[Football] Football Governance Bill / Independent Football Regulator

[dazzer6666]

That’s the general argument against here it seems. Some regulation doesn’t work so why bother?

Given how much @El Presidente has to think, write and talk about this stuff this strikes me as the most important thing here.
Do you want the club you love, and ultimately the game you love, to be in the hands of a bunch of US and Middle Eatern megalomaniacs or are you prepared to accept that it might cost money, they might not always make the right decision, but ultimately a regulator is needed to protect us all from that?

The mega-rich states won’t hesitate to legally challenge a regulator when it suits them……will be interesting to see how they enforce ownership ‘regulations’ in what’s essentially a free market.

 

[mikeyjh]

So in short you're against regulation of businesses because you feel f***ed over by poorly regulated businesses like the Telecom industry?

Should the law enforcement cease to exist because criminals exist or how is that different?

If all intentions to try and regulate anything or anyone is deemed "hopeless" then why not just embrace full anarchy?

I don't think people understand how important regulation is in the very privatised super capitalist country we live in. We were affected by damage in storm Darragh and were without power for 5 days - Scottish Energy Networks got this sorted pretty quickly in reality (this was a line that only led to our house) entirely because once the compo kicks in, it costs them £10 an hour. Compare that to the telecom industry you mention - Our broadband is still off and the compo for that? £9.76 a day, it's cheaper for them to do nothing. Oh, and that comes from Openreach so if you've got an ISP not focussed on service (TalkTalk), they will not lift a finger..... Regulation is kind of vital!

 

[lost in london]

Fascinating thread. Well done NSC.

I read the article this morning and was hoping to see a thread like this - Barber came across badly, underprepared and hyperbolic.

The passive aggressive threat to cut women's football to meet the cost of the regulator? Not cool at all.

Suggesting parachute payments might be cut meaning we don't invest, meaning less interesting / exciting games, meaning less money coming in from broadcasters, meaning less money to give to the EFL? Hypothetical over stretched alarmist ****.

As the regulator responded, the regulations would be a nonsense if parachute payments were excluded, their remit is to maintain financial sustainability. How could they not be part of their considerations?

A regulator shouldn't be necessary and won't be the answer to all problems, but football has proven it is incapable of managing itself properly and in the interest of supporters and communities. The premier league's own success and foreign investment has brought this on itself.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I don't think people understand how important regulation is in the very privatised super capitalist country we live in. We were affected by damage in storm Darragh and were without power for 5 days - Scottish Energy Networks got this sorted pretty quickly in reality (this was a line that only led to our house) entirely because once the compo kicks in, it costs them £10 an hour. Compare that to the telecom industry you mention - Our broadband is still off and the compo for that? £9.76 a day, it's cheaper for them to do nothing. Oh, and that comes from Openreach so if you've got an ISP not focussed on service (TalkTalk), they will not lift a finger..... Regulation is kind of vital!

Not that this will help you but Openreach's engineering footprint has reduced year on year and when stuff like storms hit, well, you could be waiting a while.

OFCOM are one of the better regulators out there in reality. With presumably few people affected as you live remotely you will be lower down the queue as they will order fixes on a revenue loss even if they say they don't

Don't hold your breath mate.

 

[lost in london]

If I didn't have a season ticket - and I only do because of the monthly payment plan - I wouldn't make it to many games at all for the reason you state.

I know I'd look at the cost of a single match ticket, even in the "cheap seats" for a non-glamour fixture, and think "Shit, that's a lot. I could spend that money far better on <insert something else here>"

£87 for me and my son to watch the Arsenal game in crappy seats in the south stand. Plus £18 for parking. I must have been feeling generous when I booked those, heading down the other night expecting a beating that felt like a lot of money.

It also made me think about parking costs. They have bumped those up by 20% (admittedly only £3). Why bother? Is that going to make any sort of noticeable difference to the club? It stuck in my throat then when I read Barber saying the 'only' two ways to fund the regulator are to pass costs on to fans, or cut the academy / women's football. Perhaps have a look at player and agent salaries and transfer fees first? Not in the club's control admittedly as we all want to see success, but only one club has ever been more profitable than we were last season. Perhaps don't stick another £3 on parking just for the sake of it?

 

[pocketseagull]

Given our history it's more than disappointing to be spearheading the campaign against regulation. Bloom and Barber have got this one badly wrong.

 

[Springal]

Given our history it's more than disappointing to be spearheading the campaign against regulation. Bloom and Barber have got this one badly wrong.

I’m not sure you can say Tony Bloom has this badly wrong, when it’s 100% his investments ‘at risk’ here. It’s his money and his opinion , which I think he has a good position to speak from

 

[pocketseagull]

His viewpoint is that we're well run as a club so a regulator isn't needed. What happened to Fans United?

