Fan-led review of football governance - terms and conditions

[ClaretTony]

The Government have pubished terms and conditions for the fan-led review of football governance

Link:
https://bit.ly/3xiqykU

If you have any thoughts, please list them on this thread.

Thanks,

[dandeclaret]

On the finances piece, clubs should have to be a going concern - if not, then remove them from the league

Fans voting rights should be a section in the fan engagement section

Times of games, and supporter accessibility should be a section

The role of agents, and the funds that they remove from the game needs to be considered. A football tax should be placed on any money leaving the game (Dividends to owners, agent fees specifically) to fund lower league and grass roots football

[Chester Perry]

This had already been posted on two other threads before this was created

Naturally the FSA have taken this weeks events as an opportunity to further their cause and seek significant involvement in the review of the game

https://thefsa.org.uk/news/fsa-statemen ... ce-review/

I have no issue with that, fans must be equally involved as should all the other stakeholders (and that includes billionaire remote owners). My issue with this review is that almost everyone is approaching it from within their own narrow perspectives with solutions that suit them. I would also add that this level of government interest and commitment appears to result from the slight the Prime Minister feels after being in a meeting with Ed Woodward just days before the Super League announcement

My experience (and I used to do this for a living after first getting a MSc that was hugely focused on the subject) is that no right and proper solutions (it will not be a single of solution but a range of solutions) can be found to a problem without first defining it clearly, that in itself will require extensive input from all stakeholders, and more importantly no one dismissing any of that input, This is a time for empathy not recrimination.

Today's announced terms of reference for this review https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... governance are in my view overly defining. Many will say years of DCMS hearings have provide structure to this review, I have watched a number of those hearings. and nothing I have seen has significantly contributed to the overall problem definition

I fear for any outcome when so many are approaching this with pre-determined notion of problem and solution, which is what I am seeing a lot of.

There is also something else to remember, acting in isolation can have a detrimental effect internationally, what about the power brokers at UEFA, FIFA and the other confederations? We saw on Monday that UEFA ignored the European Leagues, by ratifying an agreement with the the ECA, an agreement brokered by club executives that resigned from the ECA and UEFA roles that very morning. It was also significant that FIFA President Gianni Infantino who has previously spoken openly of working with Florentino Perez on a Global Super League/World Club Cup and has been championing African and North American Super Leagues this year did not speak on the subject until the direction of travel was known. With populist isolationism being a theme of our current government there is so much to be wary about.

[ClaretTony]

On the finances piece, clubs should have to be a going concern - if not, then remove them from the league

Fans voting rights should be a section in the fan engagement section

Times of games, and supporter accessibility should be a section

The role of agents, and the funds that they remove from the game needs to be considered. A football tax should be placed on any money leaving the game (Dividends to owners, agent fees specifically) to fund lower league and grass roots football

Thanks Dan

[Chester Perry]

On the finances piece, clubs should have to be a going concern - if not, then remove them from the league

Fans voting rights should be a section in the fan engagement section

Times of games, and supporter accessibility should be a section

The role of agents, and the funds that they remove from the game needs to be considered. A football tax should be placed on any money leaving the game (Dividends to owners, agent fees specifically) to fund lower league and grass roots football

Lots of proposed solutions not problem definitions there, no doubt people will feel there are issues, but describe the problem let others with different interests/perspectives overlay with their problem description (it creates a more true and fuller picture), have everybody truly understand everybody's perspective and then you will have a foundation on which to build consensus going forward.

Consensus is the route if you want it to last

[superdimitri]

I don't think being a going concern is enough. Clubs should only be able to spend the money they earn without borrowing millions. Some clubs have such rich owners they can continue to spend money without risk.

I think they should review a fine system whereby if clubs breach spending more than they earn they are docked points and fined, with the fine money being distributed throughout the pyramid.

There will always be teams with top commercial income compared to us but it's just a step too far that they are able to sign players worth more than our entire team put together. Sport should be fair and entertaining and it's not for fans of clubs that operate in their means when they're pitted against teams with limitless pockets.

[Chester Perry]

I don't think being a going concern is enough. Clubs should only be able to spend the money they earn without borrowing millions. Some clubs have such rich owners they can continue to spend money without risk.

even I cannot agree with that

[clarethomer]

This had already been posted on two other threads before this was created

And?

Surely if CT wants to get an opinion from users on this message board about this (which I assume he will be using to help him formulate actions/how he represents the fans for our club then he is within his right to do so?

We all know you write extensively on the subject of the business of football and are knowledgeable on the topic but I’ve noticed it of late (and it could just be the way I read your posts at times) that many of your posts seem to point out you talked about it first. Not sure what benefit this adds to a post?

I find the MMT thread overbearing to read and often very hard to follow as posts are what is topical of the moment so it may be that information gets lost in the detail in there.

[dandeclaret]

Lots of proposed solutions not problem definitions there, no doubt people will feel there are issues, but describe the problem let others with different interests/perspectives overlay with their problem description (it creates a more true and fuller picture), have everybody truly understand everybody's perspective and then you will have a foundation on which to build consensus going forward.

