Firstly, this was in answer to your question "what should they have done differently", note the past tense. However, I'll try to answer it as though it's present tense as we're now in a totally different thread.
1) how do you suggest the EFL management persuade half (or would they need threequarters) the 72 club owners to vote to give up 51% of the shares in their business for nothing?
I'm not suggesting they persuade owners, I'm suggesting they tell owners this is the rules if you want to take part in the league. They have a grace period to make this happen and a set of tools to help it happen.
re point 2) that is a reasonable point but so far lots of leagues have tried this but no one has really made it work. Lovely idea but very hard to do in practise I fear.
No it isn't.
re point 3) not really sure what you are suggesting here. Are you really suggesting that privately owned football clubs should publish every transaction - eg how much they spend on paper clips for example.
Yes. Though obviously you're being facetious and paper clips would be listed under stationery or office supplies or whatever it is you already have to list this under when filing a VAT return. Player wages would be reported under playing staff wages etc. It's not that hard to transparently report the spending of a private company, and indeed many private companies do.
re point 4) if you get a bad owner prepared to call your bluff, what punishments do you suggest in practise - points deductions and relegations do nothing to punish an owner who doesn't care about results. Expulsion just brings about the inevitable death of a club that the league is concerned about and trying to protect from that very fate.
While this obviously isn't my job, failure to properly report could be fined, could be points deductions, could be expulsions, could be all sorts. You're (possibly wilfully) missing the point, that without the reporting, it's always too late to do anything. With reporting, it could feasibly be stopped before it reaches the point where expulsion is necessary.
Alternatively, we could all sit on our arses arguing with people on the internet that nothing could be done and nobody's ideas would work and you could be the DG of the FA.
thanks @Dr Congo - not sure what happened to the font in my reply, it's all over the shop - wasn't intentional...
Have we reached a paradox to the Kerry Packer (cricket) situation in the EFL? Where players wages and television rights have now spiralled out of control, we need a breakaway league to return to some kind of sanity and modicum of decency.
Could the penalties/fines be personal to the owner rather than the club itself? Ultimately if it is the owner's money then they should have sufficient control of it to ensure any financial restrictions are operated within.
Re point 1) @drcongo and @Commoner you both seem to have misunderstood what the EFO and how it works. The EFL is a collective body administering the leagues on behalf of the clubs. The clubs have to vote through any changes the EFL management wishes to make and the clubs hire and fire the management. As a result the EFL cant tell the owners these are the rules - they don't have the power. The only way to give them the power is to persuade the owners to change the rules to vest power in the EFL management rather than themselves. Its classic asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I just cant see it happening.
re point 2) No it isn't isn't really a response. I suppose all I can answer is "yes it is" but not sure we are getting anywhere.
re point 3) No idea what you are referencing re VAT returns. You certainly don't separate stationary from say food etc. But are you just suggesting a more detailed P+L with expenditure and income split into say five income categories and 10 expense categories. Not sure quite what publishing this would achieve?
re point 4) the whole point as with Bury is that the good owners with financially stable clubs will probably comply quite happily with any legislation you persuade the clubs to agree to - but then they don't really need to because they are not the problem anyway. The struggling clubs teetering on bankruptcy with rogue owners are the ones who are more likely not to comply and fining them just endangers the club even more (and what do you do if they don't pay) , points deductions change nothing and expulsion kills the club.
So with respect although superficially attractive, I don't think it works in the real world that exists rather than the world you would like it to be.
Kernel of an idea that clubs might just vote through. All grounds to be vested in separate company with controlling share owned by EFL. no borrowing permitted secured against grounds. Clubs lease grounds for £1 per year on a fully repairing lease basis.
Clubs can apply to sell ground and keep the proceeds if EFL are happy proceeds are used to build a better one. clubs can fund improvements to existing stadium if they wish. EFL to retain 10% of TV money each year in a central pot.
Clubs responsibility to manage their own finances but in an insolvency clubs right to the league spot is transferred to a new co playing in the stadium. Club to be relegated minimum of two divisions. EFL to use its retained TV pot to fund new start up. No football creditors rule for old defunct company - debts die with company - so caveat lendor.
Doubt to be honest that the clubs would vote it through but may be a step down the road.
@DevC I don't really understand why you would suggest that @drcongo 's ideas are too radical to be accepted by the clubs and then propose something just as radical and just as unlikely to be accepted. Perhaps your idea is even more unlikely to be acceptable, given that it appears to involve the effective sequestration of clubs' biggest assets by the EFL without compensation.
A simple way to make the good doctor's ideas more acceptable to the clubs would surely be to apply them prospectively only. Existing owners would thus have their legitimate interests protected.
