FSA AGM - reportedly a fans' motion supportive of APT rules proposed

Joe Blott from Spirit of Shankly who led this motion , who seems to question City’s owners as being fit and proper , seems to have got rich a few years ago with his own legal challenge.

I have it on good authority he is an ego driven careerist who wants to get to the top of the tree amongst football fans nationally. Many LFC fans have apparently tried to reason with him over the years.

It’s like Ken Dodd trying to give a lecture on legal matters whilst having half a million under the bed in stuffed brown envelopes.


https://johnbrace.com/senior-manage...oss-misconduct-for-email-about-joe-blott/amp/

https://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/spot-the-blott/

wirralleaks.wordpress.com

Blott’s Pension Pot

As we exclusively revealed in February Wirral Council Super – Duper Director Joe Blott is about to escape. Most appropriately the article featured a ticking clock as we can only imagine that …
wirralleaks.wordpress.com wirralleaks.wordpress.com
 
pottsy said:
Joe Blott from Spirit of Shankly who led this motion , who seems to question City’s owners as being fit and proper , seems to have got rich a few years ago with his own legal challenge.

I have it on good authority he is an ego driven careerist who wants to get to the top of the tree amongst football fans nationally. Many LFC fans have apparently tried to reason with him over the years.

It’s like Ken Dodd trying to give a lecture on legal matters whilst having half a million under the bed in stuffed brown envelopes.


https://johnbrace.com/senior-manage...oss-misconduct-for-email-about-joe-blott/amp/

https://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/spot-the-blott/

wirralleaks.wordpress.com

Blott’s Pension Pot

As we exclusively revealed in February Wirral Council Super – Duper Director Joe Blott is about to escape. Most appropriately the article featured a ticking clock as we can only imagine that …
wirralleaks.wordpress.com wirralleaks.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
Eccles Blue said:
Sorry. :-( :-)
Click to expand...
Ha! Though joking apart, here is another topic discussed at the meeting.....

The huge progress made in recent years to make football more welcoming and accessible to all regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender. However, there remains a number of issues with regards young children and their parents/caregivers attending live football matches.

This includes ticketing, bag policies, facilities such as baby changing, breastfeeding, pram and buggy storage.
 
pottsy said:
Joe Blott from Spirit of Shankly who led this motion , who seems to question City’s owners as being fit and proper , seems to have got rich a few years ago with his own legal challenge.

I have it on good authority he is an ego driven careerist who wants to get to the top of the tree amongst football fans nationally. Many LFC fans have apparently tried to reason with him over the years.

It’s like Ken Dodd trying to give a lecture on legal matters whilst having half a million under the bed in stuffed brown envelopes.


https://johnbrace.com/senior-manage...oss-misconduct-for-email-about-joe-blott/amp/

https://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/spot-the-blott/

wirralleaks.wordpress.com

Blott’s Pension Pot

As we exclusively revealed in February Wirral Council Super – Duper Director Joe Blott is about to escape. Most appropriately the article featured a ticking clock as we can only imagine that …
wirralleaks.wordpress.com wirralleaks.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
Which one is he?
 

Attachments

  • 1000006936.jpg
    1000006936.jpg
    177.5 KB · Views: 19
Luddite_Blue said:
For my sins, I signed up to Henry Winter's free substack which I normally just skim read. Anyway in his latest missive Winter reports back on the FSA AGM. It seems a motion was put forward which, either directly or indirectly, was supportive of the need for the APT rules (highlighted below).

There is clearly huge irony in this piece as after effectively calling for sponsorships to be restricted, the next paragraph in the article mentions a motion on increasing ticket prices!!! Such a lack of joined up thinking probably explains why fan run clubs have always failed in the UK.

Further, if there was a choice of higher sponsorships and lower ticket prices then wouldn't most PL/EFL fans be in favour of that? It seems to me the fan groups, and by extension the FSA, are greatly overstepping their remit with such a motion.

