|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Oct 31, 2024 10:17:39 GMT
Charlton Athletic and Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust (CAST), the club’s independent supporters’ trust, both warmly welcome the publication of the updated bill on Football Governance.
The proposed legislation to introduce independent regulation to football is underpinned by the findings of the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance. CAST presented to the review and continue to be heavily involved in supporting the proposed legislation via the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA). Charlton’s past ownership difficulties were included in the case study learning.
Since taking over at Charlton, Global Football Partners have engaged constructively with the football authorities and politicians to lobby for the reintroduction of the bill and for specific clauses to ensure future financial stability across football. The revised bill now includes parachute payments in the remit of the regulator. This is a welcome improvement as those have been a key contributor to financial instability in the game, especially in the Championship.
The premise behind the bill of protecting our national game for this and future generations received cross party support. An earlier version of the bill was put before parliament under the previous Conservative government but it did not progress once the general election was called for July.
Last week a revised bill was introduced in the House of Lords in order to speed up its progress through Parliament. The Government press release included detail on updates which strengthen the bill as follows:
The regulator will now explicitly require clubs to provide ‘effective engagement’ with their supporters on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate their home ground.
The singular carve out of parachute payments in the previous draft of the bill has been dropped. The regulator will now be given the remit to include parachute payments, through the backstop mechanism, when assessing finances across the game. Excluding these payments, would have significantly reduced the ability of the regulator to take a full view of financial stability and resilience across the football pyramid.
The regulator will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers. The move ensures the regulator will be fully independent of government and industry.
The regulator will now have the power to compel clubs to democratically select the fan representatives the club must engage with, rather than clubs making a unilateral decision. This will ensure meaningful engagement with as many supporters of a club as possible.
There is now a clear commitment to do more to improve Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) within the game. Clubs will now be required to be transparent and publish what action they are taking on EDI as part of reporting against a new football club corporate governance code that the regulator will introduce, improving decision making at clubs.
CAST Chair Heather McKinlay commented: “We are delighted that the Football Governance Bill has been reintroduced. Change to protect our clubs and recognise the importance of clubs as community assets is long overdue. The proposed legislation will provide fans with a proper say over ticket pricing and club heritage items, including the stadium. In recent months CAST and the club have been working well together, along with others, to develop a new Fan Engagement Plan which includes establishing an Advisory Board to counsel the club Board. Through this process it has become clear that CAST and the club are equally supportive of the aims of the Football Governance Bill. This should provide a solid platform for future co-operation as we aim to bring success back for the Addicks.”
Charlton Athletic CEO Charlie Methven said: “We are pleased that the bill has been substantially improved from its previous iteration; like CAST, we are looking forward to its full implementation.
"It's time now for the Premier League to take a deep breath and accept that things have to change if we are to preserve and enhance our unique football pyramid for future generations.”
Charlie talks about this on one of the latest Adrian Goldberg "Where's the money gone?" podcasts. Sounds like it's actually progressing now, which is good to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by manikin on Oct 31, 2024 12:33:03 GMT
Sounds good, we live in hope!
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 31, 2024 12:58:37 GMT
My understanding from podcasts and other snippets is that Methven is hoping for:
- reduction in the parachute monies to reduce the differential
- increase of Championship media revenues by a factor of two
- introduction of a decent loss / cost control mechanism similar to League One SCMP so as to restrict excessive spending
He's also looking for enhanced CAFC commercial revenues AND promotion to the Championship.
If all five occur then we're looking at CAFC turnover approaching £30M and seriously competive IF we can improve recruitment and coaching etc.
But what are the chances of parachute payments changing significantly AND the Championship TV deal doubling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 31, 2024 16:27:36 GMT
Based on his podcast interviews Charlie Methven has become increasingly strident in his attack on the Premier League for failing to agree a financial settlement with the EPL. He has consistently argued that the threat of the regulator with backstop powers to impose a settlement will force them into action. We’ll see.
