

 

As every club’s most important stakeholder, supporters should be properly consulted by their clubs in taking key decisions by means of a Shadow Board. Effective supporter engagement should be a licence condition and overseen by IREF.

 

There should be additional protection for key items of club heritage through a “Golden Share” requiring supporter consent and overseen by IREF.

 

There is a strong case for additional contributions from The Premier League to further support the future of the football pyramid including a new solidarity transfer levy paid by top-flight on buying players from overseas or from other Premier League clubs.

 

Women’s football should be treated with parity and given its own dedicated review to guarantee its future recognising the significant steps forward taken in recent years but also the unique challenges facing the game.

 

The welfare of players exiting the game needs to be better protected – particularly at a young age – and all stakeholders should work together on improving this including the provision of proactive mental health care and support. 

 

Come on Marge, we don't want to "should" the man to death...

[FloydianMag]

I caught ITV News this morning and they were reporting live outside SJP discussing an independent regulator for football, as if it was prompted by our takeover. The call for a regulator  was prompted by the failed ESL attempt not our takeover, however the media still aren’t happy and are desperate to make the Crouch report about us.

[NE27]

Tbh if there was stricter governance by an independent body, would that not have made our takeover easier?

 

Just seems the PL didn't want to entertain the idea until they were forced into legal proceedings.

 

Whereas an independent regulator may have applied the process more fairly?

 

Sure there will be corruption in independent regulation regardless

[Dokko]

Obviously 18 months wasn’t a long enough stress test. Good job the fans didn’t suffer in that time of the club now facing relegation due to the limbo it caused. 

[Danh1]

The takeover that took 18 months to pass the O&D test should have faced more stringent tests….

 

Good one. 

[Abacus]

It's worth noting that it's generally recognised even under any new regulator, the Newcastle takeover was still likely to go ahead. So this would likely be cleaner than the previous system.

 

What it would stop would be scandals like Bury and Blackpool etc, plus unnecessary influence by the likes of the ESL 6.

 

Henry Winter has, as usual, an excellent article on this in the Times.

 

I'm all for most things in that report - I think it's just being reported this way on the BBC (i.e. being all about stopping the Saudi takeover, which it really isn't) is because Manchester is where the BBC's sports HQ is based.

[xLiaaamx]

Ashley is namechecked about bad ownership in this but as far as I can see this would have done fuck all about him?

[gjohnson]

2 hours ago, NE27 said:

Tbh if there was stricter governance by an independent body, would that not have made our takeover easier?

 

Just seems the PL didn't want to entertain the idea until they were forced into legal proceedings.

 

Whereas an independent regulator may have applied the process more fairly?

 

Sure there will be corruption in independent regulation regardless

It would have.

 

An independent body wouldn't have allowed the 'Rich6' or Bein to have interfered in the way they did.

 

 

[Yorkie]

An independent regulator probably wouldn't have let the takeover through at all, assuming the part about reviewing character and integrity of incoming owners will actually have teeth. 

 

The Premier League let our takeover through because the situation worked for them. It forced the Middle-East piracy problem to be solved and it represented another £300million investment into their product. On reflection (well I say, 'on reflection,' when in truth I always had a pretty big hunch), I don't believe the League was ever fundamentally opposed to the takeover happening. Why would they be? 

[gjohnson]

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

An independent regulator probably wouldn't have let the takeover through at all, assuming the part about reviewing character and integrity of incoming owners will actually have teeth. 

 

The Premier League let out takeover through because the situation worked for them. It forced the Middle-East piracy problem to be solved and it represented another £300million investment into their product. On reflection (well I say, 'on reflection,' when in truth I always had a pretty big hunch), I don't believe the League was ever fundamentally opposed to the takeover happening. Why would they be? 

If integrity is involved most of the leagues owners would be disqualified. 

 

The league was always fundamentally opposed to this takeover.....why would any business (club) want one of their competitors to receive a massive financial boost which could potentially damage their results. 