Is anyone here a member of the FSA who could confirm the exact motion that was proposed and which club's supporters proposed,seconded and voted for this motion?


As dangers to their clubs increase, fans become more assertive and combine more, especially when provided the platform by the Football Supporters Association. At its AGM at Wembley over the weekend, a motion “opposing domestic football matches being played overseas” was proposed by Arsenal Supporters Trust and seconded by Cherries Trust, Manchester United Supporters Trust, Pompey Trust, Spirit of Shankly, Wrexham Supporters Trust.

All have American owners or co-owners, not all of whom are pushing for games in their homeland but everyone can see the direction of travel. Go west. The huge numbers being crunched Stateside will inevitably appeal to some of the 92 clubs, especially those struggling to comply with Profit & Sustainability Rules, seeking more power in the transfer market and facing ever rising player salaries. Arsenal play United in a friendly at SoFi Stadium on Sunday, a fixture that some influential people want played in its competitive form.

Clubs can also expand their global fanbase and enhance marketing and merchandising operations. The attraction is obvious and it would be a major surprise if a Premier League game was not played in Boston, New York, Miami or LA within the next five years. Enough people are already working on it.

Such an event, however inevitable, must be resisted at all costs for all manner of reasons. It is an insult to season-ticket holders, many of whom pride themselves on never missing a game. It is a challenge in time and money to travel to a match overseas. It harms the sporting integrity of the EPL or EFL by removing one club’s home game, and all the advantages that can bring. Owners pushing for games aboard undermine one of the strengths of the EPL that make it so popular: its competitive nature. It won’t be a middle-of-the-table game either. Those paying the big bucks will demand big names, big stakes.

Right-minded executives in the EPL can see the damage and try to slow the inevitable. Fans can see the menace and, as their motion highlighted, seek to “make representations to the Fifa working group against allowing competition organisers and clubs to move their domestic matches to international jurisdictions”. Fifa already

Fans want to ensure the FA, EPL and EFL also “oppose” these proposals. Fans also want the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) to arrive as quickly as possible with “robust measures for fans to have a meaningful say to block proposals to relocate domestic games overseas”.

Another motion focused on the dysfunctional EPL family becoming even more splintered and damaging the competition. Fans called for “continued action to address the increasing risk of challenges to the sporting integrity and competitive balance of our game”, especially following Manchester City’s legal action against the Premier League “arguing that the league’s Associated Party Transactions rules were unlawful and anti-competitive”.

APT rules are designed, as the fans say, “to ensure that club owners cannot use their vast wealth to inflate sponsorship deals and manipulate transfer dealings, leading to higher revenue with a consequent increase in spending power and an ability to get round Financial Fair Play restrictions”. This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

All the speculation about transfers and managerial appointments pale into insignificance compared to the issues raised by fans at Wembley, issues that menace the game. The motion highlighted why this attack on competitive balance should “be of concern to all fans”. Fans demand more of a concerted challenge to clubs, urge the incoming IFR to take a stance and also for all fans to work with football authorities.

Fans note that “as clubs scramble to remain competitive they are forever looking to increase ticket prices as they cite a need to ‘keep up’.” So much revolves around ticket prices, and whether fans feel properly valued.

Some clubs do appreciate and respect fans, communicate properly with them and are fair with any ticket price increases. Others just view fans as cash cows, especially when it comes to tickets. The final motion at the FSA AGM called for “co-ordinated action on the cost of football tickets”.

Proposed by Spirit of Shankly it was seconded by supporters of Arsenal, Manchester United, West Ham, Nottingham Forest, Wolves, Manchester City and Bournemouth. Groups like the Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust, Wolves 1877 Supporters Trust and City 1894 have earned plenty of praise for their robust response to ticket price hikes.

Ticket prices form a fraction of a club’s income compared to broadcast revenue. And why does English football so appeal to TV audiences? Star players and managers and international cast undeniably, and also the atmosphere whipped up by fans. Supporters should really invoice clubs for their role as essential “extras” in the show.