I suspect the regulator will prove to be very reluctant to use those backstop powers to intervene so the Premier League and the EFL are going to have to come to terms. Moreover, the Premier League is not going to agree to stop parachute payments (and the regulator would be very unwise to insist on it) so some kind of compromise is going to be needed here too.
Methven has clearly read the room and has moved quickly to organise (or at least to announce the organisation of) fan engagement and a shadow board. That’s sensible from a PR perspective. It will also be interesting to see how this works in practice though. One thing is absolutely certain. No amount of fan engagement is going to increase the amount of money the club spends on players. Methven has made that very clear, albeit perhaps indirectly. Indeed, his ambition appears to be to ensure fans “understand the reality of the business and the trade offs involved in managing it”.
All this having been said and for all the talk of a regulator, a new financial settlement and shadow boards etc, the most important thing for Charlton’s medium term prospects is the possibility of the introduction of a meaningful set of financial controls in the Championship. That’s likely to be much more important for us than more money which will simply further increase everyone’s wage bill and help nobody.
Financial controls, of course, are the one thing the regulator does not plan to get involved in. Methven has talked previously about the extension of UEFA’s Squad Cost Control Ratio into the Championship on the insistence of the Premier League as a quid pro quo for more handouts, but like his suggestion that equity contributions under the SCMP are going to be limited there is no evidence of this possibility anywhere else in the public domain, at least as far as I can tell. I hope he’s right though. Such a move would be a game changer for us.
In my view, for what it’s worth, higher media revenues, but with an unchanged P&S regime, would not move us forward. It is bizarre (even if the politics of it are understandable) that the one thing the regulator could do that would most help ensure “sustainability” it is giving a very wide berth to.
|
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Oct 31, 2024 18:39:42 GMT
My understanding from podcasts and other snippets is that Methven is hoping for: - reduction in the parachute monies to reduce the differential - increase of Championship media revenues by a factor of two - introduction of a decent loss / cost control mechanism similar to League One SCMP so as to restrict excessive spending He's also looking for enhanced CAFC commercial revenues AND promotion to the Championship. If all five occur then we're looking at CAFC turnover approaching £30M and seriously competive IF we can improve recruitment and coaching etc. But what are the chances of parachute payments changing significantly AND the Championship TV deal doubling? When it comes to it, if the regulator, or anyone else, removes parachute payments there is a, very real, chance that a massive club will go bust. Thousands of fans will blame whomever is responsible, and for that reason I can't see a anyone putting their head above the parapet. Like Mundell, I listen to Methven's podcast, and he sounds more and more like a mad man shouting at the moon on the subject of parachute payments, Championship finances and the EPL 'giving away' more money. What makes his rants even worse is that everyone knows that if these changes come to pass there is a chance that Charlton will be sold for a significant profit and and Charlie Methven will walk away with millions of pounds. The same logic applies when Methven keeps talking about how fans have to agree to pay more and more and more to watch us play if we want the club to be successful. All the while billionaires own the club and they, and he, could make millions if the club is successful, yet he is still referring to fans as spoiled children if they bulk at paying more that their children's school shoes cost to attend games. As Mundell says no amount of more money will make any difference until all the clubs (and I mean all of them) agree to restrictions on spending, and don't try to game the system to spend more. Derby, Sheff Wed, Wigan, Reading, Birmingham, Everton (twice) and Notts Forest have all been docked points for failure to comply and Leicester have, apparently, got away with it on a technicality. This is before we look at Man City's 115 charges. The answer is not more money - unless, of course, that more money is going into your own pocket. Maybe this is why Mr Methven is so obsessed with it. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Nov 1, 2024 8:16:47 GMT
