House of Lords opposition attempting to prevent Independent Football Regulator – Can’t happen | OneFootball

All too predictably, some of those in the House of Lords are attempting to prevent the introduction of an Independent Football Regulator and keep the status quo with the Premier League and those below.

A status quo where certain Premier League clubs and characters in particular, look to dominate and dictate what happens.

No wonder so many rich and powerful owners of Premier League clubs are running scared.

Karren Brady sums the situation up, she is a peer AND vice-chair at West Ham, Brady warning of “dangers lurking in this bill” for the health of football in this country.

Hmmmm, I think we all know where and WHO the dangers are to football and they are NOT the imminent Independent Football Regulator.

As well as a fairer redistribution from Premier League clubs to the rest of football, the Independent Football Regulator will also be set to tackle the shameful actions of so many Premier League clubs when it comes to ticket prices.

No surprise/coincidence that Karren Brady is fighting so hard against the introduction of an Independent Football Regulator, when it is West Ham fans who are amongst the most outraged due to what is going on at their club. Massive ticket price rises, including the erosion of concessions to young and old, Premier League clubs doing everything they can to maintain their ‘Greed is good’ mantra.

Whilst of course other shameless characters, such as tax dodging Ratcliffe at Man U, are arguably even worse. Wanting the taxpayer to fund a new Man U stadium whilst he (Ratcliffe) has got rid of concession prices for young and old the rest of this season, which of course will end up permanent, unless an Independent Football Regulator is brought in to stop him and others. Ratcliffe having the audacity to blame ticket prices at Fulham as justification for getting rid of concessions.

‘Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has criticised some opposition members of the House of Lords, who she says are “intent on wrecking” the Football Governance Bill by having it delayed “for years to come”.

The legislation, which will establish the first independent regulator for the professional men’s game in England, was reintroduced to Parliament by the government in October.

It has just completed the first ‘committee stage’ in the Lords, where hundreds of potential amendments have been tabled.

One that could soon be voted on is a proposal to reclassify the legislation as a ‘hybrid bill’, which would require additional consultation with clubs.

“We really are at a critical juncture here,” said Nandy, speaking at an event organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Football and the English Football League (EFL).

“We’ve had what is known as a ‘wrecking amendment’ put in front of the House of Lords in recent weeks to turn this bill into a hybrid bill, which would bury it in committee for years and years to come.

“And I do want to say to that handful of peers that have decided to take that approach, ‘what you are doing is killing off the hopes and dreams and inheritance of fans who deserve far, far better’.”

A hybrid bill is one that is deemed to target specific private interests – such as football clubs. It must allow those affected to submit a petition to Parliament outlining their opposition, potentially adding to the time needed for it to pass into legislation.

Conservative peers have denied claims they are trying to delay the bill, insisting they are subjecting it to proper scrutiny.

(The bill could potentially decide)… which proposed sharing model the regulator may then impose – the Premier League’s or the EFL’s – if it is asked to decide how much money the top flight should redistribute to the football pyramid via ‘backstop powers’.

It will also “explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement” with fans on changes to ticket prices and any proposals to relocate home grounds.

However, while supporter groups and the EFL are among those to have welcomed the bill, the Premier League is concerned at the regulator having “unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of [its] revenues”, and also said it could have “a negative impact” on competitiveness and investment.