Consensus is the route if you want it to last

1) There is too much money taken out of a community game by take out merchants..... find a way to stop this

2) Legacy fans, as the big 6 wanted to call them, are inconvenienced too often by the desire to satisfy new age fans. This needs to be rebalanced

3) Businesses need to be a going concern, find ways to ensure this happens

4) Fans are not considered meaningfully in the decisions that clubs make..... change this balance

Wasn't that much of a track to take was it?

[clarethomer]

Consider a regulator that aims to provide a sustainable market for clubs to operate and operate in a way that protects fans.

Working in financial services, I could see some similarities to how this industry is regulated. Having fit and proper tests, expecting firms to demonstrate financial resilience and to have good customer outcomes at the heart of what they do.

Banks require capital in place and will have to demonstrate that they can survive through financial crashes etc.

Borrowers are similarly stressed tested for increased interest rates etc.

I could see some of these principles translating well across.

The system is not perfect but the regulation works on the whole very well.

[Chester Perry]

1) There is too much money taken out of a community game by take out merchants..... find a way to stop this

2) Legacy fans, as the big 6 wanted to call them, are inconvenienced too often by the desire to satisfy new age fans. This needs to be rebalanced

3) Businesses need to be a going concern, find ways to ensure this happens

4) Fans are not considered meaningfully in the decisions that clubs make..... change this balance

Wasn't that much of a track to take was it?

and I am sure that if you were to adopt the perspective of other interested parties (particularly ones you do not care for but actually have a legitimate interest) the descriptions would become fuller and much more nuanced

[Paul Waine]

It would be sensible if the review looks at governance structures (or absence of them) in other sports, in addition to looking at football governance in other countries. Yes, football is different from cricket, rugby, cycling, tennis, athletics, motor sport, horse racing - some sports the participants compete as individuals only, others compete as teams. Some have strong fan relationships others are much freer in their supporter/spectator linkages.

I agree with CP: the issues must be well defined and understood, otherwise the solutions will not be the right solutions. There is a big risk that "the baby is thrown out with the bath water" and/or that any proposed solution is unworkable and nothing gets actioned and resolved.

And, remember, Boaty McBoatface: when people are asked what they want the outcomes can be "unexpected" and even bizarre.

[ClaretTony]

Surely if CT wants to get an opinion from users on this message board about this (which I assume he will be using to help him formulate actions/how he represents the fans for our club then he is within his right to do so?

That’s exactly what I’m doing.

[Paul Waine]

And?

Surely if CT wants to get an opinion from users on this message board about this (which I assume he will be using to help him formulate actions/how he represents the fans for our club then he is within his right to do so?

We all know you write extensively on the subject of the business of football and are knowledgeable on the topic but I’ve noticed it of late (and it could just be the way I read your posts at times) that many of your posts seem to point out you talked about it first. Not sure what benefit this adds to a post?

I find the MMT thread overbearing to read and often very hard to follow as posts are what is topical of the moment so it may be that information gets lost in the detail in there.

Hi homer, I agree with you that we should keep discussion of the "fan-led review" T&Cs on this thread.

However, I think you do CP a disservice in "knocking" the MMT thread. Yes, it's different. Yes, it touches on many topics that will also appear on their own thread. That's the result of the MMT having a single theme which is "money in football" in all it's manifestations, including, sometimes comparing football with other sports and, maybe, other activities of the owners and others involved in football. So, by it's nature, it is very wide ranging.

Also, by it's nature, many topics will have been reported - because that's what CP is doing - on the MMT, before they become the "topic de jour" and get their own thread(s). There's no harm in that. I find it re-assuring that CP can often say "I've already posted on the MMT." I know he's not claiming that we should not therefore have a new thread that is specific to the topic.

Hope that's OK with you.

UTC

[Chester Perry]

And?

Surely if CT wants to get an opinion from users on this message board about this (which I assume he will be using to help him formulate actions/how he represents the fans for our club then he is within his right to do so?

We all know you write extensively on the subject of the business of football and are knowledgeable on the topic but I’ve noticed it of late (and it could just be the way I read your posts at times) that many of your posts seem to point out you talked about it first. Not sure what benefit this adds to a post?

I find the MMT thread overbearing to read and often very hard to follow as posts are what is topical of the moment so it may be that information gets lost in the detail in there.

such references are made where there is additional relevant material to be found.

over the years I have been very supportive of the need for breakout, stand alone threads on topics/posts from the MMT partly for the reasons you state and partly because that thread doesn't need to get loaded with distracting conversation, as you say there is no lack of density to the material in there already.

The MMT covers a myriad of intertwining themes, the detail is hard to digest at times I agree, but as it becomes a more widely discussed topic so more material comes out. I share much less than half of what I read, and only if I believe it is relevant (a filter that may be problematic from a range of perspective sense) because I am aware that many struggle with the depth and breadth. In the last year in particular the subject matter has come much more into mainstream focus, feel free to treat it as a resource, it has become more searchable, though as always there is no obligation to even acknowledge it's existence.

