By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Bolton are just starting out on their "journey" with EFL. A potential punishment for Dirty Leeds over spygate. Ourselves back in the national spotlight when back in court.
I reckon it could be worth another crack at it in a few months time.
Regrettably, I think the world has moved on. It served a useful purpose them and will no doubt be a useful piece of background for the future. And as Tim says, bringing it back is probably not possible and it is doubtful what purpose a variant of it would serve now.
HMG is aware of concerns that have been raised about the Football Association’s ability to govern the game effectively. As the national governing body for football in England, the FA is responsible for regulating, promoting and developing the game at every level.
The Sports Governance Code that came into force on 1 April 2017 applies to all sporting bodies in receipt of public funding from Sport England and UK Sport. It challenges the FA and all other governing bodies to demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of governance and regulation. The Code requires evidence that sports bodies operate efficiently and successfully while being transparent and representative of society.
We therefore welcome the reforms the FA has made to comply with the Code that include reducing its Board in size from 12 to 10 members, ensuring a more even gender split, and ensuring at least a quarter of its members are independent of football club interests. We believe that moving to a thoroughly strategic, accountable and representative Board with the right mix of skills, diversity and experience is the key to unlocking the long-term potential of football in this country, from grassroots up to the national teams.
The reform of the FA Council; changes to tenure, and the addition of new members will help ensure this body is also more representative of the modern game. The principle that all FA Committees should report to the Board is one we strongly support and is a requirement under the Code.
We are comfortable that the actions the FA has already taken and further actions it has agreed to implement to comply with the Sports Governance Code will improve its governance. This will continue to be monitored and managed through funding conditions which require ongoing compliance with the Code.
The Premier League (PL) and the English Football League (EFL) are not in receipt of public funding and therefore they and the clubs in their leagues are not regulated through the mandatory condition of funding which requires compliance with the Sports Governance Code. However, the PL and the EFL have established their own regulatory frameworks which clubs are required to comply with in order to participate in their respective leagues.
Indeed we welcome the fact that the financial state of football clubs in this country is better now than at any time over the last 20 years. Measures introduced in recent years include the Leagues requiring business cases and proof of funds from club owners, a working relationship between clubs and HMRC over tax owed, and the adoption of financial fair play rules. Together these have helped curb club debt and promoted sustainability. However, football clubs and the football authorities cannot be complacent. They must keep these rules under constant review.
Similarly, with regard to ownership of clubs, the onus for the football authorities is ensuring the criteria (known as the ‘Owners and Directors (ODT) Test’) as to whom can hold a controlling interest in clubs is as robust as possible, that due diligence is carried out on owners and conditions on what they can and cannot do are laid down from the start. We are pleased the football authorities have agreed to keep the ODT test under regular review and to listen to supporters’ concerns. This promise was outlined in the report of the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership and Engagement published in January 2016.
We are clear that we do not expect that the PL or EFL’s rulebooks will be superseded but it is right that policy-making on disciplinary issues sits outside the Leagues. The Football Regulatory Authority for example, is a body responsible for regulatory, disciplinary and rule-making for football played in England. The membership of the body is jointly made up of representatives from the national game, professional game and independent non-executives.
The Independent Football Ombudsman is also there to receive and adjudicate on complaints which have failed to be resolved by football clubs or the football authorities. The IFO is an important part of football’s self-regulatory system.
We accept that football governance must keep evolving if it is to keep pace with the challenges of the modern game and the global commercial attractiveness of English football. The Sports Governance Code helps, but the FA and other football bodies responsible for regulation of the game should continue to review how they are set up to ensure the effective running of the sport. At present, the regulatory framework that operates via league regulation through the PL and the EFL demonstrates there is already regulation of the governance of all football clubs. Where regulation is being managed by the existing authorities in football to the extent which it is, this negates the desire or need to establish an independent regulator
--------------- I thought this was quite relevant from the Football Regulatory Authority;
3 FRA ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE
3.1.3 monitoring compliance with and detecting breaches or possible breaches of the Rules, the Laws of the Game, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA, the rules and regulations of each Affiliated Association and Competition or any other rule or regulation of The Association, or offences or possible offences under any of them;
I'm not sure whether the Trust spoke with the FRA or not.
The main issue here is not so much about regulatory provision. There is actually plenty of that around, available mainly to the FA and the EFL. The problem is culture - the EFL in particular seem reluctant to challenge its Members on issues of conduct. They prefer to act as a revenue generator for them instead.
There is a clear conflict of interests there which they scarcely acknowledge, let alone address. Personally, as long as the key senior personnel there remain in place I see no prospect of that changing, unless pressure for it comes from outside at a very senior level (probably Parliament). The whole situation is a modern-day Augean stable.
PS If ever there was a response that was worded to put people off reading it, and at the same time sap your will to live, it's that one from the Dept. of DCMS
[Post edited 22 Jan 2019 2:53]
‘Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair’
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
