• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Proposed regulator will have powers to resolve how money flows down in football… thoughts?

And this, my friends is a reason why our Southend MPs are seemingly so enthusiasticly supportive of Ron in the high court. Not because of any trust in him, but more to get the inside track on the much bigger picture (aka Ron's web of shell companies). This insight will be quietly making its way into the mix, and will indirectly help conclude a change of ownership.
 
I agree, it will certainly put a stop Ron's gallop.
I doubt he fits any of the criteria of ownership and seriously doubt that owning a football club will appeal to him or his family.
I noted a line on the BBC website that there will be stricter entry requirements on clubs in financial peril, or something along those lines.

This would just appear to be repeating the same mistakes. Punishing clubs for poor ownership rather than the owners themselves. We would be a prime contender to fail these tests at the moment, when the fault is not ours but the owner.

The review as a whole is badly needed but as londonblue says, the devil will be in the detail.
 
With any luck this will mean we will be classed in the "high risk" category and as such RM will be subject to these tests in Year 1 of roll-out. Obviously we don't know if/when roll-out will happen, but we should be lobbying perhaps Anna Firth to make sure we are at the very top of the pile on roll-out.

1677146251573.png

1677146270185.png
 
A NEW independent football regulator will have “targeted powers” to step in and resolve how money flows from the Premier League down the pyramid, and to stop clubs from joining breakaway leagues.

Read more on this story


Help with Echo links
They may have targeted powers to resolve how money flows but the regulator will invariably come from the EPL clubs and be aligned with their interests, be lobbied extensively by the EPL and have lawsuits threatened by the EPL clubs.
 
Sadly far to many fans will believe this nonsense.

If only they could realise they already have so much power. Still credit to the 0.01%.... They do a fantastic job into making you believe you need them.
 
After only taking a brief look at the proposals it seems issues regarding ownership only applies to PL and EFL clubs. It probably doesn't include the National League right down to Sunday pub teams.
The regulator will operate down to tier five. And they will be looking at financial control, governance, business planning and fan engagement (amongst other things). But league status will have a bearing on what is expected of clubs - the aims to make sure that the burden is proportionate and costs of compliance aren't excessive.

Still a lot of practical questions to be addressed, but there is an awful lot in there that is pleasing.
 
Reading the white page, it is going to be a subjective mess with the whole thing based on a case by case basis.

For example, an example of an unsuitable custodian includes owners with long histories of bankruptcies, owners with criminal convictions, money laundering etc.

There is then the fit and proper test, which is decided around the 'honesty, financial soundness and competence' to be suitable of football clubs.

It then goes on to say, 'Fitness and propriety tests should be objective and evidence-based. The regulator must not form subjective judgements or opinions regarding an individual's reputation, character or integrity'.

If we look at the case on our situation, if we were going off character and what is to be believe, Ron would be ****ed. However, going off evidence based approach, Ron wouldn't have actually met the criteria of being an unsuitable custodian until recently? (the lack of pay in recent months of course, but prior to the new year for example...)

Furthermore, I wonder what how 'independent' the regulator would be from the government... How they would judge business plans in our case. For example, there is no way to make Roots Hall profitable. There is also the government Homes England loan to FF to be built. Would they see the current business plan as viable?

What would also be interesting is how they can force clubs to be sold if the owner is not fit?

Unless I missed it, it says a lot about preventing the sale of assets (stadium etc), but it doesn't go into how they will force the stadiums to be bought back into club ownership..?
 
bazillerobbie has been helpful and generous to us in sharing information about the fight to save Blackpool during which he has been central, and has also been keeping us right up to date with the Independent Review in to the future Governance of football

With his permission I would like to share his recent letter to the Blackpool Gazette which he wrote on behalf of his Trust. I feel this is an excellent summary of the issues encountered in our unbalanced football world of today and hope you feel the same

ARTICLE FOR THE BLACKPOOL GAZETTE : FEBRUARY 2023


This article is written as the Government finally publishes its long-awaited White Paper on the future of English football. It is a sign of how much popular opinion around the game has hardened in the last five years that it is being received with very widespread approval. When BST first petitioned Parliament for an independent regulator back in 2018, we may have been genuine visionaries, but 15,000 or so signatures seemed a poor reward for our efforts.

In recent times we have had disasters at Macclesfield and Bury, bizarre governance failures at Wigan and Derby (to name but two) and even today Chelsea, Manchester City, Everton, Birmingham, West Brom, Rochdale and Morecambe are operating under a cloud of one kind or another. Unless they pay HMRC what they owe, Southend United may have been wound up by this time next week - after a proud 116 year history. The names change, but the tune remains the same.

This is in part a situation driven by money - and who in the English game has it. A couple of weeks ago journalist Oliver Holt wrote a coruscating piece about the state of the game, when he pointed out - again - that the current distribution of revenue is grossly distorted. The twenty EPL clubs and the five who get parachute payments will this season share 92% of the TV money, while the other 67 clubs in the EFL are left to share the other 8%. Even at the lower end, a Championship club gets ten times as much money as one in League 2. It is a largely self-selecting elite, created almost by stealth.

