Hello. Before I carry on with the rest of the 'Football Governance' Oral evidential hearing that took place on the 26th April, 2011 I wish to add to my PART ONE Blog...
I know whats coming up next and I bet...it's a 'LAW FIRM'
Tom Watson: I am sorry to make this about Manchester United, but just on the point about the due diligence, the secret organisation that vets potential buyers-
Niall Quinn: It is a law firm.
Tom Watson: Yes, law firm. Can I just ask, would you be confident that the Glazers would pass that new test today were they buying the club?
http://tinyurl.com/2bso4k4 I have a PDF File here and if one scrolls down to page 7, Under heading FINANCING OF THE OFFER there is who is the name of the LAW FIRM the MP's on the Football Governance select committee want to know.
I have also included this LINK: http://tinyurl.com/3jqzdbg This leads DIRECTLY as an example to...
'SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND'....MY GIFT TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE
I shall now carry on with PART 2 of the Oral Evidential Football Governance Inquiry dated 08 March, 2011.
Dr Coffey: Could you clarify, Mr Quinn: are you debt financed or are you equity owned?
Niall Quinn: Five years ago when we took over the club we inherited a quite sizeable debt. A group of Irish investors came in and invested themselves in the club, maintaining the level of debt. Ellis Short then came in and took all the shareholding and we have worked consistently over the last three or four years, since Ellis has come in, on the club’s progress. While we have made progress, we have also reduced that debt by about 25% and other money that he has put into the club he has capitalised. So he has been a model owner.
Damian Collins: Following on the questions about financial fair play, do you have any concerns about the structure of the UEFA fair play rules? Mr Gill, does that pose any problems for Manchester United? For the representatives of the other clubs, could you live within those rules if you qualified for European competition next year?
David Gill: We were involved through the European Club Association, as were other clubs, such as Chelsea, for example, who were on the working group to develop those proposals with UEFA and make sure that what was being put in place was workable, made sense and was for the benefit of football; whether it be the benefit in terms of making sure, on Peter’s point, that clubs could operate within their own resources, in terms of ensuring, potentially, a limiting effect on player cost, or in terms of transfers and wages, so there are benefits coming out of it. We are comfortable with it. The critical issue will be around implementation and the sanctions around that, and making sure that it is appropriately applied. But I do not think anyone can criticise the objective of ensuring that clubs operate within their own resources, personally.
Mr Gill if Premier League clubs are to play under the 'AUSPICES' of UEFA i.e UEFA club competitions, there are of course requirements under the UEFA club licensing system "to be fulfilled by UEFA member associations" Might I suggest to Mr Know-All Gill that he read verbatim and most DEFINITELY ABSORB-COMPREHEND from UEFA the 'Financial Fair-Play Regulations'...Both the FA and the Premier League, I hope have a STRONG LICENSING SYSTEM'.
Peter Coates: I think it would be a good thing for football. My only concern will be its implementation and I want it to apply to Italy and Spain just as rigorously. We will play by the rules, as we should and as we would want to, and we have to be confident that UEFA will see that other clubs in other countries do the same. Even in the Bundesleague, it is not quite clear where everybody fits. They have lots of problems, lots of debts, and they have the kind of issues that we have been discussing today.
Someone should tell Mr Coates to LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE! when it comes to espousing about other EUROPEAN LEAGUES...Concern himself with HIS OWN BACKYARD! UEFA's Financial Fair-Play Regulations ARE FOR ALL TO ABIDE BY!
Niall Quinn: I suppose, from our point of view, at the very start when this first came into being a couple of years ago, when it was first heard of, we wondered was it an attempt to bring the Premier League back to the other leagues. I think there was a little bit of that at the very start, but we have worked our way through it now. It has been quite extensive in terms of the research and where we are all trying to get. A lot of people have put a lot of effort into this and I would back up exactly what everybody is saying. We are very comfortable. We think it will be very good for the game. I think the important thing is that fans feel like that and they feel that it is a good thing coming in, too. But can I also point out that I put petrol in my car yesterday and a fan told me to get my bloody chequebook out and sign Danny Welbeck from Manchester United? So while we talk this game we are under severe pressure to keep doing what the fans want. Hopefully, if they learn that FIFA fair play is a good thing too, then we can all make progress.
I shall like to allude to a statement made by the CEO of Arsenal Football Club, Ivan Gazidas on fans and supporters...
Ivan Gazidas said that "Player Transfer Fees and Player Salaries [Both are linked together] have "inexticably raised ticket prices"
He said he wants to see the committee deal with the Ticket pricings and his objective for the future is to bring back the young fans who have been priced out of the stadiums due to the rise in tickets.