As the motion said, “despite the cost of living crisis and football clubs earning ever more income from broadcast and commercial income the cost of tickets increased at most clubs this year”. Fans also note that “many clubs are abolishing or reducing concessionary tickets penalising loyal senior fans and pricing out young fans who are the future of the game”.

The 18-24 age-group also needs protecting as those fans generate much of the atmosphere at a time when costs are particularly hard to bear as they seek employment, head into the workforce or college, amidst all the assorted expenses of the rental or property market.

Fans call for the IFR “to have involvement in ticketing pricing” and want the regulator to ensure fans to “have genuine input in their club’s ticketing policy”. Let’s hope the clubs are listening – and some are. English fans are rarely militant but there is a new mood in the stands and they have a forceful ally arriving in the IFR.
Click to expand...
APT rules are designed, as the fans say, “to ensure that club owners cannot use their vast wealth to inflate sponsorship deals and manipulate transfer dealings, leading to higher revenue with a consequent increase in spending power and an ability to get round Financial Fair Play restrictions”. This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

All the speculation about transfers and managerial appointments pale into insignificance compared to the issues raised by fans at Wembley, issues that menace the game. The motion highlighted why this attack on competitive balance should “be of concern to all fans”. Fans demand more of a concerted challenge to clubs, urge the incoming IFR to take a stance and also for all fans to work with football authorities.

Was going to take umbrage about the first paragraph, but it may be right, if you take those clubs that seek to be self sustaining, as those clubs that need to pay their shareholders dividend, it is highly likely that the gap between them and those that invest is growing. I did see a graph on youtube, a good few months back that showed, the gap between the top and the bottom, grew as a % on the introduction of FFP. On the second paragraph i also saw another graph, that showed of the four clubs, with the smallest sponsorship deals, 3 went down with well over 80% reliance on TV/PL fees. Perhaps we should ask these clubs what they need, to balance the competitive Menace?
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Taken from the FSA website

Motion two – Continued action to address the increasing risk of challenges to the sporting integrity and competitive balance of our game

Proposed by: Spirit of Shankly

Seconded by: Hammers United

The AGM Notes:

In June it was announced that Manchester City are legally challenging the Premier League arguing that the league’s Associated Party Transactions rules were unlawful and anti-competitive.

The outcome of the hearing is due later this year.

The rules regarding Associated Party transactions are designed to ensure that club owners cannot use their vast wealth to inflate sponsorship deals and manipulate transfer dealings, leading to higher revenue with a consequent increase in spending power and an ability to get around Financial Fair Play restrictions. The Premier League would argue that the objective is to maintain competitive balance.

The fact that the league’s ability to manage its competitive balance and sporting integrity is now at risk should be of concern to all football fans.
The spending gap between the top and bottom teams has increased considerably in recent years from between three to four times differential to more than five times. The latest challenge could mean that the gap could further increase.

This could mean that as clubs scramble to remain competitive they are forever looking to increase ticket prices as they cite a need to ‘keep up’. It will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models. Worst case is that some clubs could actually be at risk of failure meaning impact on the club, its fans and the local community in which they reside.

Whilst the introduction of an Independent Regulator would be an improvement on current governance, the proposals in the Football Governance Bill published in April 2024 did not allow its remit to cover the regulatory rules of the leagues themselves.

It is therefore vital that fans of all of our clubs fight to retain the competitive balance and sporting integrity of our game and challenge any club or clubs which put that at risk.

The AGM calls for the following actions:

For the FSA to:
– Continue its work to encourage the introduction of an Independent Football Regulator and for the regulator to have a duty to consider competitive balance
– To work with relevant football authorities to support the maintenance of clear and concise rules regarding Associated Party Transactions and other inter group transactions such as player trading and selling of assets such as training grounds
– To work with fan groups to challenge clubs whose actions call into question the sporting integrity of our game and to call for those who seek to challenge the competitive opportunities for other clubs
– To work with the football authorities to encourage further rulebook and regulatory changes that would ensure competitive balance between all clubs in the Premier League.

