Football company rules to be examined by

[davieG]

BBC

MPs are to investigate how professional football in England and Wales is governed to see if it requires government intervention to reform it.

The cross-party committee will examine whether there is too much debt in the professional game.

It will also look at whether the rules requiring owners to be "fit and proper persons" are adequate.

Sports managers, club representatives and fans are among witnesses expected to be called by the committee.

The inquiry has been prompted by the rows relating to debts at Liverpool and Manchester United, as well as concerns about whether the current governance arrangements are fit for purpose.

The New England Sports Ventures (NESV), owner of the Boston Red Sox, bought Liverpool FC for £300m in October. The club said at the time that the sale reduced its "debt servicing obligations from £25m-£30m a year to £2m-£3m".

And Manchester United was bought by the US-based Glazer family for £800m in 2005.

John Whittingdale Culture, Media and Sport CommitteeCritics say the family has saddled the club with massive debts, which has led to protests by supporters' groups.

Governance models involving supporter trusts, and other schemes from the UK and abroad, will also be examined by MPs.

The chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, John Whittingdale, said questions will be asked about whether football clubs should be treated differently from other commercial organisations.

The government's coalition agreement promised to "encourage the reform of football governance rules to support the co-operative ownership of football clubs by supporters".

Mr Whittingdale said: "There is widespread concern that the current governance arrangements are not fit for purpose.

"Our inquiry will look at the case for strategic government intervention and improved self-regulation and will consider models which involve supporters more in how clubs are run.

"We are keen to hear from a wide range of interested parties, including fans, as well as the clubs themselves and their own regulatory bodies."

[Webbo]

I thought this when Labour had a go at reorganising football and I still think it now, it's none of the govt's business to get involved in football. F'ck off and worry about something important.

[Daggers]

I thought this when Labour had a go at reorganising football and I still think it now, it's none of the govt's business to get involved in football. F'ck off and worry about something important.

It's fine for clubs to continually defraud the Inland Revenue then? For them to rack up bills which they never have any intention of paying and for there to be no legal compulsion for them to do so?

When clubs go into receivership we (the taxpayer) should be the ones at the front of the queue rather than football incestuously looking after itself. Maybe then they'd start to take fiscal probity a bit more seriously?

I'm not a fan of legislation for legislation's sake - but changes here have been long overdue.

[Webbo]

It's fine for clubs to continually defraud the Inland Revenue then? For them to rack up bills which they never have any intention of paying and for there to be no legal compulsion for them to do so?

When clubs go into receivership we (the taxpayer) should be the ones at the front of the queue rather than football incestuously looking after itself. Maybe then they'd start to take fiscal probity a bit more seriously?

I'm not a fan of legislation for legislation's sake - but changes here have been long overdue.

All businesses are subject to the same rules and regulations. We don't need new laws just better enforcement of the ones we already have.

[Daggers]

All businesses are subject to the same rules and regulations. We don't need new laws just better enforcement of the ones we already have.

How does that happen?

[Zingari]

if they aren't enforcing the existing laws , i don't see much point in having any new legislation

but like the old king said , " something's got to be done "

[FoxyPV]

I've always thought the football first rule was a bit of a joke. If the changes they make are to the benefit of the taxpayer then I can't see any problem with bringing in new legislation.

[Webbo]

How does that happen?

For a start how is that football first rule legal? Why should football clubs be paid before other creditors, are agents included in that?If clubs thought that there was a chance they wouldn't be paid for a player they wouldn't sell him to that club forcing them to better live within their means .

Why should a local MP of the governing party be allowed to put pressure on the inland revenue to accept a deal just to help his re-election?

If you accept the principle of govt interference then where does it stop? How long will it be before they are forcing quotas on teams of ethnicity or sexuality or deciding who the national team can play for political reasons?

As in all things, I think we should have as little govt as possible.

[Daggers]

For a start how is that football first rule legal? Why should football clubs be paid before other creditors, are agents included in that?If clubs thought that there was a chance they wouldn't be paid for a player they wouldn't sell him to that club forcing them to better live within their means .

Why should a local MP of the governing party be allowed to put pressure on the inland revenue to accept a deal just to help his re-election?

Thanks. You seem to have just made my point for me. They are crying out for a direct law banning this behaviour.

If you accept the principle of govt interference then where does it stop? How long will it be before they are forcing quotas on teams of ethnicity or sexuality or deciding who the national team can play for political reasons?

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't wash with me. You might as well invoke the prospect of them mandating aliens and it all ending in the enslavement of humanity with the compulsory watching of X-Factor.

[Jon the Hat]

The football first rule is basically theft from the taxpayer.

Too much money is going straight through clubs and into the pockets of players, agents and other dodgy types. The fans will be the ones left with empty pockets, no team to support while those in charge go off and fleece another sport..

[Zingari]

The football first rule is basically theft from the taxpayer.

Too much money is going straight through clubs and into the pockets of players, agents and other dodgy types. The fans will be the ones left with empty pockets, no team to support while those in charge go off and fleece another sport..

gen question to you Jon or anyone else in the know , as i'm a bit confused ( nothing new )

are there actually different rules/laws that are applied to football clubs etc as opposed to other businesses with regard to administation, or is it just some sort of agreement reached between the football authority and the inland revenue and other creditors ?

i cannot see how this situation has arisen

sorry if this has been covered already by anyone , but i can't work it out

[Webbo]

Thanks. You seem to have just made my point for me. They are crying out for a direct law banning this behaviour.

Not really, bankruptcy laws should apply to all businesses, there is no need to make football an exception

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't wash with me. You might as well invoke the prospect of them mandating aliens and it all ending in the enslavement of humanity with the compulsory watching of X-Factor.

If you've got teenage daughters X factor is compulsory anyway.

[The Doctor]

Not really, bankruptcy laws should apply to all businesses, there is no need to make football an exception

If you've got teenage daughters X factor is compulsory anyway.

no it's not, put dead batteries in your current tv handset, get a new one from somewhere, most electrical places & supermarkets sell new handsets. Put working batteries in that, keep that handset between you and the wife and, bingo you have complete control of the tv again.

[FoxyPV]

no it's not, put dead batteries in your current tv handset, get a new one from somewhere, most electrical places & supermarkets sell new handsets. Put working batteries in that, keep that handset between you and the wife and, bingo you have complete control of the tv again.

Oh, the naivety..