Ivan Gazidas made these statements and I am sure Mr David Gill would be privvy to those statements as ALL the CEO's from the clubs, lunched together with the UK House of Commons, Culture, Media & Sport select committee Inquiry members as that is the club that the 'Football Governance' hearing KICKED OFF [No sarcasm intended], FROM.
Damian Collins: I suppose Welbeck might have cost about the same as the cost to fill up your car as well?
What a very comical man, Mr. Collins is lols
Niall Quinn: A little bit more.
...and a smart-arse reply lols
Tony Scholes: Spiralling wage costs at one club affect the rest of us, so financial fair play is an important thing to bring in. In its first guise, though, it would have been damaging to us. A club like Stoke City would have fallen foul of financial fair play because there was no latitude at all. But with the latitude that has now been negotiated into it, which does allow a limited amount of losses each year or a limited amount of owner investment, then I think we as a club are happy with it and as a league we are happy with it. Peter’s point is the crucial one. This country, our Premier League, our FA, will apply it rigorously. Our concern and our request is that every other country throughout Europe does the same.
Worry about YOURSELVES Mr. Scholes not other European Leagues. They are none of your concern!
Damian Collins: Given the positive response to it from you all, why shouldn’t we ask the Premier League to adopt this as a form of standard practice so that any club competing in the Premier League would be eligible to compete in European competition if they qualified?
SPOT ON! and TOUCHE to you Mr. Collins.
Niall Quinn: That is a journey we hope to go on and we would welcome being brought into that if everybody else was. I think some people would turn around and say, "But, Niall, you have had a couple of years of investment and you have had a leg up to get to a point now where you want to narrow the rules", and I have to accept that. But again, for the general good and the greater good of the game, I think it would be a better idea if all of us came under that. Yes, I would agree with that.
Good Boy! Niall
Tony Scholes: Many clubs in the Premier League at the moment adopt the UEFA licensing process. We do as a club. We have done since we have gone into the Premier League. You could argue quite reasonably that our chances of qualifying for Europe in the first couple of years were very slim, but as a club we thought it was the right thing to do. We are in the company of the vast majority of clubs in the League to do that.
Mr Scholes...I think your in a La La Land League of your own lols
David Gill: I think, if you look at it over time, as we understand how it operates, I think you can see that happening. We referred to an earlier example. The Premier League voluntarily agreed last year to introduce squad sizes, put the 25 in with the home-grown limit within it. As Tony said, a lot of clubs who apply for licences-they are operating anyway-would operate, if they got into Europe, within that. I think you move over time and I can see that happening.
...and you Mr Gill can try all you want to improvise, to introduce whatever measures you so wish within the Premier League Great! BUT UEFA Financial Fair-Play Regulations will be VIGOROUSLY APPLIED TO ALL AND SUNDRY!...There will be "monitoring requirements to be fulfilled by LICENSEES that qualify for the UEFA CLUB COMPETITIONS".
Damian Collins: You could see that?
David Gill: Yes, over time I think that would be the case; as people understand it, how they operate. As Niall said, people get into shape for it and prepare for it. I think you will see that happening.
...You have NO say in the matter when it comes to UEFA and their REGULATIONS...For United to participate in the UEFA competitions...Easy Mr Gill...Its called COMPLIANCE...I notice in your replies you always say, "I think" thats your problem...You ESPOUSE before thinking and the same applies to Mr Scholes as well.
Being sarcastic to certain select committee members is not condusive or positive as they are the ONES who will be reporting back to the government...with their RECOMMENDATIONS.
Only Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread...Mr Gill You are supposedly an informed man of vast experience...and that has yet to EMERGE.
Damian Collins: Mr Chairman, I want to move on to my next question on the football creditor rule, but I think Mr Farrelly is going to come in.
Paul Farrelly: Clearly, I think that experience across sport shows something about the issue of salary caps: they only work when you have a community of interest-for instance, as in rugby-and there is arguably not a community of interest between the Manchester Uniteds and the Chelseas and the Arsenals and everybody else who just wants to stay up in the league. I am sure, David, that many clubs operate an individual cap, even if it is not formalised, because everybody will want something else, if somebody gets another 10 grand a week, and then there will be no doubt in the interests of running a club an overall wage bill. But then you come along and you pay an outrageous amount to Wayne Rooney and you must have them all tearing their hair out, and any parent or teacher because you are also rewarding bad behaviour. How can you justify that if you have any feeling for your wider responsibilities to the game?
