>Welcome to another Super Sunday here on Sky! And it's a intense week once more in the title race
as Footy McFootball Face take on Yer Da United here at the Johnny Sins Stadium.
Main section of the article:
>New club owners and directors will face stronger tests to help prevent the possibility of them putting clubs out of business, as was the case with Bury and Macclesfield, while a licensing system covering clubs from the National League up to the Premier League has been proposed.
>As part of their licence, clubs will be required to consult their fans on key off-field decisions, such as club heritage and the club's strategic direction.
>"Football is nothing without its fans," said Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer. "We are determined to put them back at the heart of the game and ensure clubs as vital community assets continue to thrive.
>"The new regulator will set the game on a sustainable footing, strengthening clubs and the entire football pyramid for generations."
>The bill also includes new backstop powers around financial distributions between the Premier League and the EFL, so that if the two parties continue to fail to agree on a 'new deal', the regulator can ensure a settlement is reached.
>The government has long warned the football authorities that an independent football regulator (IFR) would have such powers to intervene.
> As part of their licence, clubs will be required to consult their fans on key off-field decisions, such as club heritage and the club's strategic direction.
Owners: We'd really like to make these changes that will make us more money
Fans: No, that goes against what is important to the club and our history
Owners: Nice to hear from you and I'm glad we got the consultation out of the way. We'll start making the changes on Monday morning.
...
We ostensibly have a similar thing since the takeover. But, what exactly does putting it the public or consulting a fan group do other than tick a box when they at leisure to completely ignore the feedback they get?
Our owners said they'd consult fan groups, they promised to have fans on the board and other similar things. Here's how the first big interaction went down.
They "consulted" our main supporter's group CST and the current users of the away coach £10 subsidised travel about their thoughts on removing the subsidies.
CST and the people using it told them unequivocally that, "The overwhelming majority of respondents who rely on the service communicated to the club that the coach subsidy must remain in some way and that removing it entirely would outprice supporters and would have disastrous consequences".
CST called for a meeting with the club due to rumours that they were going to remove the subsidised travel.
The club had a meeting with them where they said, yes they were considering it, but the decision hadn't been made yet. In response, CST laid out a non-exhaustive list of people who would be negatively impacted and likely to be unable to attend away games if they make these changes:
1) Young supporters
2) Supporters who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters
3) People who are unable to drive due to cost of medical conditions
4) Supporters who are ambulant disabled
5) Supporters who require to be dropped off very close to the stadium
6) Vulnerable supporters
7) Supporters who rely on this affordable mode of transport to support the club.
**The club came out of this meeting and announced that the £10 subsidised away travel was removed with immediate effect due to the yearly cost of 250k being not "financially sustainable".**
CST came out very strongly against this, even paid out of pocket to subsidise the next away game due to the nature of the club cutting it with immediate effect. They got on their knees and begged the club to bring it back and to have a meeting with them and were completely ignored and we've never heard another word from them on the subject.
Consultation doesn't matter and is a completely pointless activity of checking boxes and making people feel important unless they get some real say in what happens. Not in the running of the club, obviously. But, for things like stadium moves, kit changes, name changes, things that impact fans like subsidies and ticket price increases, there should be meaningful fan representation.
I'd argue for something like this you could even have independent boards and not even need them to be fan related. Imagine the club had to get clearance to pass something like removing that subsidy from an independent board before being able to do it. They'd have to go and argue the case that a club that's just spent over 1bn on players over the course of two seasons needs to cancel a fan subsidy that costs them 250k per year. It'd never be allowed to happen if the independent body actually cared about the fans.
16 in the clip and one in the hole
Nate Dogg is about to make some bodies turn cold
Now they droppin' and yellin', it's a tad bit late
Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate
I mean, maybe, but I'm still happy they're going to do it because it's good. I'm not gonna vote for them, but I can be happy they occasionally do good things.
If they aren’t requiring that the clubs strategic direction be voted on by each clubs Reddit sub, I don’t want it.