[Chester Perry]

That’s exactly what I’m doing.

and I have absolutely no issue with that

[ClaretTony]

It would help with this thread if we stick to the subject - I thought it was a good opportunity to seek thoughts ahead of the review.

[clansman]

Firstly well done CT for pointing out the Government had issued this document, which I wasn’t aware of until this post.
Secondly, I think comments should be thoughtful and well considered so let’s all think first.!
Let’s not get smart and clever but come up with practical solutions and suggestions.

[MrTopTier]

In a previous life a long time ago, I used to write terms of reference for civil service departments.

Things have not changed and whilst I welcome the good intentions outlined the reality will be somewhat different, there will be a lot of talk around this now particularly with what has gone on this week and then it will disappear along with its recommendations.

I could write a whole raft of ideas and suggestions, the
power in football is with the owners of the Premier League and that will not change, fans are commodity nothing more. The only thing that matters is money.

The FA is weak, the PFA is weak, the EFl are week and what you see time and time again is poor ownership of clubs.

Until the game is governed by a strong governing body nothing will change, it has to come from the top and work it’s way down.

Sorry for the doom and gloom, but football is only heading in one direction, the idea of the European Super league is a prime example of this

[superdimitri]

even I cannot agree with that

So you're happy that we have to play teams that instead of generating their own income, can piggyback on the riches of their owners (and or there royalties, businesses etc)?

I don't understand how that's fair, these clubs are already so greedy and the ESL fiasco just highlights how out of control they've already become.

There needs to be some global collaboration with this, if the big teams feel they need to keep spending big then they should do so within their own means and not with money for nothing. Players won't move abroad if every country keeps finances manageable.

German clubs like Bayern are the best example. Their debt tends to run under 5% of their revenue.

[Bobzuruncle]

This pandemic has shown more than ever how even the existence of football helps people and communities.
I would certainly have an agenda item to address how to keep football clubs community based and how they can help in their communities. Inherent to this is prevention of franchise system being adopted in future.

[Suratclaret]

As has been said on a number of occasions on this message board, fans seem to be becoming less and less relevant to many clubs presumably because of the money coming into the game from TV etc. I realise that all games kicking off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon is a thing of the past but TV scheduling at times contributes to fans becoming irrelevant. Time and time again, fans justifiably complain about fixtures being moved to totally inconvenient times but TV finances the clubs so there appears nothing that can be done about it.
I'm taking a risk by mentioning Jeremy Corbyn but didn't he want fans' representatives on the board of clubs? Personally I think that would be a good idea. At least they would be genuine supporters.

[Duffer_]

I appreciate the challenges trying to retro-fit the German 50+1 model to English clubs but ownership is key.

I was surprised how relatively few Burnley fans had an issue with MG, a self confessed custodian, profiting to the tune of c£100m from his involvement with BFC. A lot of people were happy to view it through the lens of a regular commercial enterprise rather than a community based asset.

My suggestion of MG gifting some of his shares to a supporters based trust or similar, and reducing his personal gain, was met with derision in some quarters. Wind forward four months and ownership is being critically examined in a way that it wasn't during our takeover. I came to the conclusion that supporters need a seat at the table, a voice in the boardroom to protect our interests and believe ours may be a story of missed opportunity.

Building on some of the points made above from other posters why not consider a mechansim that moves us towards the 50+1 model over time, rather than in one fell swoop? Every extraction of value from a club made by the owners and related parties (whether that be dividends, profit on sale of shares, dividends etc) attracts a "share transfer tax" that increases the ownership of the supporters trust and dilutes the levels of private ownership. The "share transfer tax" is set at a level that allows the private owners to recover their investment, and possibly a standard modest return set by the regulator, whilst transitioning to the 50+1 model over time.

I know this would not be easy,. There could be challenges with transparency and attempts at circumvention and obfuscation but where there's a will there's a way. I hope the failed ESL project proves to be a wake up call for all those that have been complacent, and a reminder for all those that preached free market economy principles in football, that football clubs are not commodities and that they are nothing without fans.

[elwaclaret]

such references are made where there is additional relevant material to be found.

over the years I have been very supportive of the need for breakout, stand alone threads on topics/posts from the MMT partly for the reasons you state and partly because that thread doesn't need to get loaded with distracting conversation, as you say there is no lack of density to the material in there already.

The MMT covers a myriad of intertwining themes, the detail is hard to digest at times I agree, but as it becomes a more widely discussed topic so more material comes out. I share much less than half of what I read, and only if I believe it is relevant (a filter that may be problematic from a range of perspective sense) because I am aware that many struggle with the depth and breadth. In the last year in particular the subject matter has come much more into mainstream focus, feel free to treat it as a resource, it has become more searchable, though as always there is no obligation to even acknowledge it's existence.

As you know CP you thread is what I turn to to see deeper... I have no time to do such research for myself so for me it is a Godsend... I also like that you quite often offer further reading and opinions when asked. It is a great body of work. Thank you.

Ps. I will give this issue my proper attention hopefully before the end of the weekend to fully appreciate the points made by others, and possibly add my six penneth. At the moment my head is full of Covert operations in Laos, which leaves me brain tired and likely to wander off track.