Money is not the only issue, important though it is. There are some good owners in the English pyramid, who pour amazing levels of time, money and energy into making their clubs a sustainable part of the local community. But there are others - particularly in the Championship - who are prepared to bet the house on the dream of making it into the EPL. Derby County are probably the most notorious example of this, but the Division has numerous clubs within it who spend getting on for two pounds for every pound that they take in. It is madness on an epic scale, and built upon a false premise - namely, that being in the EPL is a license to print money. But taking Brighton and Aston Villa as examples, these are clubs who have between them LOST nearly a billion pounds in the last decade or so. They rely solely on the generosity of a rich benefactor - who will not be around for ever.

The interests of fans get completely lost in all this. We rarely know very much about the way in which our clubs budget, and are very lucky indeed if they involve us in long term business planning. Recent history shows lots of examples of clubs who are willing to take sponsorship money from an array of dubious partners - unless they are shamed out of it by fan activism and a small number of heroic journalists who shine a light on these practices. It should not be like this.

For a club like Blackpool, and an owner like Mr. Sadler, there is currently a very finite limit to how much we can achieve. Being a small club in our Division, we are squeezed by the way the TV money is split AND by the fact that some clubs can get crowds that are over twice the size of our own. However well we are run, and however well our team is coached - the playing field is stacked against us. Until change comes, we have as fans to manage our expectations - something that we all find very difficult to do. It is another reason why reform is needed, because clubs like ours are just as entitled to compete fairly - and dream - as anyone else.

The current proposals are therefore very welcome. We are not being offered everything that BST asked for when we responded to the Tracey Crouch review. but we are being promised most of the important things : independent regulation, protected rights for supporters, new and tougher tests for Owners and Directors and a licensing system which will hopefully cut out some of the worst business practices that we currently see.

The big uncertainty remains how the TV Money cake gets sliced up, and the EFL and the EPL continue to drag their heels on a new and fairer approach. One of the things we feel MUST happen is that the independent regulator will have the power to impose a settlement, if the two big leagues can't or won't agree one. It wouldn't solve all the game's troubles - but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

What is being proposed in the White Paper is the biggest shake-up the game has experienced in over a century. It has come about partly because of failures at clubs like Bury, and certainly in part due to the fiasco of the European Super League, which exposed the unprincipled greed of some club owners for all to see.

But it is also in large part due to the power of fan activism. We are very lucky in England that so many sets of club supporters up and down the country are prepared to get organised to fight for themselves and for the institutions they believe in. So these reforms are a victory for the fans of clubs like Coventry, Blackpool, Leyton Orient, Charlton and Oldham who went to the edge of the abyss and fought to give their clubs a future.

It's also a victory for the fans of clubs like Rochdale, Hereford and Dulwich Hamlet, because even clubs of their size sometimes face real problems and they also fought to save their clubs from them, with nothing in the way of resources apart from their own talent and a lot of hard work.

Finally, it is a victory for fans nationally. The White Paper shows that the Football Supporters Association (FSA), acting on behalf of us all, has comprehensively won the battle of ideas about how the game should look in years to come. The test now will be to turn those ideas from Government policy into law that delivers what is intended.

The ability of fans to achieve this rests in part on our ability to organise ourselves; and the mandate that we draw from having people signed up as members of the FSA and the supporter groups that go to make it up.

If you want to be part of this revolution, and especially if you think you have specialist skills to offer, there has never been a better time to stand up and be counted. Joining your club's Supporters Trust gives you a democratic stake in your club's future and that of the competitions that it plays in.

If that sound appealing, contact us at :

memberships@blackpoolsupporterstrust.com

We would be delighted to hear from you.


Why does BST attach such importance to all of this?


There are three central pillars supporting all that we do :


  • we want what is best for our fans
  • we want what is best for our football club….
  • …. and we want what is best for our local community

The White Paper is a once in a generation opportunity to bring in change that brings benefits in all three of these vital areas :


for fans, it is a chance to create new rights and protections for us, and put us at the heart of the way in which our club is run.

for clubs, a chance to achieve far greater equity in the way that money moves sound the game, put them on a sounder financial footing and make them better able to compete

last, but not least, football clubs are a part of the fabric of local communities. Prosperous and competitive clubs that are financially sound brings great social and economic benefits to the areas they represent, as well as being a source of civil pride that is perhaps unique in our society. They are ALL worth fighting for.

This is just a beginning, and there is much yet to do. But if you care about football’s future, this is an important moment.

BST Committee
February 2023
 
I'd have liked to be able introduce you to any random group of Blackpool fans back in 2014-2018, so you could explain to them how much "power" they had.

The first thing I would ask them is how many of you wanted Oyston out in 2010.

Anyway I didn't mean just individual clubs I meant football fans as one big group.
 
The first thing I would ask them is how many of you wanted Oyston out in 2010.

Anyway I didn't mean just individual clubs I meant football fans as one big group.

The honest answer to your question is - not many, but there were some. By 2012 there were significantly more, by 2014 the boycott was all under way and by the end of the 14/15 season around 90% were staying away - and did so until March 2019. Had we known back then what the 2017 court case told us, the exodus would have started much earlier.

As to your second point - I shared the article for the benefit of all Shrimpers, not just you.
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary Andys man club
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top