Another fairly simple suggestion of my own, which again could be applied prospectively, would be to say that owners, their family members and associates are not allowed to lend money to clubs otherwise than on an unsecured basis. Or possibly not at all, so that they're only allowed to inject money as equity (including preference shares, so long as they rank behind all debt). So, if the club goes bust, the owners would lose out unless every local business, football creditor and St. John's Ambulance Service were paid in full.
So, if the club goes bust, the owners would lose out unless every local business, football creditor and St. John's Ambulance Service were paid in full.
@OakwoodExile , I did say I doubt my idea would get voted through by the owners.
However as I understand @drcongo idea requires owners are required now to give up 51% of ownership and control for no compensation (or in your scheme to do so when they want to sell thus reducing their asset value on disposal. I see no way they will do that.
My scheme on the other hand leaves the day to day management of the club completely unchanged. The owner continues to manage all aspects of the club as he sees fit. The only scenario in which my change kicks in is in an insolvency situation whereby the mechanism ensures that the stadium is not lost to the town/city and the phoenix club.
So my scheme doesnt really affect the good owners (who still represent the vast majority) IMHO) but prevents the (few) bad owners from cashing in on probably the one tangible asset the clubs have. It shouldnt affect the value of the club on normal trading sale as the business continues to trade unchanged.
as i say I doubt it would be voted through but it has some chance, probably with some tweaks. Personally I don't see @drcongo's plan having any chance whatsoever. all academic though.
Dev, it is your assumption that the turkeys would vote for Xmas but perhaps you’re wrong, perhaps lots of owners want the regulation and want to protect the community club for the future? Especially after witnessing what’s going on at Bury and Bolton.
I could see Rob Couhig, Andy Holt voting for tighter regulation and sanctions. What about Mansfield and Forest Green who lost out on promotion due to Bury overspending? I think Oldham, Macclesfield fans would want it. Exeter and Wimbledon are fan owned already, I feel they’d vote for change to financial regulation initially.
Perhaps then in a 2nd phase the German 50+1 model could be introduced. If there was a collective will to get there it could be achieved. Where has anyone said they will get no compensation for giving up 51%? Again you’ve assumed they’d get nothing...500 clubs could be set up all over the land to compensate the owners, deals could be done on future profits, I’m sure there are other ways and means.
There are aspects of your idea that have merit, trying to ring-fence assets from owners seems like a good idea and it would be very easy in the 50+1 model to do this...
If any good has come out of Bury's sad demise, it has highlighted how important football clubs are to their towns and City's.
The only time you get a coming together of people of different age, colour, social and political backgrounds is when they unify behind their beloved Football club.
Hopefully this will prompt government at local and national level, along with the football authorities to put procedures in place to protect both Football grounds and clubs. With social cohesion fractured up and down the UK, it's vital that these institutions are properly protected and continue to be an example to the rest of the communities how people can discard their differences and live in harmony, if only for a few hours every two weeks.
Though I know Dale is a twat I still think it's a disgrace that Bolton...who lied about the closeness of a takeover so the EFL let them play games (even with it being the U-12s) and therefore became more difficult to kick out without upsetting the clubs who beat them in the bargain...get longer to sort their survival out than Bury. Had Bolton not played any games either would they have been allowed the same extra time?
@Wendoverman said:
Though I know Dale is a twat I still think it's a disgrace that Bolton...who lied about the closeness of a takeover so the EFL let them play games (even with it being the U-12s) and therefore became more difficult to kick out without upsetting the clubs who beat them in the bargain...get longer to sort their survival out than Bury. Had Bolton not played any games either would they have been allowed the same extra time?
Took me a few seconds to work out you didn't mean @DJWYC14
Btw its quite right that people are given as long as needed whilst there is trust that a club can be saved, all parties are acting in good faith etc.
@Wendoverman said:
Though I know Dale is a twat I still think it's a disgrace that Bolton...who lied about the closeness of a takeover so the EFL let them play games (even with it being the U-12s) and therefore became more difficult to kick out without upsetting the clubs who beat them in the bargain...get longer to sort their survival out than Bury. Had Bolton not played any games either would they have been allowed the same extra time?
Took me a few seconds to work out you didn't mean @DJWYC14
Btw its quite right that people are given as long as needed whilst there is trust that a club can be saved, all parties are acting in good faith etc.
There does have to be a cut off point where the EFL are able to say that enough is enough and the club lose their football league status. Otherwise there is no ceiling on how long a saga such as this can go on, which doesn’t help anyone plan for the future.
