|
|
Post by peterparker on Oct 22, 2019 7:41:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 22, 2019 10:50:49 GMT
The thing is, the FA cannot keep tabs on the running of all 92 football clubs, it's impossible. Every clubs owners and board of directors has a responsibility to run their club within its means and I'm afraid Bury fell foul of that on more than the one occasion.
What the FA can do though is make sure the fit and proper fitness test for potential owners is exactly that before a club is taken over, that there must be some kind of proof of funds and business structure presented, that there is always an element of fan ownership and that stadiums must be held as separate entity in trust to the element of fan ownership so the club always has its major asset regardless of how fluid or not the finances are.
They also need to decrease the disparity of payments between each league which will increase the revenue to the clubs and introduce a salary effective cap on all salaries to all players across each division. Players in the top leagues generate a far greater income from image rights and social media advertising (see CR7's salary from each).
Also a bigger financial incentive should be given in cups matches where a lower league team beats higher opposition.
That for starters would help level the playing field and increase revenues directly by the football league. There are ways and means for a greater injection of prize money to the clubs but the FA would rather see the premier league expanded than look at lower league and grass root football.
|
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 22, 2019 11:01:16 GMT
The thing is, the FA cannot keep tabs on the running of all 92 football clubs, it's impossible. Every clubs owners and board of directors has a responsibility to run their club within its means and I'm afraid Bury fell foul of that on more than the one occasion. What the FA can do though is make sure the fit and proper fitness test for potential owners is exactly that before a club is taken over, that there must be some kind of proof of funds and business structure presented, that there is always an element of fan ownership and that stadiums must be held as separate entity in trust to the element of fan ownership so the club always has its major asset regardless of how fluid or not the finances are. They also need to decrease the disparity of payments between each league which will increase the revenue to the clubs and introduce a salary effective cap on all salaries to all players across each division. Players in the top leagues generate a far greater income from image rights and social media advertising (see CR7's salary from each). Also a bigger financial incentive should be given in cups matches where a lower league team beats higher opposition. That for starters would help level the playing field and increase revenues directly by the football league. There are ways and means for a greater injection of prize money to the clubs but the FA would rather see the premier league expanded than look at lower league and grass root football. There was also a suggestion that any new owner would get an FA representative to sit on the board for the first 3 years. This is so that people who are new to running football clubs don't make silly mistakes that would jeopardize the club. Would also mean the FA would have eyes and ears there if the new owners we're asset strippers and could flag this up. I *think* that suggestion came from the Radio 5 podcast about owners recently. |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Oct 22, 2019 11:09:46 GMT
Why would an MP be stunned? If that’s not a case of the kettle calling the pot black I don’t know what is!
People are looking around for scapegoats and the FA and EFL will be in the sights of the MPs select committee as a suitable scapegoat but on this occasion I don’t think the FA should be. Clearly the EFLs fit and proper person rules are inadequate and their procedures will need to be reviewed but the responsibility for Bury going under lies predominantly with their owners, the previous one Stewart Day and their current one, Steve Dale. Everything else is just filling newspaper space and radio airtime. I guess and hope the legal teams are deciding if anything fraudulent or illegal took place with the Bury situation.
The FA may look into the financial relationship between different leagues and competitions but in the end teams and owners have to accept their own responsibility for running their clubs. When it goes wrong it creates a total mess but that doesn’t alter the fact that it remains the owners responsibility. Which makes the fit and proper rules for ownership very important and they need to get those right.
UTG!
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 22, 2019 12:13:26 GMT
Why would an MP be stunned? If that’s not a case of the kettle calling the pot black I don’t know what is! People are looking around for scapegoats and the FA and EFL will be in the sights of the MPs select committee as a suitable scapegoat but on this occasion I don’t think the FA should be. Clearly the EFLs fit and proper person rules are inadequate and their procedures will need to be reviewed but the responsibility for Bury going under lies predominantly with their owners, the previous one Stewart Day and their current one, Steve Dale. Everything else is just filling newspaper space and radio airtime. I guess and hope the legal teams are deciding if anything fraudulent or illegal took place with the Bury situation. The FA may look into the financial relationship between different leagues and competitions but in the end teams and owners have to accept their own responsibility for running their clubs. When it goes wrong it creates a total mess but that doesn’t alter the fact that it remains the owners responsibility. Which makes the fit and proper rules for ownership very important and they need to get those right.