David Gill: We do have feelings for the wider responsibilities of the game. You said it is outrageous; that is your view. I do not think it is particularly outrageous and we have acted very sensibly in Manchester United. I agree with you 100% that a wage cap will not work. You use an example; yes, that is English Premier rugby but a lot of the players go to France where there is not a cap. These sort of things happen. Personally, I think a salary cap will not work but I think financial fair play will help within that. In Manchester United we have our own self-imposed cap. Ever since I have been there, we have imposed a cap whereby 50% of our turnover can be used on total salaries. A lot of that is players, clearly, and staff, but we have done that.
Within that, we believe that we can both retain the best players and attract the top players, and compete against other teams both domestically and European-wide, but at the same time retain money to invest back into the club, whether it be the training ground I mentioned earlier or revamping our boxes and so on. So we think that is the best way to do it and we are very comfortable with that. I think we look at it in the round. We are very careful in terms of what we pay our players; we make sure we do it and understand it. As I said in response to the first question, the business policy and business objectives of Manchester United depend on what happens on the pitch. We have to be out there playing attractive football, competing and making sure that we can do that, and we will do that by paying players appropriately.
Paul Farrelly: Just a brief supplementary, Chairman. Tony from Stoke commented on the knock-on effects of rising settlements. With Wayne Rooney, one could take the view that from a business perspective you have simply protected the value of an asset in what you have done; so fair play to you. But at the same time you have given a message, haven’t you, that bad behaviour pays off? Players making statements against the club will have agents encouraging them to carry on, because they will just say, "Look what we did in the Wayne Rooney case."
David Gill: Wayne Rooney is a great player both for this country and for Manchester United. They are role models, players, and there are examples of behaviour that is inappropriate; I would not disagree with that. But at the same time he is there, we want to keep him and I think it has not had a knock-on effect. We have done certain deals with other players, which we have announced recently, and the impact of what we paid Wayne-not that they know that-never came up. It was about what they believed they should be getting for playing for the club and we have acted accordingly. I do not think we should hone in on Wayne Rooney in this particular situation. He is a great player for the club and country and will continue to be so.
Wayne Rooney was my favourite player. I was only very annoyed at his treatment of his manager, Sir Alex Ferguson via an interview given by Wayne on his alleged 'Leg Injury' that was'nt...Intimating to the world at large that Sir Alex Ferguson was 'Lying' and then came the threat to quit the club on top of personal issues that as far as I am concerned are not relevant. He then after being given[with the aide of his agent] more money-Went on holiday to patch up his cheating ways with his wife and then onto Portland, Oregon for the NO 'Leg Injury' to be 'Conditioned'...and on return could'nt even play against his ex-club for fear of being abused...He got paid more 'REDDIES' he's an employee. His 'No Injured Conditioned Leg' should have been on that PITCH earning that pay rise.
I agree with Martin O'Neil when he says that "the shift in power is in the hands of the players" That is not right. An employee in any occupation does not tell the 'BOSS' or 'GAFFER' what to do...It is the other way round. If an employee/player feels hard done by-See the Football Players' Association for employment related advice, Period!
Things have moved on and so must we all. Wayne despite his 2 match ban is performing to the best of his abilities again...But for me it takes 11 players to net a ball as it also takes 11 players to stop that ball from being netted.
Damian Collins: There has been some discussion in our previous hearings about the football creditor rule, and I think concern has been expressed in the written evidence we have received as a Committee that this is an outdated practice and that it is unfair for football clubs to give each other preferential treatment while other creditors, be they the taxpayer, the taxman or even St. John Ambulance, potentially lose out. I would just like to ask your comments as people running clubs as to whether you think it would be good for football if we moved on from the football creditor rule. Mr Gill first, please.
David Gill: I can understand why it was in there in the first place. We have not formally adopted a board policy on it, but I think the general view of Manchester United is that it is a rule that has had its time. I think we have had to address it in certain instances in the Premier League whereby we now put in quarterly reporting-I believe the Football League does as well-to certificate that we are not in arrears in respect of HMRC debts in any way, shape or form, which I think is a positive thing.
But I agree with you: I think the whole issue of fairness in administration or liquidation or whatever is that everyone should be treated the same. One argument for it has been that it ensures that a club that has overtraded does not then get back into the League, albeit with a points deduction, or perhaps into a lower league, having gambled without its having come off, to the detriment of another club in that league. I can understand that argument. The positive benefit would be that clubs would not get into that situation. Their due diligence in terms of their dealings with another club, whether it be on transfers or whatever, would be perhaps more rigorous and, therefore, they should not find themselves in that situation. If it does occur, it is rare. On balance, we would favour its being withdrawn.
