BILLY BREMNER MEMORIAL JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN
Date: 27th January 2024
Money for nothing – Calling for the SFA to have a debate about financial rule changes
It was recently announced ( leaked to the press) that the Billionaire owner of AFC Bournemouth, Bill Foley was interested in buying up to 25% of Hibernian. To do so it would require a change of the SFA rules which currently prohibit multiple ownerships of football clubs. The current limit would see and new owner being restricted to 9.9% as we saw when Mike Ashley then of Newcastle United held that amount of shares. I am not sure many people would have wanted him in Scottish Football given his reputation in the North East of England
This announcement raises many the questions that the SFA need to consider. There is of course no surprise to anyone that there has been no proper debate of scrutiny around this with the usual Hampden Park money grab of whatever cash they can find. We have seen it before with the influx of the betting companies and of course that fantastic wholesome sponsorship from the highly desirable Glens Vodka deal.( They give us cash and our clubs need cash so no issue here)
Is changing a rule that has served Scottish Football well in the past worth considering and if so how will if benefit the wider game? If we use Partick Thistle as an example the infamous Ken Bates tried to buy the club when he owned Chelsea. Due to the duel interest rules he was unable to buy the Jags which was a huge escape as within 6 months Chelsea went into administration. If we fast forward to 2019 when Chen Lee and Paul Conway of Barnsley ( and owners of a selection of other clubs) also tried to buy Thistle once again the duel interest rues stopped in happening. At that time Jags fans were in regular contact with Tykes fans who were warning us that they felt no benefits from being part of the wider group and that the owners were overseas and had no interest in the fans. On the field Barnsley continued to bounce between the divisions and the Moneyball business strategy they were sold produced very little returns for the club. With the DUEL interest route blocked from this investment group it of course allowed for a path to open up for Partick Thistle fans to buy the club for the community.
So the existing rules have been proven to be a safeguard for at least two of our clubs in the past and there may have been more given that so many of these types of deals are done in secret. Of course when it comes to the Bill Foley “investment” there are more questions than answers.
The obvious one is in changing the ruling regarding due ownership what would the benefits be for Scottish Football. From a Hibs perspective they might argue that it would give them access to better loan deals from other clubs and with further investment they might be able to challenge more at the top six of the league. The Romanov Lithuanian experiment is a salutary reminder that this model has been tried and tested and dumped before. Opening up the market might help fuel another race to no where given that the top of the game is a duopoly.
Will the SFA look at the bigger picture will all the clubs be able to contribute to the debate ? Of course we know that is unlikely. Given what we are seeing in England with the problems with Financial Fair Play what impact will allowing our clubs to be part of debt ridden clusters of clubs does this move help the financial sustainability of our clubs. Remember being in the English Premer League you are allowed to have up to £120 in debt
The reality is that is a very different scenario to asking Taylor Swift for a few bob and is stepping into the unknown with few obvious tangible benefits. In opening up this multi club pathway what impact will it have on governance at local level ? Another key question for the SFA to address is that with fewer and fewer Scottish players in our top teams do they want this new investment to bring in even more foreign players? Should this change in the rules not be debated throughout the game?
Sadly as is always the case with decisions made behind closed doors it looks like the poor governance of the game will allow for decisions to be made that someone somewhere things will be good for our game. Give the track record of floor six at Hampden Park the jury is very much out on them doing the right thing.
1 Newcastle United FC – Saudi Public Investment Fund, RB Sports & Media, PCP Capital Partners Saudi Arabia
Net worth: £489billion
2 Manchester United FC – Glazer Family, Sir Jim Ratcliffe USA / ENGLAND
Net worth: £22.01 billion
3 Manchester City FC – Abu Dhabi United Group, Silver Lake ABU DHABI
Net worth: £17.37billion
4 Chelsea FC– Todd Boehly, Hansjorg Wyss, Mark Walter USA /SWISS / USA
Net worth: £12.47billion
5 Arsenal FC – Stan Kroenke USA
Net worth: £10.18billion
6 Aston Villa FC – Wes Edens, Nassef Sawiris USA / Egypt
Net worth: £9.39billion
7 Everton FC – 777 Partners
Net worth: £8billion
8 Liverpool FC – John W. Henry, Tom Werner
Net worth: £7.74billion
9 Fulham FC – Shahid Khan USA
Net worth: £6.24billion
10 West Ham United FC – David Sullivan, Daniel Kretinsky England / Czech Republic
Net worth: £5.76billion
11 Wolverhampton Wanderers FC – Guo Guangchang, Liang Xinjun, Wang Qunbin China /Hong Kong
Net worth: £5.45billion
12 Tottenham Hotspur FC – Joe Lewis, Daniel Levy USA / England
Net worth: £4.58billion
13 Crystal Palace FC – John Textor, David Blitzer, Josh Harris, Steve Parish
Net worth: £4.34billion
14 AFC Bournemouth – William P. Foley USA
Net worth: £1.26billion
15 Brighton & Hove Albion FC – Tony Bloom England
Net worth: £1.03billion
16 Nottingham Forest FC – Evangelos Marinakis Greece
Net worth: £489million
17 Brentford FC – Matthew Benham
Net worth: £220million
18 Sheffield United FC – Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud Saudi Arabia
Net worth: £158million
19 Luton Town FC – David Wilkinson England
Net worth: £25.74million
20 Burnley FC – Alan Pace ALK Capital. Velocity Sports Partners (VSP) USA
Net worth: Unknown estimated £200 – £300m
Dual Interest in Clubs – these minutes are obviously not in the public domain but were leaked to us by a club representative who believes that these issues should be debated by the whole game
Scottish FA Article 13 (Dual Interests in Clubs) states inter alia that “except with the prior written consent of the Board” no person who is a shareholder in a club in Scotland may at the same time also be a shareholder in another club resident in any of the 55 member countries of UEFA.
Article 13 is widely drawn such that being involved in the management or administration or being able to influence the management or administration of more than one club is also forbidden without the prior written approval of the Board of the Scottish FA.
That said, there have been a limited number of instances when the Board of the Scottish FA has granted consent to particular circumstances which would have otherwise breached Article 13. The natural presumption is that dual interests are not permitted or encouraged in Scotland.
The Board is aware that clubs currently face an uncertain financial future as they respond to the global coronavirus pandemic in the weeks and months ahead without the income they would normally generate from playing matches. Every club will have its own strategy to find a route through the difficulties. Some may have reserves or access to support from existing stakeholders. Others may seek to attract support from new sources.
Against this background the Board has been asked to clarify its attitude towards Article 13. The matter was debated by the Board on 23 March 2020 and the following, non-binding guidance can be given.
The foregoing guidance simply restates existing practice. In the current circumstances the Board has signalled that, subject to being satisfied with the detailed arrangements and protections for the member club and its supporters set out in any formal application, the Board of the Scottish FA would be open-minded towards an application for consent under Article 13 where a new investor or group of investors acting together would hold up to 24.9% of the enlarged equity in a member club and at the same have an interest in a club (or clubs) out with Scotland provided that the national association(s) where the club(s) were registered also approved the resulting Dual Interest in the member club in Scotland.
So that was the past and now the decision has been made behind closed doors as usual because that is the way it has always been and that is the way they want it. Not even the clubs have a say.
Posted in: Latest News, Review of the Game
Tags: Fan Led Review, financial rules, Scottish fans, Scottish football, SFA