jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 5,189
- Thread starter
- #161
With all respect, are you familiar with the history of our football club?If they make money they will claim success. It doesn't matter if a small percentage complain.
With all respect, are you familiar with the history of our football club?If they make money they will claim success. It doesn't matter if a small percentage complain.
It's a shame PBOBE came out with that crass comment about the academy and the womens team, either in or out of context, because he also came out with this praiseworthy comment:They were his words until he realised the negative reactions perhaps? "Out of context" is an extremely useful phrase in this... errr... context
Of course. Not sure what that has to do with it though.With all respect, are you familiar with the history of our football club?
Because if this sort of thing is implemented it won't be a small percentage of people who complain. If they move games to America it won't be a 'small percentage' only have to look at what happened when they tried to start a super league. People in English football don't just sit there and complain we actually do something about it.Of course. Not sure what that has to do with it though.
Well we had the Rod Liddle article flagging off the bill and lord bassam. We have had the martin samuels article ostensibly about brighton slagging off lord bassam and the IFR. Then we had the times article quoting brady and barber (the latter now claims he was misquoted) against the ifrI am no expert on football governance nor on Parliamentary procedure, but I found this article interesting - who exactly is behind these clearly engineered attempts to kill / massively weaken the proposed plans? Why is the Premier League sending out instructions to clubs to engage with the media in order to stop / weaken the proposals? Why are Brighton (and many others, it seems) complying with these instructions?
See https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ance-as-lords-tie-up-football-governance-bill
Your last question is very easy to answer. The club don’t want a regulator.I am no expert on football governance nor on Parliamentary procedure, but I found this article interesting - who exactly is behind these clearly engineered attempts to kill / massively weaken the proposed plans? Why is the Premier League sending out instructions to clubs to engage with the media in order to stop / weaken the proposals? Why are Brighton (and many others, it seems) complying with these instructions?
See https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ance-as-lords-tie-up-football-governance-bill
Is the right answer. It's very interesting that most industries who don't want regulation try and prove it's not needed. Usually by behaving well and conducting themselves in an uber nice way. The arrogance of football has been to try and use Executive and legal power to stop it.Your last question is very easy to answer. The club don’t want a regulator.
I think you missed my point. If people turn up to the games and buy the media and pay for the streaming rights etc and they make money from it, then it will be a small percentage that complain by definition.Because if this sort of thing is implemented it won't be a small percentage of people who complain. If they move games to America it won't be a 'small percentage' only have to look at what happened when they tried to start a super league. People in English football don't just sit there and complain we actually do something about it.
Makes you wonder what they’ve got to hide.I am no expert on football governance nor on Parliamentary procedure, but I found this article interesting - who exactly is behind these clearly engineered attempts to kill / massively weaken the proposed plans? Why is the Premier League sending out instructions to clubs to engage with the media in order to stop / weaken the proposals? Why are Brighton (and many others, it seems) complying with these instructions?
See https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ance-as-lords-tie-up-football-governance-bill
But why not? If we are fully compliant and doing everything by the book - and I would be amazed and astonished if we weren't - what is it the club objects to? If you are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to be scared of.Your last question is very easy to answer. The club don’t want a regulator.
Cost and aggravation.But why not? If we are fully compliant and doing everything by the book - and I would be amazed and astonished if we weren't - what is it the club objects to? If you are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to be scared of.
Many sectors are heavily regulated now. You have planning / building control in construction, environmental health, HMRC, the FCA, Solicitors Regulatory Authority.and I could go on.....and on.......
Sunday reinforced for me the need for a Regulator when Tamworth were screwed out of around a million quid as a result of being denied a replay at Spurs. This was effecively a result of the PL bullying the FA into doing away with replays. Apparently this is because PL players are"playing too much football". And I'll believe that when clubs stop doing pre-season tours to the other side of the world with the sole purpose of generating money.
But why not? If we are fully compliant and doing everything by the book - and I would be amazed and astonished if we weren't - what is it the club objects to? If you are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to be scared of.
Many sectors are heavily regulated now. You have planning / building control in construction, environmental health, HMRC, the FCA, Solicitors Regulatory Authority.and I could go on.....and on.......
Sunday reinforced for me the need for a Regulator when Tamworth were screwed out of around a million quid as a result of being denied a replay at Spurs. This was effecively a result of the PL bullying the FA into doing away with replays. Apparently this is because PL players are"playing too much football". And I'll believe that when clubs stop doing pre-season tours to the other side of the world with the sole purpose of generating money.
I don't blame her. PB's arguments on the Roar were mainly straw man and 'what if'. Meanwhile it looks like Brady and a couple of others are using delay tactics in the Lords rather than doubling down. It would seem the Premier League are REALLY against this which makes me REALLY for it.Minister for Sport Stephanie Peacock has hit back, quite directly too...
"Suggestions made in the media recently around the impact of the Bill and Regulator simply don't add up.'Tenuous claims that the cost of regulation will impact things like a club's academy development, and by default its long-term success, are simply wrong and offensive."
Mail, sorry >>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...s-promoting-untruths-preserve-status-quo.html
Peacock covers that too, if you scroll down to her full statement. Here's that snippet:Meanwhile it looks like Brady and a couple of others are using delay tactics in the Lords
But surely whether there are replays or not, is not within the remit of the proposed Regulator.But why not? If we are fully compliant and doing everything by the book - and I would be amazed and astonished if we weren't - what is it the club objects to? If you are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to be scared of.
Many sectors are heavily regulated now. You have planning / building control in construction, environmental health, HMRC, the FCA, Solicitors Regulatory Authority.and I could go on.....and on.......
Sunday reinforced for me the need for a Regulator when Tamworth were screwed out of around a million quid as a result of being denied a replay at Spurs. This was effecively a result of the PL bullying the FA into doing away with replays. Apparently this is because PL players are"playing too much football". And I'll believe that when clubs stop doing pre-season tours to the other side of the world with the sole purpose of generating money.