Suppliers who are owed money, are just as important if not more than say the tax dept because it could mean a sole trader going out of business and that would affect the whole community...Just saying!
Damian Collins: When you talk about the dealings between clubs being more rigorous, are you saying that if a club was selling a player to another club they would be much more cautious about reaching that agreement until they were convinced the club had the money to pay them?
David Gill: I think so. I think you have seen in the last few years that there has been a trend for transfer fees to be paid over a long period. Previously, the rule was you had to pay within the year, which again I think is a better discipline. I think it could lead to that rule being scrapped, personally.
TAX TREATMENT OF ASSOCIATION FOOTBALLERS- Share of Transfer Fee:
My understanding is that a player transfer fee from one club to another are chargeable to tax provided you can show that, in relation to the particular club concerned, the payments "though not obligatory, are expected, are generally asked for, and are usually accorded".
"In the English Football League, transfers between clubs entail the new club paying the League a levy of five percent of the transfer fee. Signing-on fees are paid to the player at the discretion of the new club and will have normally been agreed between the player and the new club during transfer negotiations. The signing-on fee payable to the player is stated in the contract and is normally payable by equal instalments over the period of the contract, which may sometimes include the period over which there is an option to extend the contract.
Where the player is subsequently transferred at the request of his club, any unpaid instalments of the earlier signing-on fee are payable immediately. But where the player requests a transfer he forfeits any such unpaid instalments unless the management committee is satisfied that his transfer request was made on reasonable grounds.
Instalments of signing-on fees are chargeable to tax on receipt".
Damian Collins: Just to pick up on one thing; in terms of the transfer payments, are you saying that you think because transfer payments are spread in instalments that has an inflationary pressure on transfers and encourages clubs to make commitments they may never have to fulfil?
David Gill: Well, I am not sure they will never have to fulfil because I do not think anyone would enter a legal agreement knowing they do not have to fulfil it. But there may be an opportunity to use other clubs as a funding mechanism as opposed to if you have to go to a bank or a third party institution to make that purchase; then perhaps they would look at it from a different perspective. That is what I am saying. I do not know; it could do, it may not do. But I think that is-
Peter Coates: I am ambivalent about it. I am not sure which way I want to go on this. I understand fully David’s arguments. We have improved and tightened the rules, both for the Premier League and the Football League, whereby clubs have to report if they have not paid the Inland Revenue. So we have made an improvement there. I am very surprised the Inland Revenue allow it to happen. That has always surprised me. It is a difficult argument. It may help clubs lower down the leagues maintaining it and retaining it, so there is an argument both ways.
Damian Collins: But as Chairman of Stoke City-heaven forbid that Stoke should ever be in a situation like this-how would you justify it to the community that you might have to pay a football debt to a club, say like Ipswich, before paying a local supplier in Stoke?
Exactly, Damian...
Peter Coates: I would find it very difficult but I have been in business all my life; I have never not paid Inland Revenue. You pay your bills, it is normal. I just do not do things like that and never have. I would not dream of not paying bills that I know are due and have to be paid. It is not in my mindset to do it. I would not store up debt in that way, it is wrong. The clubs should not do it and businesses should not do it.
Tony Scholes: I think that the main issue with the football creditor rule has been with HMRC over the last few years. The Premier League has taken action in that regard, as David and Peter have already said, in making sure that clubs cannot get into arrears with HMRC. I think it is also fair to say that we have debated this around the table many times and I do not think anyone feels comfortable with the fact that another football club may get paid but a small local supplier in that community does not get paid. No one feels comfortable with that.
There is another side that needs to be weighed in when considering the football creditor rule and that is that it does help to maintain sporting integrity. When a team is playing another team, team A may have sold a player to team B and not been paid for that player and as a result of that may have been unable to go and strengthen their own team. If they then play in a game there is an imbalance in the sporting competition. The source of the football creditor rule is to do with sporting integrity, but I think it is fair to say that where we are now there is probably an appetite for having a fresh look at it.
Damian Collins: I just have a question on that. I am not sure where the integrity is there, because if a club is competing at a level beyond that which it can reasonably financially sustain simply because other clubs are prepared to sell players to them knowing that their risk is protected, how is that good for the integrity of the game?
Tony Scholes: It is the club who have sold the player and not been paid and would reasonably have assumed they would have got the money to go out and strengthen their team as well as a result of paying that player. This is the original argument for the football creditor rule. If they cannot rely on those payments coming to them, then that club has been weakened as a result of it.
