Agreed, that's why I put in the caveat about good legislation. Often when something is done to be popular rather than to be watertight the legislation ends up with more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese.A Big if
Agreed, that's why I put in the caveat about good legislation. Often when something is done to be popular rather than to be watertight the legislation ends up with more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese.A Big if
Or the Sheffield United defenceAgreed, that's why I put in the caveat about good legislation. Often when something is done to be popular rather than to be watertight the legislation ends up with more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese.
The devil is in detail, but on the face of it seems like a good idea.If it does as promised and the regulations are both tight and well written in law then the Conservatives will have delivered one piece of legislation that I fully agree with.
The proof of whether the Regulator is likely to be of benefit will be how quickly they determine that the murderous bloody regime of Saudi Arabia is not "fit" to own an English football club.
Kick the Saudi's out by the start of next season and the Regulator will have started to do the job and will have my support. (I'll not be holding my breath though).
The other "day 1" job is to speed up the sanctions for breaches of FFP. The way the crooks at Man City are able to drag out the imposition of sanctions is a joke. I heard a DULLARD on R4 this morning saying that nothing would be likely to be resolved before the end of NEXT season. That's a joke.
These are the aims.Here’s the BBC story (Athletic is paywalled / subscription, no idea why the OP picked that to share).
Football regulator: UK government confirms new independent body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536218
Here are the bullet points from that article.
View attachment 157498
Every single one of those is a very good thing and what many on here have called for. Perhaps this much maligned government have finally got something right?
The succinct version of my assessmentSoon as the gvt start throwing their weight around using this bill Man City’s billion dollar lawyers will rip them a new one and the top teams will all fevk off to a super league.
Pl and Eufa are scared witless of these monster teams
Sometimes you have to ask yourself what's occurred WITHOUT independent regulation OR what might.These are the aims.
This government (last 5 years) have been fantastic with aims. Deliverance, however....
1. Creation of a super league can't be 'stopped' as it would be a restriction of trade. It hasn't happened (yet) only because the big clubs perceive it will do them harm (fan revolt, loss of merch sales)
2. Preventing a repeat of financial failings is the holy grail of economists, and is as achievable as a perpetual motion machine.
3. More stringent owners test..... the cynic in me says in the end this can only reduce to money, meaning Saudis yes, local businessman made good no. Also, imagine how long it would take to check out the likes if Dai Yonng. A good idea if made workable.
4. Fans picking kit? Trivia.
5. Redistribution of wealth? Will the turkey's vote for Christmas? I really don't think that socialism can be imposed on a commercial enterprise, other than via taxation.
Overall? Pah! To achieve some of this will require considering issues such as:
Salary caps and limits on transfer spend to create a more even playing field. But what about European clubs?
Very slow transfer of ownership while checks are made - I don't object to that.
Forcible transfer of TV money from EPL to the lower tiers. Good luck with that.
What do I suggest?
Depends on whether we want English clubs competing in Europe. If we do, we have to follow what happens in Spain, Italy and Germany. We can't set up a rubric that disfavours English club competitiveness.
If we set Europe aside, then I'd favour caps on spending (transfers and salaries) to create a more even playing field
I'd create a law that if you buy a club and put it into receivership at any time in the next 5 years, you go to jail
I'm tempted by a ban on overseas or offshore ownership. These poeple are out of UK jurisdiction and can do what they want.
With all that in place, one club will emerge as an English powerhouse.
Step forward, Brighton and Hove Albion
*If* you saySometimes you have to ask yourself what's occurred WITHOUT independent regulation OR what might.
On another part of the board NSCers are discussing GBeebies and their sanction from OFCOM because they let serving government MPs, no less, present the news. Without OFCOM we'd basically have a TV channel dedicated to Government propaganda on top of the likes of the Mail, Sun and Telegraph.
Other regulators have, of course, been useless. Sewage into rivers and seas, power prices through the roof.
So, there are good regulators and there are ineffective regulators.
The bulleted aims are entirely sensible and exactly what the game needs but they are also what the game has not been doing itself. Dai Yonnge was allowed a club. The Saudis were allowed a club. Bury and Macclesfield died. Reading might. Only fan protests in this country stopped a super league.
But I will say it again - if the bill is rushed and badly scrutinised then we will have another OFGEM and not another OFCOM.
I think the whole thing needs looking at, lots of clubs are badly run in the lower leagues, but they are not helped by stupid rules either.I get the "Give money to the lower leagues as that is what feeds the player pool" argument but not when the money will go on paying bang average journeyman £30-40k a week. The whole of footballers' pay needs cooling down - not skimming money off of the top to give to teams further down to overpay in search of promotion.