The Times today, albion protest picture

[Mr Popkins]

In the T2 supplement today theres an article on changing the Law on football chairman

Theres a colour picture of the Albion protest 1996 ,with us all walking down Queens Road

 

[H2O]

quality picture thats two of my mates carrying the banner I didnt no he knew so many long words

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

can someone put a picture up on here please

 

[Beach Hut]

You need to be registered which probably means paying

 

[sully]

You need to be registered which probably means paying

Nah. It's free to register, but I can't find the article or any pictures. What was the article called - I'll have another look if someone can let me know.

Typically, the office copy from yesterday is missing!

 

[H2O]

the article was called football fitness test it was on the times website in the T2 supplement section but you had to register to get on it.

 

[H2O]

this is the article but there was no picture






Football fitness test
by julian moore and brett israel
Ensuring that clubs don't fall into the wrong hands is a challenge





ABOUT the time that Roman Abramovich was taking over Chelsea Football Club last summer, something similar was taking place up the M1 at the somewhat less glamorous Luton Town.

As Chelsea’s supporters were learning about the background and pedigree of their new mystery owner, Luton’s supporters were raising concerns about theirs. While Chelsea’s dreams were being turned into reality, though, Luton’s appeared to be quickly turning into a nightmare.

The man behind Luton’s takeover was a controversial character whose interests in the club itself appeared to be secondary to other non-football interests. The Football Association (FA) was also concerned about the club’s future financial stability under its new owner. His timely removal from the club was accomplished through actions instigated by the Luton Town Supporters’ Trust.

The supporters of other clubs have been less able than those at Luton to bring pressure to bear for the removal of unwanted owners and many in football have, for some time, been demanding that the authorities implement a “fit and proper” test for football directors and/or those with significant shareholdings to screen out unsuitable individuals (for example — although neither applied in the case of Luton Town — undischarged bankrupts and individuals with criminal pasts).

Recently the Football League agreed in principle to introduce such a test for directors of its member clubs. However, as is widely recognised (not least by the FA), the implementation and policing of such a test would be riddled with potential difficulties. On the face of it, the obvious target for any such test would be those in day-to-day control of the club — its directors. Indeed, there is already a statutory framework in place that governs the disqualification of directors deemed to be unfit to hold such office. But the proponent behind the takeover at Luton did not appoint himself as a director. He tried to push others into the limelight while retaining control through a majority shareholding and would not, therefore, have been subject to such a test.

Yet as a matter of law it would not be feasible for any governing body to prevent or impose conditions on the sale and purchase of shares in a private company. Any penalties for noncompliance with a fit and proper test applied to all shareholders would therefore have to be imposed on the club as a whole through, for example, the deduction of points or imposition of transfer embargoes or fines. From the perspective of players and supporters, these would miss the intended target and provoke opposition. Additionally, as the FA has argued, the test could discourage investment in football clubs and lead to a significant increase in unwanted bureaucracy. After all, why should wealthy individuals who are willing to plough their millions into British football clubs have to face that sort of inconvenience, especially when it could be easier to invest in clubs playing in less-regulated leagues in other countries?

Also, many clubs have experienced financial problems not because of the unlawful acts or backgrounds of those in control but because of the financial mismanagement of perhaps well-meaning but ultimately over-ambitious directors, not all of whom would have fallen foul of the proposed test.

All involved in football recognise the need for tighter corporate governance and that the game still has a long way to go to clean up its act. But it is far easier to recognise the difficulties than it is to offer proportionate and effective solutions.

That said, although the authorities may encounter difficulties in the effective introduction of a fit and proper test, it should not be ruled out. Meanwhile, committed supporters throughout the country will continue their great efforts to monitor those in charge of clubs, making an invaluable contribution to those clubs and the communities that they serve.


Julian Moore is a solicitor in the dispute resolution department and Brett Israel is a corporate recovery partner at Bird & Bird. Both act for the Luton Town Supporters’ Trust and other connected parties

 

[unnameable]

It is amusing that one of the lawyers quoted, a personal injury specialist, is called Paul Kitson.