Damian Collins: But wouldn’t it be better to have a system where the transfer was not made in the first place if it was clear the club couldn’t make the payment?
Tony Scholes: That is David’s point. If the football creditor rule was changed it would put the onus on clubs to do more due diligence over the creditworthiness of the clubs buying players.
I concur with Mr. Scholes...
Niall Quinn: Yes, and I suppose there are 17 other chairmen around the country who I am conscious will want to have a view on this before we put this rule in the dustbin. From our point of view, the fan in the street meets the guy who printed the programmes who did not get paid and he sees the player driving out in the big car who was paid. I think that is damaging and we have to look at stuff like that and say, "Yes, tidy this up and give that guy who printed the programmes as much skin in the game as the big players."
That is an overly facetious reply, but relevant nonetheless.
Damian Collins: Can I ask just one final question, Mr Chairman? You heard what David Gill said about transfer payments. Sunderland and Stoke, would you concur that there should be tighter guidelines on the period of time over which transfer payments can be made?
Niall Quinn: Not all payments are Premiership club to Premiership club; so there is an outside force there when you are buying foreign players and that becomes a minefield, too. But certainly with club to club in the Premiership I think we are all of the opinion that there is enough money in the Premiership kitty to hold back to protect anybody and then punish somebody who did it the wrong way. I think we could handle that in-house ourselves.
Jim Sheridan: Could I perhaps ask about the role of players’ agents in the game today? The evidence that we have taken so far seems to suggest that there is a general consensus that players’ agents are a necessary evil, that there is no alternative. Is that an accurate assessment?
Niall Quinn: I would think from our experience, yes. It sounds about right. I never had an agent. I came back into the game and I had this great idea that at Sunderland we would not allow agents at the training ground, we would never engage with them, and then all of a sudden you realise to make progress these guys were getting their players to go somewhere else and were laughing at us because they had power. The big power came with the Bosman ruling and the way European law supports them; then you throw in the transfer system that allows a window of time. It was manna from heaven for the agents who squeezed us and who continued to squeeze us in all those periods. The game is heavily stacked in their favour. One of the big problems that that causes is that while, okay, they are getting too much money because they are squeezing us all and we all want to stay in this brilliant league, the man in the street, the football fan, feels ever more distanced from it when you talk about the wages.
Let me say what I would like if there was anything that could be changed in our set-up. We have our media, we have the Premier League, we have our football club, we have our fans here and we have our players here. If there is anything I could change it would be that any improvement we could make would go directly here and satisfy that and repair the gap. I think we should all look for something that says, "How can we help this group of people out to still stay in love with the game?" If we send the matches abroad with empty stadiums, it is over; the Premier League is over and these are the lifeblood of the game. So how do we protect these? Every revenue that comes in, the agents have the upper hand to squeeze it out of us. That is the case; I think you would agree with that. How can we stop that? How can we find a better way of these people to love the game?
Now, these are the same people who tell us, "Get your chequebook out, I want us to be top six." They are also saying now, "You are paying too much money; this is wrong", and at the same time saying, "Can we go to the matches a bit cheaper?" The big thing we are getting from the forums is about ticket prices; for the guy who wants to go and bring his two or three children, it is impossible. In the old days it was possible; it is not possible now. Obviously, incomes have changed and the economic situation is as it is. But what I would love from any group, whether it is this group or any group of significance that really cares about the game, is consideration of how we can bring them into the stadium cheaper without the agents cranking it all up again and causing a big problem for the club.
I think we would all agree here; if we stayed with the same net amount of money each year on the basis that we were giving them a discount on tickets and we did not lose it somewhere else, we would all go for that, welcome it with open arms and fill the stadium out. I think we can talk about a lot of the fan issues, and the federations and the sports trusts will bring up hundreds of things, but the big thing is they want to come into the grounds cheaper and I think we should look at ways of accommodating that. The players are big winners here in this; the players and the agents are big winners. Inland Revenue is a big winner in this. The Inland Revenue takes a big take of all this, too. Is there some way that we can get those two-and I am not saying they are together in this; I think that that is coming-not to all go in their way as it does now? Could we give something back here without affecting our business going forward? It would be suicidal for us to let them in half price now. The agents will still press the crank on, the Revenue still take their take, but could there be a way, if we tilted it back this way, that would benefit them? I think that is something we should all aim for.
