One
line of argument re protests for the Burnley game has been why should we care
about the interests of the Football League when the authorities are doing
nothing to protect us (and others) from either asset strippers or oddballs with
delusions of grandeur? Related to this, there's a piece on Football League
World posing the question 'is the football league failing football clubs and
football fans?', looking in particular at Blackpool, Leeds and us.
The
usual issue raised is how can the Football League have a 'fit and proper
person' test and still allow the Oystons and Duchatelets to buy clubs and run
them in ways that end in failure, for whatever reason. Looking at the rule, I
don't think it's appropriate to say that it isn't fit for purpose; rather it is
fit for purpose but only with a limited interpretation and is badly named and
worded. If it was called the 'not likely to suddenly go bust or get locked up'
test nobody could complain. Perhaps like most laws and regulations it could use
a rewrite in light of experience.
According
to the Football League, the intention of the ‘fit and proper person’ test is
“to protect the image and integrity of the League and its competitions, the
well-being of the Clubs, and the interests of all the stakeholders in those
Clubs, by preventing anyone who is subject to a ‘Disqualifying Condition’ being
involved in or influencing the management or administration of a Club”. Reading
between the lines suggests that the test is focused purely on financial
sustainability and conflict of interest, with narrow guidelines. To fall foul
of the test on financial grounds seems to require bankruptcy and/or a history
of involvement with a club that has experienced an ‘event of insolvency’, while
a potential purchaser of a club may fail on the grounds that he/she has
insufficient financial backing. To fail on grounds of conflict of interest just
considers the person’s involvement with another UK football club (I’d actually
favour an extension of this to cover at least all European football clubs,
which would hopefully put an end to unwanted ‘networks’).
However,
calling it a 'fit and proper person’ test suggests a wider assessment of a
person’s capabilities and plans for a football club - as does the Football
League's talk of protecting "all the stakeholders" in clubs. If
supporters are defined as stakeholders (rather than customers) the rule takes
us into broader areas. As it stands, and I assume as it was intended, the test just
about does what it is mean to do - filter out a few and possibly deter some
more, on financial sustainability criteria. Even then it is hard to say that it
has had a material impact (in terms of fewer clubs going into administration
than before), given that it was introduced along with the change to dock a club
10 points for going into administration and in the wake of the collapse of
ITVDigital in March 2002 owing the Football League some £180m and a spate of
clubs subsequently going into administration.
If
supporters are (quite properly) considered stakeholders, surely just a look at
the varying degrees of protest from fans of clubs as diverse as Man Utd,
Liverpool, Hull, Cardiff, Leeds, Charlton, Blackpool, Brighton, Wrexham – and
many more – in response to the behaviour of the owners of their clubs is enough
to conclude that the Football League is not doing enough to promote and defend
supporters' interests. Fans of course like to moan and a period of a team underperforming
can lead to calls for owners to sell up/move on just because sometimes unrealistic
expectations are not fulfilled. Relegation alone is not
exactly grounds for an owner to be reassessed by the Football League. But
basically there is nothing in the League’s current tests to defend supporters’
interests when it comes to issues such as outright asset-stripping through to
insensitivity to a club’s traditions.
So
can anything practical and desirable be done, perhaps not in time to help us in
the struggle to secure a change of ownership but to increase the weighting of
supporters’ interests as stakeholders? I'd suggest that trying to rework the
'fit and proper person' test is a waste of time: rename it and keep it in place
while looking to add new elements for supporters. There are of course already
initiatives with good intentions; last year Labour was promising that if
elected it would introduce legislation to give supporters trusts two guaranteed
places on the board and the option to purchase a minority stake when more than
30% of a club’s shares was changing hands. And according to Wikopedia, more
than 110 supporters trusts own equity in their clubs, while over 40 have board
representation.
Personally
I'm not a big fan of supporters having board representation (as we once did),
however well meaning. It works well enough in Germany, but the corporate
tradition is different there, it is normal for example for unions to have
places on the board. I doubt whether having a place or two on the Charlton
board would help us much if at all. Duchatelet would appoint a few more
directors to ensure that the fans' representatives could never win any vote and
board meetings would just become a rubber-stamping exercise with all the
decisions taken in advance by the same people as now. Also, a kind of 'right to
buy' a minority stake would take us into very uncertain territory, especially given
the way most deals are now structured. And if supporters don't have the
resources at a point in time not of their choosing are they then just denied a
voice?
Instead,
I'd suggest an area that could be developed. When any company is bought and
sold, or floated on a market, there is a detailed process of due diligence. And
when we buy and sell properties we go through the process of solicitor's
inquiries. I can't believe it's beyond the wit of the authorities (and their
lawyers) to have some form of sustainability contract covering areas of concern
for supporters that any purchaser of a football club has to sign up to. This
would require organised bodies to speak for the supporters, but the Trusts are
now fulfilling that role. It would also require the teeth to be meaningful, ie
real penalties/sanctions for the owners as individuals if they break one or
more of the covenants, up to and including a forced sale. That's one for the
lawyers.
Supporters
aren't daft (however much some owners may like to think so) and nobody would be
suggesting an agreement detailing levels of financial bankrolling, transfer
policy etc (tempting to think of a future contract for Charlton requiring any
owner not to appoint another Belgian manager/head coach but that would - quite
rightly - fall foul of at least EU legislation). But clauses on issues such as
a change of ground, requiring any owner to secure the consent of supporters,
would I think be desirable and practical.
I
don't doubt that the football authorities will do nothing unless put under
pressure. But I also don't doubt that such pressure will continue to be evident
and will probably intensify as more dissatisfied supporters group together, a
process made much easier by social media. How refreshing it would be if the
authorities (in their own interest) took a step back and actually concluded
that the interests of supporters as stakeholders are not being properly
defended, the 'fit and proper person' test can't be modified to address the
problem, and that alternative arrangements (whether board places, minority
ownership, or something along the lines of a sustainability contract) need to
be assessed and implemented. But I guess that would be like expecting the
Bournemouth owner to be crying over a £7.6m fine for breaching financial fair
play rules (or alternatively not laughing heartily at anyone dumb enough to
have based a strategy for a club on the notion that FFP could produce a level
playing field).
No comments:
Post a Comment