UTG!Isn't that the point Dale didn't meet those rules as the EFL let him takeover the club before they carried out the checks, the issue with the FA is that they are the overall Governing body but even though there was wide spread media coverage they just seemingly sat back and showed no interest in the issues at Bury. |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 22, 2019 12:37:06 GMT
The thing is, the FA cannot keep tabs on the running of all 92 football clubs, it's impossible. Every clubs owners and board of directors has a responsibility to run their club within its means and I'm afraid Bury fell foul of that on more than the one occasion. What the FA can do though is make sure the fit and proper fitness test for potential owners is exactly that before a club is taken over, that there must be some kind of proof of funds and business structure presented, that there is always an element of fan ownership and that stadiums must be held as separate entity in trust to the element of fan ownership so the club always has its major asset regardless of how fluid or not the finances are. They also need to decrease the disparity of payments between each league which will increase the revenue to the clubs and introduce a salary effective cap on all salaries to all players across each division. Players in the top leagues generate a far greater income from image rights and social media advertising (see CR7's salary from each). Also a bigger financial incentive should be given in cups matches where a lower league team beats higher opposition. That for starters would help level the playing field and increase revenues directly by the football league. There are ways and means for a greater injection of prize money to the clubs but the FA would rather see the premier league expanded than look at lower league and grass root football. There was also a suggestion that any new owner would get an FA representative to sit on the board for the first 3 years. This is so that people who are new to running football clubs don't make silly mistakes that would jeopardize the club. Would also mean the FA would have eyes and ears there if the new owners we're asset strippers and could flag this up. I *think* that suggestion came from the Radio 5 podcast about owners recently. Who would pay for that, at approx. £300k a time? |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 22, 2019 12:39:46 GMT
The thing is, the FA cannot keep tabs on the running of all 92 football clubs, it's impossible. Every clubs owners and board of directors has a responsibility to run their club within its means and I'm afraid Bury fell foul of that on more than the one occasion. What the FA can do though is make sure the fit and proper fitness test for potential owners is exactly that before a club is taken over, that there must be some kind of proof of funds and business structure presented, that there is always an element of fan ownership and that stadiums must be held as separate entity in trust to the element of fan ownership so the club always has its major asset regardless of how fluid or not the finances are. They also need to decrease the disparity of payments between each league which will increase the revenue to the clubs and introduce a salary effective cap on all salaries to all players across each division. Players in the top leagues generate a far greater income from image rights and social media advertising (see CR7's salary from each). Also a bigger financial incentive should be given in cups matches where a lower league team beats higher opposition. That for starters would help level the playing field and increase revenues directly by the football league. There are ways and means for a greater injection of prize money to the clubs but the FA would rather see the premier league expanded than look at lower league and grass root football. ... not forgetting there isn't just 92 football clubs but over 40,000 clubs under the ultimate governance of the FA, plus the national teams. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 12:44:08 GMT
The thing is, the FA cannot keep tabs on the running of all 92 football clubs, it's impossible. Every clubs owners and board of directors has a responsibility to run their club within its means and I'm afraid Bury fell foul of that on more than the one occasion. What the FA can do though is make sure the fit and proper fitness test for potential owners is exactly that before a club is taken over, that there must be some kind of proof of funds and business structure presented, that there is always an element of fan ownership and that stadiums must be held as separate entity in trust to the element of fan ownership so the club always has its major asset regardless of how fluid or not the finances are. They also need to decrease the disparity of payments between each league which will increase the revenue to the clubs and introduce a salary effective cap on all salaries to all players across each division. Players in the top leagues generate a far greater income from image rights and social media advertising (see CR7's salary from each). Also a bigger financial incentive should be given in cups matches where a lower league team beats higher opposition. That for starters would help level the playing field and increase revenues directly by the football league. There are ways and means for a greater injection of prize money to the clubs but the FA would rather see the premier league expanded than look at lower league and grass root football. I keep saying this, but they do in Germany. Every year every club, including Bayern Munich, have to apply for what is a 'financial licence'. They have to submit accounts etc which show that they are not falling into too much debt etc. Failure to be granted a 'financial licence' means demotion to a lower league where the club can afford to play and also pay off their debts. This fit and proper test for potential owners is complete and utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 22, 2019 13:02:29 GMT
There was also a suggestion that any new owner would get an FA representative to sit on the board for the first 3 years. This is so that people who are new to running football clubs don't make silly mistakes that would jeopardize the club. Would also mean the FA would have eyes and ears there if the new owners we're asset strippers and could flag this up. I *think* that suggestion came from the Radio 5 podcast about owners recently. Who would pay for that, at approx. £300k a time? It's a good question. Maybe the PL can chip in considering they had a £5m whip round for thier outgoing chairman |
|