 

The PL themselves would probably have welcomed the idea of extra investment and revenue if they weren't so terrified of the rich 6 and their ESL idea

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by gjohnson
rant

[Joey47]

At the end of the day although most owners of PL clubs are not angels. We can't really deny that ours are the worst. 

 

The independent regulator wouldn't have considered the extra investment into the league as a factor like the PL did. 

 

Even if the independent regulator was making the decision though, surely they wouldn't be able to deny PIF without looking at the owners of the rest of PL clubs. 

 

 

I think everyone would agree that no other Club wanted the takeover to go through for obvious reasons. But it's also obvious that they shouldn't have the power to do things like block takeovers or target a specific club by denying them sponsorship deals. In this sense an independent regulator makes sense.

 

If an independent regulator decides it is in the best interests of the league to make FFP stricter this could screw us and keep the "big 6" where they are. 

 

I don't think any of us could really predict how an independent regulator would try to make the league more fair. Maybe they would try to make it more similar to the NBA?

 

If you were the independent regulator tasked with maintaing the integrity of English football (is that the purpose of an indepndent regulator?), what would you guys do?

[Abacus]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

An independent regulator probably wouldn't have let the takeover through at all, assuming the part about reviewing character and integrity of incoming owners will actually have teeth. 

 

The Premier League let our takeover through because the situation worked for them. It forced the Middle-East piracy problem to be solved and it represented another £300million investment into their product. On reflection (well I say, 'on reflection,' when in truth I always had a pretty big hunch), I don't believe the League was ever fundamentally opposed to the takeover happening. Why would they be? 

They would have no basis to deny it.

 

Integrity?

 

That's not a legal concept.

 

Basically, the argument was that to deny the takeover you would have to go above and beyond company law, and if you're going to do that and make moral judgements, then who should be the arbiter of that?

 

An independent regulator would be better than a stitch up by vested interests, as everyone would be under the same rules.

 

 

[mighty__mag]

Seems some are reporting, owner and director tests to be taken every three years. Meaning it could become challenging for our owners?

 

 

[manorpark]

14 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

Seems some are reporting, owner and director tests to be taken every three years. Meaning it could become challenging for our owners?

 

 

 

On what grounds?

[mighty__mag]

5 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

On what grounds?

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?

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes 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?

She said it would have been stress tested further, beyond that she bypassed the question.

 

Just enjoy the fact we’ve been taken over it’s done and nothings going to change that now.

[Sima]

6 hours ago, mighty__mag said:

Seems some are reporting, owner and director tests to be taken every three years. Meaning it could become challenging for our owners?

 

 

What happens if they ‘fail’? Forced to sell the club? Demoted?

 

Unworkable.

[gazza ladra]

11 hours ago, Abacus said:

 

What it would stop would be scandals like Bury and Blackpool etc, plus unnecessary influence by the likes of the ESL 6.

Much prefer this term to that "big 6" nonsense.

[mighty__mag]

1 hour ago, Sima said:

What happens if they ‘fail’? Forced to sell the club? Demoted?

 

Unworkable.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-every-newcastle-united-fan-22270710.amp

 

In the new era, though, fans could feel differently about proposals to overturn a system which, newly minted with Saudi cash, they might actually prosper in.

 

For a start, the proposal for a regulator to limit owner investment which would "destabilise the long-term sustainability of the wider league in which it competes" might have them nervous in Riyadh. Although PIF's business plan has never been to inject hundreds of millions into player transfers and wages, there is real potential to cause headaches for the new owners.

 

And then there is the thorny issue of the new-look owners and directors tests - which will have to be passed every three years under new proposals - which include clauses which even Crouch herself admits would have "stressed" the takeover.

 

 

I suppose this probably means for future takeovers?

 

but it's not clear, and I don't know anyone who's read the entire report. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by mighty__mag

[r0cafella]

Hmmm a Tory government reviewing forcing asset sales on a diplomatic alley? Not happening.