I hate interviews like that. I wish Dan Roan had said......"but its YOUR test. YOU make the fucking rules. If you think they need beefing up then just DO IT."
Rick Parry......
" you have to ask yourself why a Chinese businessman would want to buy a Championship club...."
Me........" Because you fucking let them you plank"
Arghhhhh.
Absolutely agree, the most insipid type of journalism around. It's like massaging Parry's ego so he can feel better about letting slip his comment about the 'alleged Wigan' bet to a football fan. Of course we need to look long and hard at the state of football clubs and ownership, wages and being sustainable in the future, but that is not a new problem! So what have they been doing? Get on with it EFL, FA and PL. Sadly, I truly will not be surprised if Wigan, SW and Derby avoid anything but a slap on the wrist, at a date which will least affect their league positions.
Roan: Was the EFL lax in the application of the rules?
Parry: "No - he passed the test, albeit it self-certifications and he provided the assurances. What none of our rules can legislate for is an owner changing his mind."
Roan: Does this all show that the ownership rules need to be tightened?
Parry: "It's no use just talking about owners' and directors' tests as if that is going to solve all of the problems. You really need to go back to why did we end up with Chinese owners in the lower reaches of the Championship in the first place?
"Why can we not have community owned, sustainable clubs? That goes for all the structural issues that I have been telling anybody who will listen, and most people who won't listen, for the past x number of months, from the select committee onwards.
"The Championship is a financial nonsense. We've got clubs spending 107% of their income on wages, we've got the major distortion of parachute payments, we've got £400m of owner-funding required - £16m per Championship club. There are owners gambling on getting into the Premier League, it's unsustainable.
"We need to make our clubs sustainable - we shouldn't be relying on random foreign owners
Roan: Was the EFL lax in the application of the rules?
Parry: "No - he passed the test, albeit it self-certifications and he provided the assurances. What none of our rules can legislate for is an owner changing his mind."
Roan: Does this all show that the ownership rules need to be tightened?
Parry: "It's no use just talking about owners' and directors' tests as if that is going to solve all of the problems. You really need to go back to why did we end up with Chinese owners in the lower reaches of the Championship in the first place?
"Why can we not have community owned, sustainable clubs? That goes for all the structural issues that I have been telling anybody who will listen, and most people who won't listen, for the past x number of months, from the select committee onwards.
"The Championship is a financial nonsense. We've got clubs spending 107% of their income on wages, we've got the major distortion of parachute payments, we've got £400m of owner-funding required - £16m per Championship club. There are owners gambling on getting into the Premier League, it's unsustainable.
"We need to make our clubs sustainable - we shouldn't be relying on random foreign owners
It's laughable really.
It's basically saying that the EFL rules wouldn't be broken if chancers didn't buy or takeover clubs.
So why not stop these arse holes destroying clubs.
Roan: Was the EFL lax in the application of the rules?
Parry: "No - he passed the test, albeit it self-certifications and he provided the assurances. What none of our rules can legislate for is an owner changing his mind."
Roan: Does this all show that the ownership rules need to be tightened?
Parry: "It's no use just talking about owners' and directors' tests as if that is going to solve all of the problems. You really need to go back to why did we end up with Chinese owners in the lower reaches of the Championship in the first place?
"Why can we not have community owned, sustainable clubs? That goes for all the structural issues that I have been telling anybody who will listen, and most people who won't listen, for the past x number of months, from the select committee onwards.
"The Championship is a financial nonsense. We've got clubs spending 107% of their income on wages, we've got the major distortion of parachute payments, we've got £400m of owner-funding required - £16m per Championship club. There are owners gambling on getting into the Premier League, it's unsustainable.
