Football Governance Bill (Independent Regulator)

MPs also voted against a requirement for prospective board chairs of the Regulator to publish their political interests and donations.

That amendment was tabled after the government's proposed chair of the new independent regulator, David Kogan, becoming the subject of an inquiry by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Kogan had contributed money to the Labour leadership campaigns of Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, leading to claims of "cronyism" from Conservative MPs.


----------------


Move on, nothing to see here.
 
mexico1970 said:
All this regulator really is is someone else who has access to the trough, imagine some government quango having authority over football?

It's going to be an abomination. Lots and lots of Monkey Dust content :)
Click to expand...
What do you think the job of the Regulator is going to be?
 
mexico1970 said:
Fuck only knows, initially I thought it might just be interference but on further inspection my prediction is that it'll be a lot worse than that.

www.gov.uk

Fact sheet: Football Governance Bill - the Independent Football Regulator (IFR)

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Well my reading of what you linked and from listening to Lisa Nandy, Kieran McGuire -‘d another academic who drafted the White Paper talking about it -

It’s going to be light touch so only really get involved where it feels that the football governing bodies either need a hand or guidance.

1) It’s going to set into law the fit and proper person owners test so that clubs are less likely to go bust like Bury or end up with terrible owners like at Reading, Southend, Sheffield Wednesday, Morecambe etc. The regulator will have the power to step in to deal with clubs in crisis.

2) It’s going to sort the impasse between the PL & EFL over the distribution of TV revenue. They’ve been haggling for years over it and the PL are purposefully dragging their feet so that they don’t have share money down the pyramid.

3) They are going to protect the heritage of clubs so that owners can’t come in and for example - change the name of a club (Hull Tigers) or the colour of the kit (Cardiff) or move the club to a different town or city (Wimbledon) without fans being properly engaged and consulted.

That’s it.

Nothing to do with ticket prices. Beer in stands. Terrestrial TV coverage. Or anything else.

I’m not really sure why fans wouldn’t want any of the above.
 
moggymoz said:
I'll answer this, NO. I own a Firestick, so interest in Footy isn't waning, I alongside thousands of other fans just refuse to pay our hard earned money to the likes of sky and tnt and another bonus is I can watch a game without the likes of spitty, camel gob and the rest of the cunts commentating on a game.
Click to expand...
I think this is very valid and just highlights that the 'product' isn't appealing (not the football itself, but the package you have to buy to engage with it legitimately) when they wrap it up in sky gift paper and charge a fortune for it every month, then you find out some of the pieces are missing so you need a TNT subscription, then Amazon prime.

It's no coincidence that music and video game piracy dropped dramatically when the product themselves were made more accessible, cheaper (but not as cheap as the Russian knock off sites so still profit to be made) and equally through different platforms.

The issue we have in England is, this profitability drives the clubs to invest, buy better players, the best players in fact, which makes the league more attractive/profitable, which attracts more investment and do on and so on.

The problem comes when the product becomes too unattractive for too many punters. Less subscribers means less audience means less value generated through sponsorship and ads. How does it become less attractive? Well either the football becomes boring, or you have a financial downturn and people look elsewhere for value.




The short version is, I don't think the premier League, rather ironically, have a very sustainable financial model. They protect clubs taking money out of the game, yet punish those wanting to bring it in . The greed of the few is driving them, and it could end up risking the league's reputation as the best in the world. Whether this new independent regulator changes that, or speeds it up, is going to be interesting.
 
TheGhost said:
Well my reading of what you linked and from listening to Lisa Nandy, Kieran McGuire -‘d another academic who drafted the White Paper talking about it -

It’s going to be light touch so only really get involved where it feels that the football governing bodies either need a hand or guidance.

1) It’s going to set into law the fit and proper person owners test so that clubs are less likely to go bust like Bury or end up with terrible owners like at Reading, Southend, Sheffield Wednesday, Morecambe etc. The regulator will have the power to step in to deal with clubs in crisis.

2) It’s going to sort the impasse between the PL & EFL over the distribution of TV revenue. They’ve been haggling for years over it and the PL are purposefully dragging their feet so that they don’t have share money down the pyramid.

3) They are going to protect the heritage of clubs so that owners can’t come in and for example - change the name of a club (Hull Tigers) or the colour of the kit (Cardiff) or move the club to a different town or city (Wimbledon) without fans being properly engaged and consulted.

That’s it.

Nothing to do with ticket prices. Beer in stands. Terrestrial TV coverage. Or anything else.

I’m not really sure why fans wouldn’t want any of the above.
Click to expand...

I would prefer if the government weren't involved it any of it other than football clubs breaking the law because no good will come of it.

The fit and proper test for example will still allow owners like the Glazers to do business, and if anyone believes that this new regulator will help "smaller" clubs they live in dreamland.

Divvying out more money to those clubs will eventually lead to players being even more expensive because clubs will have more money, or even attract more unscrupulous owners who may eye more profit in a lower league set up.

If the regulator can't do much what was the point in setting it up? The first red flag is their appointee IMO, shows where they are possibly going with this.
 
mexico1970 said:
I would prefer if the government weren't involved it any of it other than football clubs breaking the law because no good will come of it.

The fit and proper test for example will still allow owners like the Glazers to do business, and if anyone believes that this new regulator will help "smaller" clubs they live in dreamland.

Divvying out more money to those clubs will eventually lead to players being even more expensive because clubs will have more money, or even attract more unscrupulous owners who may eye more profit in a lower league set up.

If the regulator can't do much what was the point in setting it up? The first red flag is their appointee IMO, shows where they are possibly going with this.
Click to expand...

You must think the football governing bodies are doing a great job then. I would say they need to be forced to do a better job.
 
TheGhost said:
You must think the football governing bodies are doing a great job then. I would say they need to be forced to do a better job.
Click to expand...

I think it's all just about money, however I am a pragmatist and think the government will just fuck it all up and interfere without changing anything/

It's fans that change things not more people slurping from the same trough.
 
mexico1970 said:
Kogan had contributed money to the Labour leadership campaigns of Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, leading to claims of "cronyism" from Conservative MPs.
Click to expand...
I mean the fucking irony, but yeah. Isn't it funny how these important positions just happen to go to someone who donated a large amount of money to the people who happen to be in charge at the time?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I mean the fucking irony, but yeah. Isn't it funny how these important positions just happen to go to someone who donated a large amount of money to the people who happen to be in charge at the time?
Click to expand...

Isn't it just mate, doesn't matter what political divide it is it always seems the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top