As I have already alluded to what the CEO of Arsenal FC has already said about "player transfer fees and player salaries" being linked and sadly for the family man, ordinary Joe Bloggs...The LINK most definitely is that 'DREADED EVIL' Player Agents' and the young fans and families are driven out of the stadiums because of the high cost of the tickets-Recently in my facebook page, there was a hue and cry over the ticketing prices for the FA Cup semi when United played.
Peter Coates: I think agents are a fact of life and I think I should be free to do what I want in terms of what I pay them. It is up to us to negotiate sensible business with them. One of the things you could do that might improve it is transparency; in other words we have to say what we have done in terms of agents. You can’t divulge a player’s contract-obviously that would be completely wrong-but you could have transparency in agents’ payments. We all want to drive agents’ payments down. On the other hand, it is a marketplace and we should be free to deal in that market. It is up to us to be smart enough to make sure we do not pay too much, and that when we pay a higher fee, we are seeing whether there is possibly some reason for it.
I have the answer for Mr. Coates PDF LINK: http://tinyurl.com/3zaaq7x
Tony Scholes: It is fair to say, though, that some agents perform a very valuable role. They are part of the industry now and they do perform a valuable role. But agents are paid a disproportionately high amount of money for any deal that they are involved in. That is a fact and I think we would all accept that.
Jim Sheridan: They can also be used as scapegoats as well. When a club wants to transfer someone they can then blame the agent. But putting that aside, everyone we have spoken to in football during this inquiry, when we talk about agents, more or less says the same thing as yourselves, which suggests to me that there could be a role for FIFA if they act collectively. It seems to me that FIFA have abdicated any responsibility whatsoever to try and regulate this part of the game. At the end of the day, whether it be in England or anywhere else in Europe or the world, agents take money out of the game. It is not going back in again; it has gone out of the game and it is never seen again. Why is FIFA or UEFA not taking a firmer role?
Life's a BITCH! I have the answer above in a PDF file.
David Gill: It is interesting to talk about taking it out of the game. I am always interested by that statement because accountants take money out of the game, and it does not go back in. Lawyers take money out of the game, and it does not go back in.
...and 'EVASIVE CEO's' also "take money out of the game, and it does not go back in" David!
Jim Sheridan: They are a necessary evil.
I have a...
David Gill: But agents are. I think agents do have a specific role. It is like any walk of life; the actual term "agent" has a bad connotation, but there are good agents and bad agents. But the players do need them for services and I think we should understand that. When we look at what we are going to pay a player, whether it be renewal of a contract or a player transfer, we look at the overall investment. Like any sensible business, we look at the player wages, the agent’s fee, and we determine whether that is appropriate for our business, and we do that on the transfer fee. I am not saying there is no issue, but I agree with you in terms of FIFA. FIFA have been looking at the matter. I think that there are a number of cases with respect to agents in which they are looking to see whether the term should be changed to intermediaries. That certainly has many more syllables, but we will still call them agents, and they will still be there. They are looking to do something whereby they put the onus on the clubs and the players to have responsibility.
I think Peter makes a very good point in terms of transparency and understanding. As long as in any particular transaction if a player is aware what his agent has received from the club or from himself and everyone is aware of it, I do not see a particular issue in it. It is another way of using the club’s resources and making sure we are responsible for how we discharge those club resources. I think it is a very interesting issue; it has been there for many years, and we cannot change it domestically. The Premier League tried a few years ago to make the players responsible for paying their agents. It failed miserably. We had to change the rules back again.
Jim Sheridan: That was my last question. How did that fail, though? Effectively the fans are paying twice now, are they not? They are paying their player and they are also paying the agent.
David Gill: I do not think you can separate them out. I do not think the agents’ fees are necessarily incremental. It is part of the overall investment. So I do not think it is true to say, "That is it, you can just pay the player X and forget about the agent.". One of the reasons it failed was the tax implications. Under UK tax rules, if the payment that the club paid on behalf of a player was not a tax-deductible expense, he had to gross it up. That was a key point, and we became uncompetitive versus what was happening in Spain, in Italy and in Germany. Again, we operate in a worldwide market for talent. As part of this earlier discussion, it is not just about players developed in England; it is a worldwide market. So we have to operate against that if we want to attract those players in with what the regime is in other countries. Your point is exactly right; FIFA has to take the lead as a world governing body to make sure it is managed and appropriately controlled.
Do these Footballing Officials not touch base with FIFA...I do every week and I am not even a football official!
Jim Sheridan: Just finally-still with you, Niall-do you think it makes you a better player if you are paid £1 million or £10 million?