"We need to make our clubs sustainable - we shouldn't be relying on random foreign owners
While I am a severe critic of the EFL,in the case of Wigan I do not see what else they could have done,the buyers had plenty of money,and easily passed the financial test,the fact that on a whim they said bollocks to this was out of the blue.it could be a deliberate fraud(based on a Wigan being relegated bet as Parry said) or even something to do with the Chinese getting the hump with the UK over our support for Hong Kong who knows.Sad as it is for the club and fans,the 12 point penalty must be adhered to,or you will have every chancer in the league taking a struggling club into admin,knowing they can set up again debt free.
I still don't understand what the EFL can do if they don't like a new owner.
The only thing they can actually do is apply sanctions or expel the club completely.
Are we suggesting that the EFL should have expelled Wigan when the club was sold to the dodgy owners?
The EFL should be involved each time a club proposes a change of ownership. As things stand they only get involved after a takeover and when the club 'comes to market' so to speak.
The whole system is completely inappropriate for the 'market' it is operating. This is not a new hair salon or boutique bakers but the current legislation is pretty much maligned to the trading standards procedure. There are reasons for that, mainly because the EFL are as crooked as the charlatans lining up to own clubs and they don't want to rock the apple cart.
I still don't understand what the EFL can do if they don't like a new owner.
The only thing they can actually do is apply sanctions or expel the club completely.
Are we suggesting that the EFL should have expelled Wigan when the club was sold to the dodgy owners?
The EFL should be involved each time a club proposes a change of ownership. As things stand they only get involved after a takeover and when the club 'comes to market' so to speak.
The whole system is completely inappropriate for the 'market' it is operating. This is not a new hair salon or boutique bakers but the current legislation is pretty much maligned to the trading standards procedure. There are reasons for that, mainly because the EFL are as crooked as the charlatans lining up to own clubs and they don't want to rock the apple cart.
The EFL are not fit for purpose because regulating ownership should not be their purpose. They are a member organisation and as such their obligation is to their members. Their role is representing the 72, and ensuring the leagues operate as part of the clubs' responsibilities to fulfill their fixtures.
The FA are the governing body who should have responsibility for the laws of the game (in conjunction with FIFA) and the various rules around transfers, third party ownership, agents' activities and fees, and so on.
Ownership regulations should not fit with either the EFL or the FA. If nothing changes then corporate ownership and structure is the domain of corporate law. There is an argument that ownership of football clubs is different to say owning a manufacturing operation because football clubs are operations of social and community value. I wouldn't disagree with that argument and for that reason their needs to be a separate body, an Ombudsman for example, that regulates ownership - backed up by statutory legislation to protect, and if necessary intervene to protect those social and community based assets.
Rick Parry states that he wants sustainable community owned clubs and cannot understand why we do not have many. I wonder if that is anything to do with the greed of the Premier league Rick, now remind who was a CEO of such a said league?
Clubs should not be able to change hands until proof and source of funds has clearly been proven and the money can cover running costs for a given period say 3 years.
New owners should then be forced to inject those funds into the club as a non-refundable and non-withdrawable deposit meaning you've guaranteed the running costs of the club for 3 years as best you can barring promotion/relegation.
Any additional injections / withdrawal of cash fair enough but the deposit kept ringfenced.
Pretty sure this would immediately filter out all the chancers and crooks and ensure only people who have the money and willing to invest it would stand a chance.
I think the EFL try to do their best but the whole structure is flawed. Partly it isn't their fault. The Premier League casts a shadow over everything it tries to do. However, because it is actually representative of clubs, including the more powerful ones its decisions are flawed and confused.
We probably expect too much from it. Roland sold the club despite the EFL not clearing the main money man. I can't see how we can blame the EFL for that. Surely that has to go on Roland 100%. The point about Wigan that Parry made has some validity too. I think he is saying that the buyer passed the tests, but the reason they went into administration was that the buyer changed his mind. That could happen with most owners.
What the EFL should be doing though is really come down on the clubs that overstretch and cheat financially. To protect its clubs, it needs to address this. Derby openly selling its ground to itself is obscene. The way they got round employing Rooney in plain sight is obscene. The EFL has to stop this happening for the welfare of everybody.
Some nice casual racism from Parry there. What's the difference between bad Chinese ownership and bad UK ownership?
