Where are the EFL ?

[BP1960]

3 minutes ago, C.O.JONES said:

Run a club, give me strength, they couldn't run a bath!

 

lol that's why I'm suggesting they learn before jumping  in.

[basilrobbie]

55 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

Maybe time for club owners to pass an accredited course in how to run a club before being allowed to do so, with a licence to operate similar to a UEFA badge?

As it stands they are basically amateurs trying to operate a professional outfit.

@Dave_Og may have some thoughts on this as he comes across as very knowledgeable in this subject, wheras I'm just a football watcher?

 

Some of this is supposed to happen now, in that the prospective new owner has to show the EFL that they have proof of funding before taking a club on.Your suggestion goes wider than that, of course.

 

The FSA favoured approach backs into this from a different angle, by asking that the new regulator be charged with identifying and promulgating good practice - thus establishing benchmarks against which less well run clubs can be judged - and helped to improve. It's not a quick fix, but I would agree that it has more chance of being sustainable as it would be built upon excellence, and evidence thereof.

[Pidge]

46 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

 

Some of this is supposed to happen now, in that the prospective new owner has to show the EFL that they have proof of funding before taking a club on.Your suggestion goes wider than that, of course.

 

The FSA favoured approach backs into this from a different angle, by asking that the new regulator be charged with identifying and promulgating good practice - thus establishing benchmarks against which less well run clubs can be judged - and helped to improve. It's not a quick fix, but I would agree that it has more chance of being sustainable as it would be built upon excellence, and evidence thereof.

How can you judge against the benchmark unless you have a system of inspections.  (We exchanged yesterday on the NHS CQC model of inspections.) 

[Dave_Og]

2 hours ago, BP1960 said:

 

Maybe time for club owners to pass an accredited course in how to run a club before being allowed to do so, with a licence to operate similar to a UEFA badge?

As it stands they are basically amateurs trying to operate a professional outfit.

@Dave_Og may have some thoughts on this as he comes across as very knowledgeable in this subject, wheras I'm just a football watcher?

There are essentially two forms of regulation; statutory and self imposed (as a sector). The EFL falls into the latter category and there appear to be many of circumstances over the years where it seems to have been demonstrated as not being fit for purpose. So that means can it be made so and, if so, how. Well the EFL is made up of its 72 member clubs and I can detect minimal enthusiasm from them for fundamental reform so the prospects of that route delivering a good outcome seem to be remote. 

 

That leaves the option of statutory, i.e. government imposed, regulation. Is that desirable? Is it likely? I'd say no to both as I'm not generally jn favour of state intervention and I'd struggle to imagine it as a government priority. 

 

Either way regulation is only as good as its enforcement. In EFL terms that should be relatively simple as there can only be 72 organisations to look at rather than the thousands of food premises, financial services companies, schools or health service premises that regulators in those sectors are tasked with supervising. It does however, inevitably, cist money to do it properly and that's probably where the debate rests.

 

Who is paying? 

[SweeperKeeper]

2 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

There are essentially two forms of regulation; statutory and self imposed (as a sector). The EFL falls into the latter category and there appear to be many of circumstances over the years where it seems to have been demonstrated as not being fit for purpose. So that means can it be made so and, if so, how. Well the EFL is made up of its 72 member clubs and I can detect minimal enthusiasm from them for fundamental reform so the prospects of that route delivering a good outcome seem to be remote. 

 

That leaves the option of statutory, i.e. government imposed, regulation. Is that desirable? Is it likely? I'd say no to both as I'm not generally jn favour of state intervention and I'd struggle to imagine it as a government priority. 

 

Either way regulation is only as good as its enforcement. In EFL terms that should be relatively simple as there can only be 72 organisations to look at rather than the thousands of food premises, financial services companies, schools or health service premises that regulators in those sectors are tasked with supervising. It does however, inevitably, cist money to do it properly and that's probably where the debate rests.

 

Who is paying? 

Other countries have realised that it's worth it to make their leagues more sustainable, so I'm hopeful England makes the transition.

 

However, in most cases those countries only brought in stricter rules after spates of bankruptcies.  At the moment, we'd more likely be one of those clubs than not.

[Dave_Og]

17 minutes ago, SweeperKeeper said:

Other countries have realised that it's worth it to make their leagues more sustainable, so I'm hopeful England makes the transition.

 

However, in most cases those countries only brought in stricter rules after spates of bankruptcies.  At the moment, we'd more likely be one of those clubs than not.

Im struggling to see a likelier outcome 

[basilrobbie]

2 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

There are essentially two forms of regulation; statutory and self imposed (as a sector). The EFL falls into the latter category and there appear to be many of circumstances over the years where it seems to have been demonstrated as not being fit for purpose. So that means can it be made so and, if so, how. Well the EFL is made up of its 72 member clubs and I can detect minimal enthusiasm from them for fundamental reform so the prospects of that route delivering a good outcome seem to be remote. 

 

That leaves the option of statutory, i.e. government imposed, regulation. Is that desirable? Is it likely? I'd say no to both as I'm not generally jn favour of state intervention and I'd struggle to imagine it as a government priority. 

 

Either way regulation is only as good as its enforcement. In EFL terms that should be relatively simple as there can only be 72 organisations to look at rather than the thousands of food premises, financial services companies, schools or health service premises that regulators in those sectors are tasked with supervising. It does however, inevitably, cist money to do it properly and that's probably where the debate rests.

 

Who is paying? 

Dave, two things :

 

1) I think the cat is out of the bag regarding an independent regulator, and I think Ms Crouch favours one established by statute. There are a number of models - Non-Ministerial Departments, arms-length agencies, companies limited by guarantee all exist in the UK, and there are others. 

 

2) on who pays, personalIy favour a model which is part funded from Government and part top-sliced from the TV money. But the FSA have argued for a model funded by TV money, plus levies on betting companies and player's agents fees.

 

As for regulation only being as good as its enforcement - at the bad end of the spectrum, I 100% agree. But I think enforcement measures need to be widened to include a graduated suite of measures aimed at owners and directors and their holding companies, rather than the clubs themselves where possible.