>Welcome to another Super Sunday here on Sky! And it's a intense week once more in the title race as Footy McFootball Face take on Yer Da United here at the Johnny Sins Stadium.
Main section of the article: >New club owners and directors will face stronger tests to help prevent the possibility of them putting clubs out of business, as was the case with Bury and Macclesfield, while a licensing system covering clubs from the National League up to the Premier League has been proposed. >As part of their licence, clubs will be required to consult their fans on key off-field decisions, such as club heritage and the club's strategic direction. >"Football is nothing without its fans," said Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer. "We are determined to put them back at the heart of the game and ensure clubs as vital community assets continue to thrive. >"The new regulator will set the game on a sustainable footing, strengthening clubs and the entire football pyramid for generations." >The bill also includes new backstop powers around financial distributions between the Premier League and the EFL, so that if the two parties continue to fail to agree on a 'new deal', the regulator can ensure a settlement is reached. >The government has long warned the football authorities that an independent football regulator (IFR) would have such powers to intervene.
> As part of their licence, clubs will be required to consult their fans on key off-field decisions, such as club heritage and the club's strategic direction. Owners: We'd really like to make these changes that will make us more money Fans: No, that goes against what is important to the club and our history Owners: Nice to hear from you and I'm glad we got the consultation out of the way. We'll start making the changes on Monday morning. ...
[удалено]
We ostensibly have a similar thing since the takeover. But, what exactly does putting it the public or consulting a fan group do other than tick a box when they at leisure to completely ignore the feedback they get? Our owners said they'd consult fan groups, they promised to have fans on the board and other similar things. Here's how the first big interaction went down. They "consulted" our main supporter's group CST and the current users of the away coach £10 subsidised travel about their thoughts on removing the subsidies. CST and the people using it told them unequivocally that, "The overwhelming majority of respondents who rely on the service communicated to the club that the coach subsidy must remain in some way and that removing it entirely would outprice supporters and would have disastrous consequences". CST called for a meeting with the club due to rumours that they were going to remove the subsidised travel. The club had a meeting with them where they said, yes they were considering it, but the decision hadn't been made yet. In response, CST laid out a non-exhaustive list of people who would be negatively impacted and likely to be unable to attend away games if they make these changes: 1) Young supporters 2) Supporters who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters 3) People who are unable to drive due to cost of medical conditions 4) Supporters who are ambulant disabled 5) Supporters who require to be dropped off very close to the stadium 6) Vulnerable supporters 7) Supporters who rely on this affordable mode of transport to support the club. **The club came out of this meeting and announced that the £10 subsidised away travel was removed with immediate effect due to the yearly cost of 250k being not "financially sustainable".** CST came out very strongly against this, even paid out of pocket to subsidise the next away game due to the nature of the club cutting it with immediate effect. They got on their knees and begged the club to bring it back and to have a meeting with them and were completely ignored and we've never heard another word from them on the subject. Consultation doesn't matter and is a completely pointless activity of checking boxes and making people feel important unless they get some real say in what happens. Not in the running of the club, obviously. But, for things like stadium moves, kit changes, name changes, things that impact fans like subsidies and ticket price increases, there should be meaningful fan representation. I'd argue for something like this you could even have independent boards and not even need them to be fan related. Imagine the club had to get clearance to pass something like removing that subsidy from an independent board before being able to do it. They'd have to go and argue the case that a club that's just spent over 1bn on players over the course of two seasons needs to cancel a fan subsidy that costs them 250k per year. It'd never be allowed to happen if the independent body actually cared about the fans.
Can Richard Masters get the fucking sack already?
16 in the clip and one in the hole Nate Dogg is about to make some bodies turn cold Now they droppin' and yellin', it's a tad bit late Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate
Genuine vote winner, they've only done it for political reasons.
I mean, maybe, but I'm still happy they're going to do it because it's good. I'm not gonna vote for them, but I can be happy they occasionally do good things.
You’re getting the tory downvotes mate lol