 

[Han Solo]

I don't think people understand how important regulation is in the very privatised super capitalist country we live in. We were affected by damage in storm Darragh and were without power for 5 days - Scottish Energy Networks got this sorted pretty quickly in reality (this was a line that only led to our house) entirely because once the compo kicks in, it costs them £10 an hour. Compare that to the telecom industry you mention - Our broadband is still off and the compo for that? £9.76 a day, it's cheaper for them to do nothing. Oh, and that comes from Openreach so if you've got an ISP not focussed on service (TalkTalk), they will not lift a finger..... Regulation is kind of vital!

People don't like regulation because they've been told that free markets benefit everyone. That free markets lead to eternal growth is however an idea based on models that only work in theory and not in reality because they never take societal or technological changes into account and furthermore assume that all businesses and people are the same.

This is why people in the field of national economics are more or less always wrong in their predictions. The idea that the freedom of abusing your customers in whatever way you want will be beneficial is based on the idea that wealthy business owners are willing to spend the same percentage of their income as any pleb. Whereas in reality we know that the über wealthy actually accumulate money and won't reinvest the majority of the money they suck out of people.

The whole "free market" shit is based on utopian ideas and miscalculations. But since businesses are very keen on being as free as possible and people have a weird respect for academics however flawed they are, people will think "free markets good, regulated markets bad" because thats what has been soaked up by their brains.

I would be very interested in seeing how many would actually stick to the "no point in regulation" if all sorts of regulation ceased for only a month. Just studying the unusually unregulated business that is football might give a hint to how things would develop. It would take five minutes for the NHS to end up in some Saudi-American hedgefund and your new Chinese-Saudi-American overlords would put you into serfdom in another ten. But these things currently can't happen because there are some regulations around preventing it (trust me, its not the goodwill of the House of Saad preventing this from currently happening).

Businesses need to be regulated or they eventually grow into parasitical entities drying up the resources of the common man and society in general. Football was allowed a somewhat free reign on the basis of it being "harmless entertainment" and here we are 30 years later with ever increasing costs for the common man, ever increasing profits for people active in football, and diminishing experiences due to the clubs being free to tell you you're nothing but a customer and should behave like such and not as a real person. We have people putting their 5-6-year-old kids in "academies" because the money flow and endless riches has brainwashed people into seeing their child as a business opportunity.

Thats the consequences of allowing Premier League clubs to do anything they want with your wallet, mind and soul. A regulator coming in to say and hopefully act "no, sorry, you exist due to those people you call customers so you have to give something back as well rather than just spend another £10m on wages for one or two individuals".

 

[The Fits]

I’m not sure you can say Tony Bloom has this badly wrong, when it’s 100% his investments ‘at risk’ here. It’s his money and his opinion , which I think he has a good position to speak from

Massive difference between Bloom protecting his investments and this imho. In fact, I’d actually prefer it if Barber had just said ‘Tony has invested a lot in this club and we believe remaining unregulated is the best way to protect this’.

 

[dazzer6666]

Fascinating thread. Well done NSC.

I read the article this morning and was hoping to see a thread like this - Barber came across badly, underprepared and hyperbolic.

The passive aggressive threat to cut women's football to meet the cost of the regulator? Not cool at all.

Suggesting parachute payments might be cut meaning we don't invest, meaning less interesting / exciting games, meaning less money coming in from broadcasters, meaning less money to give to the EFL? Hypothetical over stretched alarmist ****.

As the regulator responded, the regulations would be a nonsense if parachute payments were excluded, their remit is to maintain financial sustainability. How could they not be part of their considerations?

A regulator shouldn't be necessary and won't be the answer to all problems, but football has proven it is incapable of managing itself properly and in the interest of supporters and communities. The premier league's own success and foreign investment has brought this on itself.

This is the worst bit for me......threatening to penny-pinch from the kids and women when the total spend on them is a relative drop in the ocean compared to the first team. Absolutely picked the wrong target to try to make his point imo.

 

[dazzer6666]

People don't like regulation because they've been told that free markets benefit everyone. That free markets lead to eternal growth is however an idea based on models that only work in theory and not in reality because they never take societal or technological changes into account and furthermore assume that all businesses and people are the same.

This is why people in the field of national economics are more or less always wrong in their predictions. The idea that the freedom of abusing your customers in whatever way you want will be beneficial is based on the idea that wealthy business owners are willing to spend the same percentage of their income as any pleb. Whereas in reality we know that the über wealthy actually accumulate money and won't reinvest the majority of the money they suck out of people.

