There was much talk about bad owners on the Radio 5 phone in last night. Irritatingly, Charlton were not mentioned when a list of other clubs were mentioned (at least, not in the section of the programme that I heard). However, it did highlight for me that, despite all the general agreement that bad owners need to go, when it comes to it, it is tough luck if you get a bad owner. As has been posted before, from an enforceable standpoint, on what grounds is RD not 'fit and proper'? There's quite a lot of talk about the fact that FA should be able to take action, but what rules could you have that would save the likes of Charlton, Leyton Orient, Blackpool, Coventry et al? And, if there were some rules, could owners skirt round them easily?
It's a tough one. Do the fans have to like the owners? If they don't, do they have to sell? For how much? Ian Wright suggested that owners had to deposit money in a bond. But, how would that work? And what would happen to the money? Then what?
I can't see that there is much you can do. The current Fit and Proper rules (according to Wikipedia) are below. What could they do to improve these rules?
Disqualifying events
The Premier League has tighter restrictions than the rest of the Football League and Football Conference. In general, a businessman will fail the test if:
They have power or influence over another Football League club
They hold a significant interest in another Football League club
They become prohibited by law from being a director
They are filing for bankruptcy
They have been director of a club while it has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
They have been a director of two or more clubs of which, while they have been director, has suffered an event of insolvency
0
Comments
The test needs updating, but I'm not going to do their job for them.
New Owner: No
EFL: Okay you've passed!!
- Are you a criminal who is such a danger to society at large that you have already been detained at her maj's pleasure?
- Are you so bad with money that you have defaulted on several major debts, brought a multinational to its knees and wouldn't be trusted to pay back a short-term sub from your own granny?
If you can answer 'no' to both those questions you are in the eyes of the league, one of the very best; a fine upstanding person who should be entrusted with our nations sporting heritage.
Of course, everyone who's paid even the slightest attention to football's problems in the last ten years (probably longer) knows that the current fit and proper test, isn't itself fit for purpose. At very least, it should include a level of scrutiny into other owned sporting ventures, a sizable deposit to be used should the owner default on payments, scrutiny of a workable business plan and insistence on personal attendance at a set number of games. And probably a whole lot more besides.
Putting this into place is likely to be fraught with problems, both practical and legal. As necessary as it is, it is also going to take massive amounts of effort and hard work to devise, agree and implement such measures. And here lies the problem, the 'EFL' as they now call themselves, only see themselves as 'completion organisers'. They do not have the wit to understand that the league is only viable if its participating clubs are viable. And that those clubs are only viable with the history, traditions and fanbase that they bring to the party. The Football League would far rather mess about introducing little pictures of lions wearing crowns, than engage with the trickier but ultimately far more important task of ensuring the safety of its constituent clubs.
If they would just come out and say, we're very concerned but we don't know how to overcome the legal difficulties, I'd have some respect and sympathy for them. But every time I hear them bleat about just being competition organisers, they make me want to vomit. Our national game is undergoing a massive transformation and it isn't for the best. There is a very real danger that several historic clubs could be wiped out. Even if they aren't, fans are becoming increasingly disengaged making the three divisions beneath the Premiership less and less important. Meanwhile the EFL are playing an absolute blinder in the Nero role, fiddling with their logo whilst the whole edifice comes crashing around their ears.
At the end of the day, fans of one in six clubs in League One will say their owners were rubbish, citing relegation as the irrefutable evidence. But without relegation (and promotion) what's the point of it all?
I think most relegations are reasonable. Rotherham & Wigan fans have no extraordinary ground to complain, unlike Blackburn with The Venkys.
We have regulation in the UK and are pretty good at it. It's a sign of a civilised society. The things of greatest value are cherished, protected and governed through scrutiny, and all these regulators strive to make sure all the parties operate effectively. That's broadly the aim and football need not be regarded any differently. Parliament could institute protections in law. And create an effective regulator at the same stroke of the legal pen.