Niall Quinn: No, I do not. I can’t stand here and defend where wages have gone. It is the greatest show on earth, the Premier League, and we want it so badly and the agents have manoeuvred themselves to manipulate that whole situation brilliantly. To be a little bit fair to them and to ourselves as to why we tolerate it at times, we would at times as a football club be carrying wages on a player who is of no use to us; he is sitting on a long contract, it is really tough and we get a phone call from an agent who says, "I can get him to wherever", some part of the world. For us the big thing is that, "Okay, we might be exposed to £1.5 million wages for the next year, what do we do? We can get him out there. The agent wants £250,000 for one day’s work, you know something, we are £1.5 million better off, let us do it". That is the pressure we are under sometimes as football clubs and they manipulate it and market themselves brilliantly. It is a necessary evil, going back to the very start.
...and I believe you Mr. Quinn 'Evil is as Evil Does' so unnecessary and GREED PREVAILS.
Paul Farrelly: I wanted to come on to the Football Association, but first can I just ask a couple of questions about your own house, the Premier League? Is there merit in the Premier League shaking up its structure and having more independent directors? Is the board too small? Should the Premier League’s governance structure be more representative of the different shades of opinion and the different ambitions of different segments of the league?
Peter Coates: I suppose you have to say, and it is only our third year, the Premier League is very well managed. It has, I think, probably a quite outstanding Chief Executive who has done a great job for the Premier League. As a model it has worked very well and it has been a big, big success. You do have shareholders; you have 20 shareholders all with a vote who you meet four times a year and, therefore, you are able to have your input. I can understand you thinking it is perhaps Richard Scudamore and Dave Richards, but it does not quite work like that because all the shareholders have a vote, you meet four times a year and you are able to have your views represented.
Sorry Mr Coates, but Richard Scudamore has been protecting Sir Dave Richards and he is a very, very Naughty Boy!
David Gill: I agree. I think if you look at it, the actual Premier League is a success story without any question. You are just adding people because of a need to add them. I think the remit of the Premier League is relatively narrow. It runs the actual game, the competition. It is responsible, quite rightly, for the selling of the television rights and other commercial aspects of it, whether it be the ball sponsorship, the title sponsorship and so on. I think it is well run and I think the way that it works, the voting structure with 14 votes required to pass a resolution, means the objective and discussions and debates and issues are taking place in the forum of the shareholder meeting. In adding an independent or another non-executive person, I think you are just doing it just to say you have ticked the governance box as opposed to adding value to what is a very well-run league, very well respected around the world.
Yes David, the Premier League also adds 'Nepotism' to it's "commercial aspects" Preferential contracts to SONS...Ask Sir Dave Richards and his son...Dave!
Niall Quinn: Yes, I feel the same. This is our fourth year. What I found interesting was that every Saturday you have 20 clubs who want to beat each other up and then we go to a room to find ways of making it all as one. It was unusual and I sat back and I watched and listened for quite a long time before I got involved and felt that the good work it is doing is not publicised as well as it might be. It is an extraordinary success story, the Premier League, in theory. I am not saying it is perfect in our back garden, but we do have the forum there to alter things as they occur.
Paul Farrelly: Can I move on to the FA? We had a very strong picture of the FA painted to us by Lords Triesman and Burns in the opening session. I am sure you have read the reports. The FA is pictured as operating with the chairman and the chief executive; with representatives of the professional game meeting the day before, agreeing, in good old Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist fashion, the line. When they say no they mean no. The representatives of the amateur game do not always agree with them but they never vote against them and if the chairman and chief executive have some interesting ideas, they are left up a creek without a paddle if the professional game simply says no. We have seen the Triesman report, which was going to be a submission to questions by a former Secretary of State as why the FA did not put their own submission in. Was that position adopted by the FA and the professional league and the premier representative reflective of all shades of opinion across different clubs in the Premier League or are there clubs in the Premier League that would be more progressive in accepting reform?
Peter Coates: I think that it has a recent very bad record, the FA, with lots of own goals and lots of things that have gone wrong, which were frankly very bad and reflect very bad on the game, and I think it does need reforming. The Burns Report is not a bad marker for that. I am strongly in favour of two non-executive directors. I think we have made an appointment of a good chairman. Like any good organisation, I think you need a good chairman and a good chief executive, and he will get the people around him.
But he does have to be able to do his job and you referred to some of the more dysfunctional problems that he faces. I think two nonexecutive directors-and he should have some influence as to who they are, they should not be foisted on him-would be very good for the governance of the game. I think along with that you would need to reduce the size of the board. It would become too big. I think the chairman needs help and I think two nonexecutive directors of the right calibre would be an enormous benefit to him; so that is something I would like to see. We have not had support for that in the FA. I am hoping perhaps that is going to change and there will be a move in the direction of that and some of the other things that I have just referred to.