My understanding from podcasts and other snippets is that Methven is hoping for: - reduction in the parachute monies to reduce the differential - increase of Championship media revenues by a factor of two - introduction of a decent loss / cost control mechanism similar to League One SCMP so as to restrict excessive spending He's also looking for enhanced CAFC commercial revenues AND promotion to the Championship. If all five occur then we're looking at CAFC turnover approaching £30M and seriously competive IF we can improve recruitment and coaching etc. But what are the chances of parachute payments changing significantly AND the Championship TV deal doubling? When it comes to it, if the regulator, or anyone else, removes parachute payments there is a, very real, chance that a massive club will go bust. Thousands of fans will blame whomever is responsible, and for that reason I can't see a anyone putting their head above the parapet. Like Mundell , I listen to Methven's podcast, and he sounds more and more like a mad man shouting at the moon on the subject of parachute payments, Championship finances and the EPL 'giving away' more money. What makes his rants even worse is that everyone knows that if these changes come to pass there is a chance that Charlton will be sold for a significant profit and and Charlie Methven will walk away with millions of pounds. The same logic applies when Methven keeps talking about how fans have to agree to pay more and more and more to watch us play if we want the club to be successful. All the while billionaires own the club and they, and he, could make millions if the club is successful, yet he is still referring to fans as spoiled children if they bulk at paying more that their children's school shoes cost to attend games. As Mundell says no amount of more money will make any difference until all the clubs (and I mean all of them) agree to restrictions on spending, and don't try to game the system to spend more. Derby, Sheff Wed, Wigan, Reading, Birmingham, Everton (twice) and Notts Forest have all been docked points for failure to comply and Leicester have, apparently, got away with it on a technicality. This is before we look at Man City's 115 charges. The answer is not more money - unless, of course, that more money is going into your own pocket. Maybe this is why Mr Methven is so obsessed with it. Methven has some good points he's making. I can't see parachute payments going completely and Methven doesn't either. It's the amount and for how long they are that could do with changing. It makes the prem competitive but make the Championship unfair for all the other teams. I would say he's right about fans wanting to have their cake and eat it too. So many fans want owners to pump in money to fund a promotion or title push, but don't want ticket prices to rise. It's not just football fans, it's everything. People complain about lack of investment in Education, Health, Transport, etc yet complain when there are Tax rises. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 1, 2024 12:15:36 GMT
aaronaldo I too think that many of Methven’s underlying views are sound, but his communication does appear to have become increasingly confrontational and extreme and it’s not obvious that’s helpful. As for the regulator, I think it’s going to have a very difficult if not an impossible job. Not only is it going to be pulled in opposing directions, it is inevitably going to disappoint many people simply because there are no viable solutions to the challenges they expect it to solve. Wherever it does take bold action it is likely to find itself subject to severe criticism and may even face legal action. It will be held to account for “bad” outcomes even if it has done nothing wrong. Whether it will actually improve outcomes only time will tell, though it may be that we’ll never be able to make an objective assessment given we can’t know what might have happened in the absence of a regulator. What’s clear is that the key to sustainability in the football industry is meaningful controls on spending along with a rigorous enforcement of those controls. An important part of the challenge here is the short term interest of the clubs, who hence can’t agree on what should be done, and the fact that there is simply no agreement on the objective of having financial controls in the first place. Is it to ensure competitive balance (level the playing field), to prevent reckless owners overspending and forcing clubs into liquidation, to prevent an arms race (in which clubs are forced to increase their wage bills to compete, but standstill in relative terms) or to allow owners to make money (the US model)? There are even those, like the journalist Martin Samuel, who hold a Neo liberal view and don’t believe there should be any controls on spending. It’s a mess. And a mess the regulator won’t have the power to address. Fortunately, it is with some irony that UEFA have stepped into the breach. Clubs playing in UEFA competition will need to comply with UEFA’s Squad Cost Control Ratio (SCCR), which is a soft wage cap, so this has now been introduced in the Premier League, though clubs not expecting to play in Europe will be allowed to spend a little more of their revenues on wages than the big clubs who do play in Europe. This imposition of sanity from the outside (UEFA’s rules are better developed to deal with loopholes too) is a real positive and if this discipline was extended into the EFL it would be a further big positive, especially in the Championship. We’ll see.
|
|