Methods are shared between regulators. We'd have licensing, inspections, assessments against set criteria on regular bases and ad hoc. There'd be a levy charged that would go into supporting grass roots initiatives, training and improvements. Fans representation at board level and other levels could be made compulsory.
The existing bodies could be transitioned to become formal regulators, striving to better regulation with support from parliament and the National audit office. Not difficult really. There's money in the game, just not the will from inside or outside at present. We as fans shouldn't give up on the idea just because we can't see it happening from within the current conditions. That's just what Duchatelet, Ashley, Becchetti and all the others would hope. This is the direction that all the different protests funds should be helping to set. 'Let down by the football league' indeed.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"
John F Kennedy, US President, on the Apollo Programme.
"But it is very difficult"
Shaun Harvey, EFL Chief Exec, on changing the Fit and Proper persons test.
Inspiring stuff, eh?
If you don't attend at least 50% of the clubs home games in any 1 season then you have to sell up before the start of the next season.
I don't think there is a test that you can set that would keep bad owners out. Or if it did, it would keep the good ones out too - Leicester's and Man City's for example.
This is the only one rule that works:
"The 50+1 rule (German: 50+1-Regel) is an informal term used to refer to a clause in the regulations of the Deutsche Fußball-Liga. The clause states that, in order to obtain a license to compete in the Bundesliga, a club must hold a majority of its own voting rights. The rule is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors."
Basically, you're more than welcome to put your money in, but if you try and turn the club into a total shambles then we, the supporters, have got the power to stop you.
In fact I'd make it 80%.
Ok, RD not attending is a minor issue, in the scheme of things, but it would definitely prevent owners, that had little interest in their team.
More important are the regulations they operate under. For example, given our recent discussions, separating team and ground ownership should be prohibited. I'm sure a sensible list could be drawn up to at least limit the damage than can be done.
Maybe it's something the Trusts can push through their contacts in Parliament.
HOWEVER, if you go on to the FCA's FIT 2.2 which deals with Competence and Capability, there is some hope. But mostly it would rely upon whether the experience and training was up to speed. In the specific case of Roland, there could be a glimmer of light as the FCA look at "whether the person has adequate time to perform the function in question and meet the responsibilities associated with that function". And as Roland has admitted, he spends (what was it?) only 1.5% of his time on us. But is that okay for a non-executive chairman? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. Our beloved CEO works full time (allegedly) and is also a qualified lawyer. (I have a recollection that Peter Varney was an accountant, is that right?)
What "training and experience" qualifies someone to be a CEO of what is, after all, only a SME? The football authorities would have to devise and develop some form of Football Governance qualification presumably to degree level and then you'd be disbarring any entirely competent individuals that take on a football club having no relevant experience. Would Daniel Levy's first class honours degree from Cambridge in Economics be adequate training? Would it prepare him at all for having the ability to rely on football professionals for transfer decisions? Would an established, successful business person have the time and inclination to do some form of extra football-centric education in their middle age? I've no doubt Roman Abramovich has an interesting past, but no one can suggest that he's been anything but good for Chelsea.
So, back to the ego. People who have been a success in business always think they are right. Experience tells them this will be the case. They forget entirely (don't they Lord Sugar?) that much of their success was merely down to luck, coming up with an idea - often a simple one - at the right time and in the right place. But the world of business is littered with people who made equally bold decisions but find out that the time and place is not quite right and they fail spectacularly. We can all do our own list of these. Who can forget Clive Sinclair's C5? What happened to C1 to C4 I wonder?
In short he rightly points out that almost all owners (including the bad ones) would breeze through a fit and proper test, and that until the FA comes up with a reasonable test for stupidity and/or incompetence then it will remain an ongoing problem.
Facing match fixing charges back in his native Greece. As yet he is still to be proven guilty but with such a serious charge hanging over him can this be a risk the EFL take take?
If iti is proven then how do we know he won't try and fix matches over here?
Worrying, turbulent times indeed.
If it's true, surely this bubble is going to burst soon.