The whole "free market" shit is based on utopian ideas and miscalculations. But since businesses are very keen on being as free as possible and people have a weird respect for academics however flawed they are, people will think "free markets good, regulated markets bad" because thats what has been soaked up by their brains.

I would be very interested in seeing how many would actually stick to the "no point in regulation" if all sorts of regulation ceased for only a month. Just studying the unusually unregulated business that is football might give a hint to how things would develop. It would take five minutes for the NHS to end up in some Saudi-American hedgefund and your new Chinese-Saudi-American overlords would put you into serfdom in another ten. But these things currently can't happen because there are some regulations around preventing it (trust me, its not the goodwill of the House of Saad preventing this from currently happening).

Businesses need to be regulated or they eventually grow into parasitical entities drying up the resources of the common man and society in general. Football was allowed a somewhat free reign on the basis of it being "harmless entertainment" and here we are 30 years later with ever increasing costs for the common man, ever increasing profits for people active in football, and diminishing experiences due to the clubs being free to tell you you're nothing but a customer and should behave like such and not as a real person. We have people putting their 5-6-year-old kids in "academies" because the money flow and endless riches has brainwashed people into seeing their child as a business opportunity.

Thats the consequences of allowing Premier League clubs to do anything they want with your wallet, mind and soul. A regulator coming in to say and hopefully act "no, sorry, you exist due to those people you call customers so you have to give something back as well rather than just spend another £10m on wages for one or two individuals".

It’s not a simple black and white argument - don’t think anyone is arguing for no regulation. The key is how the regulations are developed and enforced. I’ve seen FS go through the whole spectrum from not much, to very highly regulated, to ‘light touch’ (a disaster) and back to the pips squeaking. There isn’t a perfect answer and I strongly suspect we’ll see football go through the same cycle over the coming years. There’ll be an advert soon for the Club’s new ‘Head of Compliance’……..will start off as a one-person band, in 5-10 years there’ll be a whole team of people as the IR sends down more and more rules to be adhered to (and continually monitored internally etc etc). Barber can see that, hence his negative stance…….

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Don’t disagree with any of that, but I guarantee the Football regulator will grow like topsy and quickly become a colossal pain in the arse. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s an ex FCA bod brought in to run it either.

Why do you think this? Where does this view come from? Plenty of sectors have regulation, aviation and and pharma are two I have experience of, and neither fit the topsy colossal description you give. I’m not overly pro regulation, only when it’s needed. But it’s clearly needed for football.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It’s not a simple black and white argument - don’t think anyone is arguing for no regulation. The key is how the regulations are developed and enforced. I’ve seen FS go through the whole spectrum from not much, to very highly regulated, to ‘light touch’ (a disaster) and back to the pips squeaking. There isn’t a perfect answer and I strongly suspect we’ll see football go through the same cycle over the coming years. There’ll be an advert soon for the Club’s new ‘Head of Compliance’……..will start off as a one-person band, in 5-10 years there’ll be a whole team of people as the IR sends down more and more rules to be adhered to (and continually monitored internally etc etc). Barber can see that, hence his negative stance…….

You have answered the question I posted at the same time. You seem to be viewing the IFR through the lens of FS. Not all regulators are like this.

 

[dazzer6666]

Why do you think this? Where does this view come from? Plenty of sectors have regulation, aviation and and pharma are two I have experience of, and neither fit the topsy colossal description you give. I’m not overly pro regulation, only when it’s needed. But it’s clearly needed for football.

LOL. My next door neighbour works for the CAA in a senior capacity and we’ve had numerous discussions…….I couldn’t disagree more on aviation. I’m now experiencing it in education and social care. It’s not materially different

Also, I didn’t say it wasn’t needed

 

[dazzer6666]

You have answered the question I posted at the same time. You seem to be viewing the IFR through the lens of FS. Not all regulators are like this.

Not when they start

 

[pigmanovich]

There’ll be an advert soon for the Club’s new ‘Head of Compliance’……..will start off as a one-person band, in 5-10 years there’ll be a whole team of people as the IR sends down more and more rules to be adhered to (and continually monitored internally etc etc).

Can't wait - as a compliance professional, I might actually get to work in football

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I’m not sure you can say Tony Bloom has this badly wrong, when it’s 100% his investments ‘at risk’ here. It’s his money and his opinion , which I think he has a good position to speak from

It’s fine when the one person and their opinion is running the club how you like it. What happens when they don’t ? This is why we need regulation, it’s for the greater good.

 

[dazzer6666]

Can't wait - as a compliance professional, I might actually get to work in football

Might be a few of us applying

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not when they start

I disagree. My industry is heavily regulated, for good reason. it’s fine and has raised standards, good practice and quality immeasurably.