Steve Dale and Matt Southall are British. Did that make them good owners?
Was Roland a bad owner because he was Belgian? No, he was just a bad owner.
Are the Leicester owners good because they are Thai and does that make all all Thai owners good?
In any case it was the same owner at Wigan as before. It was just the company that changed.
It seems that Parry thought the EFL gig would be an easy one with a nice pay package and not much to do.
When a crisis hits he passes on conspiracy theories about betting scams without having any evidence and then puts out glib statements about community ownership but offers no action, no plan, no suggested changes.
As Bob says the EFL is not a regulator but there is the problem.
The tail is wagging the dog. The clubs at both Championship and EPL level have the money and so power to make and bend rules as they wish.
There needs to be an ombudsman or commissioner as in US sports which can block takeovers, force sales and impose sanctions.
Rick Parry states that he wants sustainable community owned clubs and cannot understand why we do not have many. I wonder if that is anything to do with the greed of the Premier league Ruck, now remind who was a CEO of such a said league?
You can be a community owned club, but have to maintain really tight budgets. Historically they don't seem to last very long at a higher level, as eventually the desire to improve the squad or do ground improvements mean an investor moves in with a minority/majority stake
Wycombe were community owned, but eventually sold a 75% stake to an investor last year for example
Clubs should not be able to change hands until proof and source of funds has clearly been proven and the money can cover running costs for a given period say 3 years.
New owners should then be forced to inject those funds into the club as a non-refundable and non-withdrawable deposit meaning you've guaranteed the running costs of the club for 3 years as best you can barring promotion/relegation.
Any additional injections / withdrawal of cash fair enough but the deposit kept ringfenced.
Pretty sure this would immediately filter out all the chancers and crooks and ensure only people who have the money and willing to invest it would stand a chance.
All hot air and excuses from Rick Parry.
whatever the period agreed on, and isn't it currently 18 months, and let's say the running costs are agreed at 1m a month then 18m should be paid to the EFL and then drip fed back to the Club at 1m a month to cover those running costs. Then if a situation like Wigan arises then at least the running costs are ring fenced for a number of months and administration won't be an issue.
I still don't understand what the EFL can do if they don't like a new owner.
The only thing they can actually do is apply sanctions or expel the club completely.
Are we suggesting that the EFL should have expelled Wigan when the club was sold to the dodgy owners?
The EFL should be involved each time a club proposes a change of ownership. As things stand they only get involved after a takeover and when the club 'comes to market' so to speak.
The whole system is completely inappropriate for the 'market' it is operating. This is not a new hair salon or boutique bakers but the current legislation is pretty much maligned to the trading standards procedure. There are reasons for that, mainly because the EFL are as crooked as the charlatans lining up to own clubs and they don't want to rock the apple cart.
The EFL are not fit for purpose because regulating ownership should not be their purpose. They are a member organisation and as such their obligation is to their members. Their role is representing the 72, and ensuring the leagues operate as part of the clubs' responsibilities to fulfill their fixtures.
The FA are the governing body who should have responsibility for the laws of the game (in conjunction with FIFA) and the various rules around transfers, third party ownership, agents' activities and fees, and so on.
Ownership regulations should not fit with either the EFL or the FA. If nothing changes then corporate ownership and structure is the domain of corporate law. There is an argument that ownership of football clubs is different to say owning a manufacturing operation because football clubs are operations of social and community value. I wouldn't disagree with that argument and for that reason their needs to be a separate body, an Ombudsman for example, that regulates ownership - backed up by statutory legislation to protect, and if necessary intervene to protect those social and community based assets.
I can't but agree with everything you have said.
But the assets of social and community value are much broader than just football clubs.
For example there are 3 cricket clubs within walking distance of my house, all with outstanding social and community value, who have no more protection than planning laws. What about the arts? How many theaters now stand empty or have been turned into tacky pubs?
If you put in the protection you would by nature restrict what external investment you would attract. And that's with out considering who would compensate the current "owners".
