Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

Mattoon

by Mattoon
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ronson333

Ronson333

Posted
Posted

A proposal to ban state-controlled clubs from English football has been submitted in an amendment to the Football Governance Bill that will introduce an independent regulator for the sport.

The move, which would have to be agreed by parliament, would mean that Manchester City and Newcastle United would be forced to change their ownership in order to be granted a licence by the regulator.

Lord Bassam of Brighton, a Labour peer, has put forward the amendment to the legislation going through the House of Lords which would prevent professional English clubs being owned or controlled by sovereign wealth funds or government ministers from any country.

Newcastle are owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) while Manchester City’s owner Sheikh Mansour is the vice-president ofthe United Arab Emirates.

For the amendment to become law, it would also have to receive backing from MPs in the House of Commons, which in practice will only happen if the government agrees with it. Whitehall insiders insist the chance of the amendment being agreed is small, but some Premier League clubs have previously urged the government to introduce such a ban.

 

Bassam’s amendment states the legislation should read: “No state-controlled club may be granted an operating licence, and any affected club must satisfy the IFR [independent football regulator] that they have divested themselves of their state-control before applying for an operating licence.

Newcastle, who lost to West Ham on Monday, have been majority-owned by PIF for three years

 

“A state-controlled club is one which is wholly or majority-owned by individual(s), entities, or entities controlled by individual(s) who are deemed by the IFR or the secretary of state to be under the influence of any state actor, including but not limited to: members of any government or their immediate family, a head of state or their immediate family, diplomats, lobbyists, or other state representatives, or their immediate family, and sovereign wealth funds.”

The bill was debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday but peers have yet to discuss Bassam’s amendment.

Read more

MI6 ‘involvement’ in Newcastle United takeover is ‘red flag’ for regulator

Baroness Karren Brady, the West Ham United vice-chairman, told the House of Lords on Wednesday that the government had ignored warnings from Uefa and handed even more power to the regulator over parachute payments to clubs relegated from the Premier League.

“Despite those warnings from Uefa, the government have made the backstop even wider and broader in scope, to now include parachute payments, which are fundamental to competitive balance,” she said.

 

“They have removed the incentives for a football-led deal, which goes specifically against the advice of Uefa. So it appears that the government have ignored that letter and its warnings. Uefa spells out that the ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from Uefa and teams from competition.”

Brady said she supported another amendment which says nothing in the operation of the regulator should “compromise the ability of football clubs, competition organisers or national teams to comply with their obligations to, or participate in competitions of, international governing bodies including Uefa and Fifa”.

West Ham vice-chairman Brady warned of some proposed changes making the league less exciting

 

Brady said she was concerned that the regulator could damage the Premier League. She added: “This is a risky business. It is a risk trying to get promoted; it is a risk trying not to get relegated; it is a risk trying to get into the Champions League; and it is a risk trying to get into Europe and stay there. All football owners know these risks, and each one has a different way of managing, calculating and understanding them.

“Some take on debt; some put in equity; some sell assets — their footballers — if the risk does not pay off, but they go again.

“The problem with the idea of sustainability, which is undefined in this Bill, being the purpose of the regulator is that it can get in the way of ambition and aspiration, of calculated risk taking, and all the things that make the Premier League such an exciting and competitive league.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keegans Export

Keegans Export

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Then that clown's "Would force out Man City and Newcastle" is complete shite? I have to assume it is.

Under the proposals clubs would basically have to apply for licenses each year/season so the first time a PIF-owned NUFC applied they'd be told "No"

Link to post
Share on other sites
McDog

McDog

Posted
Posted
Just now, Keegans Export said:

Under the proposals clubs would basically have to apply for licenses each year/season so the first time a PIF-owned NUFC applied they'd be told "No"

 

 

Then what? Seize the team? 

That makes zero sense in practical terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Then that clown's "Would force out Man City and Newcastle" is complete shite? I have to assume it is.

If the amendment is accepted by the Commons and then the Bill receives Royal Approval then there would be a forced sale - just as happened with Abramovich at Chelsea.  The new regulator would simply cite the new Act and refuse to grant the licence to operate for the season.

 

On the flip side, it is the role of the Lords to interrogate and propose amendments to bills proposed by the Commons.  It doesn’t mean that the amendment will be accepted in the second reading of the Bill.  This only becomes an issue if the Commons accepts the proposed amendment and sends it back to the Lords.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.Spaceman

Dr.Spaceman

Posted
Posted (edited)

One thing is for sure, it would be an interesting bidding process if PIF were told to fuck off. We definitely wouldn't end up with an Ashley type now I reckon, we've shown glimpses of what we can be with that CL appearance.

 

I wonder which American we'd get

 

 

Edited by Dr.Spaceman

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sima

Sima

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

One thing is for sure, it would be an interesting bidding process if PIF were told to fuck off. We definitely wouldn't end up with an Ashley type now I reckon, we've shown glimpses of what we can be with that CL appearance.

 

I wonder which American we'd get

 

 

 


Probably Alex Jones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Likelylad

Likelylad

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If the amendment is accepted by the Commons and then the Bill receives Royal Approval then there would be a forced sale - just as happened with Abramovich at Chelsea.  The new regulator would simply cite the new Act and refuse to grant the licence to operate for the season.

 

On the flip side, it is the role of the Lords to interrogate and propose amendments to bills proposed by the Commons.  It doesn’t mean that the amendment will be accepted in the second reading of the Bill.  This only becomes an issue if the Commons accepts the proposed amendment and sends it back to the Lords.  

I just can’t see it happening. 
Labour are trying to create investment in the UK. There’s absolute no way they mug off the Saudi’s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
Just now, Likelylad said:

I just can’t see it happening. 
Labour are trying to create investment in the UK. There’s absolute no way they mug off the Saudi’s. 

I’d be surprised if they did tbh.  Starmer is too pragmatic and centrist to worry about irksome details like human rights etc.  This is just a couple of the law lords proposing amendments - ultimately, it isn’t up to them.  For those worrying about this, my advice would be - don’t.  This is standard stuff in Parliament, and like you say it would potentially create some tensions with KSA and Abu Dhabi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucasol

Nucasol

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Ronson333 said:

 

Ziegler absolutely tossing himself off at this one.

 

I don’t really know what it says about the U.K. if our government passes this, dialling up our managed decline to the max by pissing all over inward investment and trading partners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McDog

McDog

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If the amendment is accepted by the Commons and then the Bill receives Royal Approval then there would be a forced sale - just as happened with Abramovich at Chelsea.  The new regulator would simply cite the new Act and refuse to grant the licence to operate for the season.

 

On the flip side, it is the role of the Lords to interrogate and propose amendments to bills proposed by the Commons.  It doesn’t mean that the amendment will be accepted in the second reading of the Bill.  This only becomes an issue if the Commons accepts the proposed amendment and sends it back to the Lords.  

 

 

And who sets the price, and what appeals are allowed if the price doesn't reflect the value to the owning party?

 

 

edit: So it's an auction? Was that what happened in the Chelsea case?

 

 

Edited by McDog

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...