Vote – Motion carried unanimously
Click to expand...
Proposed by wankers, seconded by wankers.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Ha! Though joking apart, here is another topic discussed at the meeting.....

The huge progress made in recent years to make football more welcoming and accessible to all regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender. However, there remains a number of issues with regards young children and their parents/caregivers attending live football matches.

This includes ticketing, bag policies, facilities such as baby changing, breastfeeding, pram and buggy storage.
Click to expand...
We are now getting to the realms of stupidity. No baby who is still being breast fed should be at a football match.
 
pottsy said:
Joe Blott from Spirit of Shankly who led this motion , who seems to question City’s owners as being fit and proper , seems to have got rich a few years ago with his own legal challenge.

I have it on good authority he is an ego driven careerist who wants to get to the top of the tree amongst football fans nationally. Many LFC fans have apparently tried to reason with him over the years.

It’s like Ken Dodd trying to give a lecture on legal matters whilst having half a million under the bed in stuffed brown envelopes.


https://johnbrace.com/senior-manage...oss-misconduct-for-email-about-joe-blott/amp/

https://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/spot-the-blott/

wirralleaks.wordpress.com

Blott’s Pension Pot

As we exclusively revealed in February Wirral Council Super – Duper Director Joe Blott is about to escape. Most appropriately the article featured a ticking clock as we can only imagine that …
wirralleaks.wordpress.com wirralleaks.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

A Blott on the football landscape.

(Someone had to be first ........)
 
Blue Mist said:
We are now getting to the realms of stupidity. No baby who is still being breast fed should be at a football match.
Click to expand...
They can be at a game. I took my youngest a few times under 6 months. I took bottles of milk with me (obviously I wasn't going to get my tits out in the middle of the Family Stand).
I just feel fans are being too entitled. "Oh I need somewhere to put my buggy..."
I carried her in a sling.
The FSA needs to get back to real fan issues
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
When I was on the National Council, the FSF (as it was then) received funding from the PL (who gave it very reluctantly) as well as the PFA too. The PL funded it as they have to support various causes as part of their commitment to grass roots football and other aspects of the game. I recall after one meeting with the PL, which was quite heated, the PL ''threatened'' to pull the plug on the funding if the FSF continued to be a thorn in their side.....
They also received money from the Home Office for organising the Free Lions / and the Welsh equivalent free fanzines at England & Wales away games and associated costs of sending folk out there before hand to suss the place out etc.
Click to expand...
Are you Ann Marie perchance?
 
This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

They don't seem to understand what self-sustaining means:

A self self-sustaining process or system that is able to continue by itself without anyone or anything else being involved.
 
tregyblue61 said:
This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

They don't seem to understand what self-sustaining means:

A self self-sustaining process or system that is able to continue by itself without anyone or anything else being involved.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't include clubs which run up a billion pounds worth of debt and never pay it back.
 
Over the weekend both 1894 Group and the MCFC OSC have written to the FSA in very strong terms to say they are unhappy about the way this "anti-City motion" was raised. 1894 spoke to a couple of groups in particular, MUST and Hammers Utd, who were on the motion as seconders. They were given very short notice about it and some of them who did have a chance to amend (not us) wanted it making clear that the bill should not be seen as an attack on Manchester City or our fans - particularly (West Ham fan groups said this on record in front of everyone) more the concern that football clubs generally were going down a Litigation route on decisions that don't go their way...

How do people think the Premier League was formed in the first place ? By clubs threatening the football league with legal action in the first place !

We've asked for the way these motions get brought up to be changed. It's a premier league group of 20 clubs and their elected fan groups. 3 or 4 groups/clubs seem to have decided the wording of the motions themselves without giving anyone lease in the email chain the chance to amend before it goes onto the agenda. in other words a stitch up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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