I still don't understand what the EFL can do if they don't like a new owner.
The only thing they can actually do is apply sanctions or expel the club completely.
Are we suggesting that the EFL should have expelled Wigan when the club was sold to the dodgy owners?
The EFL should be involved each time a club proposes a change of ownership. As things stand they only get involved after a takeover and when the club 'comes to market' so to speak.
The whole system is completely inappropriate for the 'market' it is operating. This is not a new hair salon or boutique bakers but the current legislation is pretty much maligned to the trading standards procedure. There are reasons for that, mainly because the EFL are as crooked as the charlatans lining up to own clubs and they don't want to rock the apple cart.
The EFL are not fit for purpose because regulating ownership should not be their purpose. They are a member organisation and as such their obligation is to their members. Their role is representing the 72, and ensuring the leagues operate as part of the clubs' responsibilities to fulfill their fixtures.
The FA are the governing body who should have responsibility for the laws of the game (in conjunction with FIFA) and the various rules around transfers, third party ownership, agents' activities and fees, and so on.
Ownership regulations should not fit with either the EFL or the FA. If nothing changes then corporate ownership and structure is the domain of corporate law. There is an argument that ownership of football clubs is different to say owning a manufacturing operation because football clubs are operations of social and community value. I wouldn't disagree with that argument and for that reason their needs to be a separate body, an Ombudsman for example, that regulates ownership - backed up by statutory legislation to protect, and if necessary intervene to protect those social and community based assets.
I can't but agree with everything you have said.
But the assets of social and community value are much broader than just football clubs.
For example there are 3 cricket clubs within walking distance of my house, all with outstanding social and community value, who have no more protection than planning laws. What about the arts? How many theaters now stand empty or have been turned into tacky pubs?
If you put in the protection you would by nature restrict what external investment you would attract. And that's with out considering who would compensate the current "owners".
What the EFL could do is to automatically relegate a team which is sold without the sale being cleared by them. To work, everybody has to know this, but it might have prevented our recent sh*tshow. It probably wouldn't have helped Wigan though.
Clubs should not be able to change hands until proof and source of funds has clearly been proven and the money can cover running costs for a given period say 3 years.
New owners should then be forced to inject those funds into the club as a non-refundable and non-withdrawable deposit meaning you've guaranteed the running costs of the club for 3 years as best you can barring promotion/relegation.
Any additional injections / withdrawal of cash fair enough but the deposit kept ringfenced.
Pretty sure this would immediately filter out all the chancers and crooks and ensure only people who have the money and willing to invest it would stand a chance.
All hot air and excuses from Rick Parry.
It would filter out everyone probably, including the chancers.
Clubs should not be able to change hands until proof and source of funds has clearly been proven and the money can cover running costs for a given period say 3 years.
New owners should then be forced to inject those funds into the club as a non-refundable and non-withdrawable deposit meaning you've guaranteed the running costs of the club for 3 years as best you can barring promotion/relegation.
Any additional injections / withdrawal of cash fair enough but the deposit kept ringfenced.
Pretty sure this would immediately filter out all the chancers and crooks and ensure only people who have the money and willing to invest it would stand a chance.
All hot air and excuses from Rick Parry.
It would filter out everyone probably, including the chancers.
Large said the current period should be for 18 months so let's say 18 months instead of 3 years.
If someone really wanted to buy a football club and was serious then pretty sure they would stump up.
What the EFL could do is to automatically relegate a team which is sold without the sale being cleared by them. To work, everybody has to know this, but it might have prevented our recent sh*tshow. It probably wouldn't have helped Wigan though.
Surely we'd have just been relegated! Don't think Roland or Southall would have cared!
What the EFL could do is to automatically relegate a team which is sold without the sale being cleared by them. To work, everybody has to know this, but it might have prevented our recent sh*tshow. It probably wouldn't have helped Wigan though.
Surely we'd have just been relegated! Don't think Roland or Southall would have cared!