Same here @StrongestTeam ! Momentary astonishment on two counts (had to watch the spelling there) - @Wendoverman being a complete gent (watch spelling again) and DJ being a thoroughly nice chap.
@Wendoverman said:
Though I know Dale is a twat I still think it's a disgrace that Bolton...who lied about the closeness of a takeover so the EFL let them play games (even with it being the U-12s) and therefore became more difficult to kick out without upsetting the clubs who beat them in the bargain...get longer to sort their survival out than Bury. Had Bolton not played any games either would they have been allowed the same extra time?
Took me a few seconds to work out you didn't mean @DJWYC14
Btw its quite right that people are given as long as needed whilst there is trust that a club can be saved, all parties are acting in good faith etc.
Comments
Firstly, this was in answer to your question "what should they have done differently", note the past tense. However, I'll try to answer it as though it's present tense as we're now in a totally different thread.
I'm not suggesting they persuade owners, I'm suggesting they tell owners this is the rules if you want to take part in the league. They have a grace period to make this happen and a set of tools to help it happen.
No it isn't.
Yes. Though obviously you're being facetious and paper clips would be listed under stationery or office supplies or whatever it is you already have to list this under when filing a VAT return. Player wages would be reported under playing staff wages etc. It's not that hard to transparently report the spending of a private company, and indeed many private companies do.
While this obviously isn't my job, failure to properly report could be fined, could be points deductions, could be expulsions, could be all sorts. You're (possibly wilfully) missing the point, that without the reporting, it's always too late to do anything. With reporting, it could feasibly be stopped before it reaches the point where expulsion is necessary.
Alternatively, we could all sit on our arses arguing with people on the internet that nothing could be done and nobody's ideas would work and you could be the DG of the FA.
Sadly my reply took so long that it has pushed @Commoner's excellent reply onto the previous page. Worth going back and reading.
thanks @Dr Congo - not sure what happened to the font in my reply, it's all over the shop - wasn't intentional...
Have we reached a paradox to the Kerry Packer (cricket) situation in the EFL? Where players wages and television rights have now spiralled out of control, we need a breakaway league to return to some kind of sanity and modicum of decency.
Could the penalties/fines be personal to the owner rather than the club itself? Ultimately if it is the owner's money then they should have sufficient control of it to ensure any financial restrictions are operated within.
Re point 1) @drcongo and @Commoner you both seem to have misunderstood what the EFO and how it works. The EFL is a collective body administering the leagues on behalf of the clubs. The clubs have to vote through any changes the EFL management wishes to make and the clubs hire and fire the management. As a result the EFL cant tell the owners these are the rules - they don't have the power. The only way to give them the power is to persuade the owners to change the rules to vest power in the EFL management rather than themselves. Its classic asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I just cant see it happening.
re point 2) No it isn't isn't really a response. I suppose all I can answer is "yes it is" but not sure we are getting anywhere.
re point 3) No idea what you are referencing re VAT returns. You certainly don't separate stationary from say food etc. But are you just suggesting a more detailed P+L with expenditure and income split into say five income categories and 10 expense categories. Not sure quite what publishing this would achieve?
re point 4) the whole point as with Bury is that the good owners with financially stable clubs will probably comply quite happily with any legislation you persuade the clubs to agree to - but then they don't really need to because they are not the problem anyway. The struggling clubs teetering on bankruptcy with rogue owners are the ones who are more likely not to comply and fining them just endangers the club even more (and what do you do if they don't pay) , points deductions change nothing and expulsion kills the club.
So with respect although superficially attractive, I don't think it works in the real world that exists rather than the world you would like it to be.
Kernel of an idea that clubs might just vote through. All grounds to be vested in separate company with controlling share owned by EFL. no borrowing permitted secured against grounds. Clubs lease grounds for £1 per year on a fully repairing lease basis.
Clubs can apply to sell ground and keep the proceeds if EFL are happy proceeds are used to build a better one. clubs can fund improvements to existing stadium if they wish. EFL to retain 10% of TV money each year in a central pot.
Clubs responsibility to manage their own finances but in an insolvency clubs right to the league spot is transferred to a new co playing in the stadium. Club to be relegated minimum of two divisions. EFL to use its retained TV pot to fund new start up. No football creditors rule for old defunct company - debts die with company - so caveat lendor.
Doubt to be honest that the clubs would vote it through but may be a step down the road.
@DevC I don't really understand why you would suggest that @drcongo 's ideas are too radical to be accepted by the clubs and then propose something just as radical and just as unlikely to be accepted. Perhaps your idea is even more unlikely to be acceptable, given that it appears to involve the effective sequestration of clubs' biggest assets by the EFL without compensation.