Roland wanted us in League 1, as it was cheaper for him to run the club and keep selling on our best youth players.
Ring fencing deposits to cover ongoing losses is addressing the symptom not the cause. Clubs shouldn't routinely be operating at a loss, that's the real issue.
What the EFL could do is to automatically relegate a team which is sold without the sale being cleared by them. To work, everybody has to know this, but it might have prevented our recent sh*tshow. It probably wouldn't have helped Wigan though.
Surely we'd have just been relegated! Don't think Roland or Southall would have cared!
Roland wanted us in League 1, as it was cheaper for him to run the club and keep selling on our best youth players.
Did he? We were loosing about £10 million in league 1 and breaking even this season. Good luck flogging a league 1 player for £10 plus every year.
What the EFL could do is to automatically relegate a team which is sold without the sale being cleared by them. To work, everybody has to know this, but it might have prevented our recent sh*tshow. It probably wouldn't have helped Wigan though.
Surely we'd have just been relegated! Don't think Roland or Southall would have cared!
Roland wanted us in League 1, as it was cheaper for him to run the club and keep selling on our best youth players.
Did he? We were loosing about £10 million in league 1 and breaking even this season. Good luck flogging a league 1 player for £10 plus every year.
You know that, I know that, the whole of the footballing world knows that. Roland does not
Leaving aside the exceptionally limited ambit of the fit and proper person test (no insolvency or unspent convictions), the EFL simply don't have the resources to investigate overseas owners, especially in jurisdictions not renowned for their transparency. That said, it appears that the new 'owner' of Wigan, this guy Yeung, was declared bankrupt back in 2014 and here he is allegedly shelling out over £40million for a relegation threatened Championship side in the middle of a pandemic. Do me a favour.
There was talk of changing the rules after the Bury debacle but nothing has happened. Whether that's the fault of the EFL or their member clubs is a moot point. Some of the 'big dogs' in the Championship are probably very happy with the way things are and there are probably many other owners of medium-sized and smaller clubs who are desperate to find someone else to relieve them of the financial burden of funding continual losses As @MartinCAFC says, some sort of bond or deposit would see off most of the chancers and charlatans. If that had been in place, Duchatelet wouldn't have been able to offload the club to Nimer and Southall.
There is an interesting interview between Kieran Maguire and Andy Burnham on today's 'Price of Football' podcast, in which the latter advocates an independent statutory regulator, given the lamentable failure of the football authorities to safeguard the game as a whole. The F.A. did have some overarching power of intervention in a particular provision in their rules, but this was revoked in the mid-90s following the advent of the Premier League and the increasing commercialisation of football. Worth a listen if you're interested - https://play.acast.com/s/price-of-football
Comments
Of course we need to look long and hard at the state of football clubs and ownership, wages and being sustainable in the future, but that is not a new problem! So what have they been doing? Get on with it EFL, FA and PL.
Sadly, I truly will not be surprised if Wigan, SW and Derby avoid anything but a slap on the wrist, at a date which will least affect their league positions.
Roan: Was the EFL lax in the application of the rules?
Parry: "No - he passed the test, albeit it self-certifications and he provided the assurances. What none of our rules can legislate for is an owner changing his mind."
Roan: Does this all show that the ownership rules need to be tightened?
Parry: "It's no use just talking about owners' and directors' tests as if that is going to solve all of the problems. You really need to go back to why did we end up with Chinese owners in the lower reaches of the Championship in the first place?
"Why can we not have community owned, sustainable clubs? That goes for all the structural issues that I have been telling anybody who will listen, and most people who won't listen, for the past x number of months, from the select committee onwards.
"The Championship is a financial nonsense. We've got clubs spending 107% of their income on wages, we've got the major distortion of parachute payments, we've got £400m of owner-funding required - £16m per Championship club. There are owners gambling on getting into the Premier League, it's unsustainable.
"We need to make our clubs sustainable - we shouldn't be relying on random foreign owners
It's basically saying that the EFL rules wouldn't be broken if chancers didn't buy or takeover clubs.
So why not stop these arse holes destroying clubs.
EFL are not fit and proper.
The only thing they can actually do is apply sanctions or expel the club completely.
Are we suggesting that the EFL should have expelled Wigan when the club was sold to the dodgy owners?
The whole system is completely inappropriate for the 'market' it is operating.
This is not a new hair salon or boutique bakers but the current legislation is pretty much maligned to the trading standards procedure.
There are reasons for that, mainly because the EFL are as crooked as the charlatans lining up to own clubs and they don't want to rock the apple cart.
New owners should then be forced to inject those funds into the club as a non-refundable and non-withdrawable deposit meaning you've guaranteed the running costs of the club for 3 years as best you can barring promotion/relegation.
Any additional injections / withdrawal of cash fair enough but the deposit kept ringfenced.
Pretty sure this would immediately filter out all the chancers and crooks and ensure only people who have the money and willing to invest it would stand a chance.
All hot air and excuses from Rick Parry.
We probably expect too much from it. Roland sold the club despite the EFL not clearing the main money man. I can't see how we can blame the EFL for that. Surely that has to go on Roland 100%. The point about Wigan that Parry made has some validity too. I think he is saying that the buyer passed the tests, but the reason they went into administration was that the buyer changed his mind. That could happen with most owners.
What the EFL should be doing though is really come down on the clubs that overstretch and cheat financially. To protect its clubs, it needs to address this. Derby openly selling its ground to itself is obscene. The way they got round employing Rooney in plain sight is obscene. The EFL has to stop this happening for the welfare of everybody.
Steve Dale and Matt Southall are British. Did that make them good owners?
Was Roland a bad owner because he was Belgian? No, he was just a bad owner.
Are the Leicester owners good because they are Thai and does that make all all Thai owners good?
In any case it was the same owner at Wigan as before. It was just the company that changed.
It seems that Parry thought the EFL gig would be an easy one with a nice pay package and not much to do.
When a crisis hits he passes on conspiracy theories about betting scams without having any evidence and then puts out glib statements about community ownership but offers no action, no plan, no suggested changes.
As Bob says the EFL is not a regulator but there is the problem.
The tail is wagging the dog. The clubs at both Championship and EPL level have the money and so power to make and bend rules as they wish.
There needs to be an ombudsman or commissioner as in US sports which can block takeovers, force sales and impose sanctions.
The EFL is not and never will be that body.
Wycombe were community owned, but eventually sold a 75% stake to an investor last year for example
But the assets of social and community value are much broader than just football clubs.
For example there are 3 cricket clubs within walking distance of my house, all with outstanding social and community value, who have no more protection than planning laws. What about the arts? How many theaters now stand empty or have been turned into tacky pubs?
If you put in the protection you would by nature restrict what external investment you would attract. And that's with out considering who would compensate the current "owners".
I never said it would be simple!!
If someone really wanted to buy a football club and was serious then pretty sure they would stump up.
There was talk of changing the rules after the Bury debacle but nothing has happened. Whether that's the fault of the EFL or their member clubs is a moot point. Some of the 'big dogs' in the Championship are probably very happy with the way things are and there are probably many other owners of medium-sized and smaller clubs who are desperate to find someone else to relieve them of the financial burden of funding continual losses As @MartinCAFC says, some sort of bond or deposit would see off most of the chancers and charlatans. If that had been in place, Duchatelet wouldn't have been able to offload the club to Nimer and Southall.
There is an interesting interview between Kieran Maguire and Andy Burnham on today's 'Price of Football' podcast, in which the latter advocates an independent statutory regulator, given the lamentable failure of the football authorities to safeguard the game as a whole. The F.A. did have some overarching power of intervention in a particular provision in their rules, but this was revoked in the mid-90s following the advent of the Premier League and the increasing commercialisation of football. Worth a listen if you're interested - https://play.acast.com/s/price-of-football