A simple way to make the good doctor's ideas more acceptable to the clubs would surely be to apply them prospectively only. Existing owners would thus have their legitimate interests protected.
Another fairly simple suggestion of my own, which again could be applied prospectively, would be to say that owners, their family members and associates are not allowed to lend money to clubs otherwise than on an unsecured basis. Or possibly not at all, so that they're only allowed to inject money as equity (including preference shares, so long as they rank behind all debt). So, if the club goes bust, the owners would lose out unless every local business, football creditor and St. John's Ambulance Service were paid in full.
So, if the club goes bust, the owners would lose out unless every local business, football creditor and St. John's Ambulance Service were paid in full.
You, sir, are a communist!
@Wendoverman Not really, but I'll take the compliment.
Haven’t received an email from the club yet giving details of a 1/23 refund on season tickets......
?
@OakwoodExile , I did say I doubt my idea would get voted through by the owners.
However as I understand @drcongo idea requires owners are required now to give up 51% of ownership and control for no compensation (or in your scheme to do so when they want to sell thus reducing their asset value on disposal. I see no way they will do that.
My scheme on the other hand leaves the day to day management of the club completely unchanged. The owner continues to manage all aspects of the club as he sees fit. The only scenario in which my change kicks in is in an insolvency situation whereby the mechanism ensures that the stadium is not lost to the town/city and the phoenix club.
So my scheme doesnt really affect the good owners (who still represent the vast majority) IMHO) but prevents the (few) bad owners from cashing in on probably the one tangible asset the clubs have. It shouldnt affect the value of the club on normal trading sale as the business continues to trade unchanged.
as i say I doubt it would be voted through but it has some chance, probably with some tweaks. Personally I don't see @drcongo's plan having any chance whatsoever. all academic though.
Dev, it is your assumption that the turkeys would vote for Xmas but perhaps you’re wrong, perhaps lots of owners want the regulation and want to protect the community club for the future? Especially after witnessing what’s going on at Bury and Bolton.
I could see Rob Couhig, Andy Holt voting for tighter regulation and sanctions. What about Mansfield and Forest Green who lost out on promotion due to Bury overspending? I think Oldham, Macclesfield fans would want it. Exeter and Wimbledon are fan owned already, I feel they’d vote for change to financial regulation initially.
Perhaps then in a 2nd phase the German 50+1 model could be introduced. If there was a collective will to get there it could be achieved. Where has anyone said they will get no compensation for giving up 51%? Again you’ve assumed they’d get nothing...500 clubs could be set up all over the land to compensate the owners, deals could be done on future profits, I’m sure there are other ways and means.
There are aspects of your idea that have merit, trying to ring-fence assets from owners seems like a good idea and it would be very easy in the 50+1 model to do this...
If any good has come out of Bury's sad demise, it has highlighted how important football clubs are to their towns and City's.
The only time you get a coming together of people of different age, colour, social and political backgrounds is when they unify behind their beloved Football club.
Hopefully this will prompt government at local and national level, along with the football authorities to put procedures in place to protect both Football grounds and clubs. With social cohesion fractured up and down the UK, it's vital that these institutions are properly protected and continue to be an example to the rest of the communities how people can discard their differences and live in harmony, if only for a few hours every two weeks.
EFL unscheduled meeting taking place now. Hopefully the club can somehow be salvaged, for the fans sake
Got some great memories of Gigg Lane and would like to go there this season.
Though I know Dale is a twat I still think it's a disgrace that Bolton...who lied about the closeness of a takeover so the EFL let them play games (even with it being the U-12s) and therefore became more difficult to kick out without upsetting the clubs who beat them in the bargain...get longer to sort their survival out than Bury. Had Bolton not played any games either would they have been allowed the same extra time?
Took me a few seconds to work out you didn't mean @DJWYC14
Btw its quite right that people are given as long as needed whilst there is trust that a club can be saved, all parties are acting in good faith etc.
I would never insult a Gasroomer @StrongestTeam
There does have to be a cut off point where the EFL are able to say that enough is enough and the club lose their football league status. Otherwise there is no ceiling on how long a saga such as this can go on, which doesn’t help anyone plan for the future.
Same here @StrongestTeam ! Momentary astonishment on two counts (had to watch the spelling there) - @Wendoverman being a complete gent (watch spelling again) and DJ being a thoroughly nice chap.
@micra I've always considered you to be a complete countrified gent, despite what everyone else says.
Talking in riddles again @Cyclops! Oh ye of the forked tongue.
Ha! Glad it wasn't just me! Sumptuous timing!