BRING BACK...
LORD TRIESMAN.
Paul Farrelly: Niall, was the "just say no" brigade reflective of the position and opinion of Sunderland?
Niall Quinn: I do not think so. First and foremost, we are in a tough place in Sunderland and it is a hard job. Concentrating on your own world 16 hours a day sometimes does not give you the space in your mind to map out a perfect road plan for your thoughts on the FA and where it goes. What you try and do is to see the big picture and hope that you can contribute and that we would not block things; just blocking for the sake of blocking something. David sits on the board. I think David would be in a better position to speak clearly on this, but we would take the view, each of our shareholders of the club, we take the Premier League’s view on everything that comes up about the FA. I thought it was really good in my time that the FA had representation at our meetings, that there seemed to be something happening between it. Now, obviously that came to a shuddering halt and it needs to get going again. Instead of looking back, I would be all for finding a way that is transparent, that we all feel we are doing our best for the game, because without the kids playing football in their respective amateur clubs, without this great love for the game, the Premier League will be at a loss, too. There has to be a collective buy-in there.
Here is SHOW-OFF again...
David Gill: As Niall says, I am on the board. In terms of where it is going I would support it wholeheartedly and I want to reiterate what Peter said because I think he articulated why independent executive directors would be helpful. That needs to be done in conjunction with trimming the board. I think that the FA has a very broad remit from grass roots through to coaching, through to the England team, through to the FA Cup through to the professional game and so on, and then goes on to discipline. Another area I would look at seriously, which Burns sort of advocated, was separating out the disciplinary side and making that semi-autonomous under the rules and regulations stipulated by the FA, but then with the actual body dispensing that discipline being separate. I think that would assist the FA because a lot of bad press comes out through the FA not acting on a particular issue because of this, that and the other. I think that would help.
Before I went on the board I thought on the national game and the professional game we would be at loggerheads. I do not see that. I think the debate and discussions at the board have basically been about moving in the same direction for football. If it is particularly just a national game issue, then we would support what they are recommending; they are experts in that area. That also works the other way around. It makes eminent sense to me. Without doubt the FA is not completely broken, but there are issues and the turnover of staff at the top, whether it be at the chairman, chief executive or general secretary level, cannot help. It cannot help any organisation for that to happen, and I think we have to bed it down, have some stability. In order to do that we also need to give the new chairman some support and some assistance at that level, and that makes eminent sense to me.
Paul Farrelly: Which representatives, which sectional interests, should be trimmed or cut back?
David Gill: At the moment that would take it up to 14-five national game, five professional game, the general secretary, chairman and two non-execs-so I think you can do it pro rata. I do not think anyone is that desperate necessarily to be on it. I think what we want to do is have a proper body there because that will determine the strategy of the organisation, monitor the implementation of that strategy, the day-to-day running of the FA, so whatever is best for the FA. I do not think people should just hang on because they have been there for ever. It is what is best for the organisation.
Paul Farrelly: The German FA has adopted a different approach. It has what you might call sectional interests on the board, which has evolved. It has representatives of women’s football, which is very big here as well as in Germany, and the director of football for the national team, because they feel the national side should have an input. Is that a route that we should be considering as well?
Tony Scholes: I think you probably need to be a bit careful. David is talking about reducing the size of the FA board, and if they are going to be effective they need to be small enough to be able to make good and clear decisions. If you start adding on sectional interests it makes it more difficult. But there is a structure below the board, of course, where such interests could and should be represented.
Peter Coates: We have two boards below the board; we have a national game board and a professional game board. There is no reason why the structure cannot accommodate the right balance and I think it is very important that the chairman and the chief executive are allowed to get on and run the business and are not stopped by the board from carrying out their role. Going back to earlier, I think two non-execs would be a very big improvement.
Paul Farrelly: You have been quite outspoken in our local press and for anyone who wants to listen, really, about the failings of the FA on a much broader front, from the turnover of chief executives, which has been mentioned, the way Wembley was handled and, indeed, the World Cup bid. What do you think the FA needs to do to improve its international standing overseas and its reputation here? Are there any organisational weaknesses that contributed to our dismal failure to get more than two votes in the World Cup bid?
Peter Coates: Well, it was pretty shocking, really, wasn’t it, whichever way you look at it? Now, who is responsible for that? Well, I am surprised that we did not know more. We have guys out there, we have a representative on FIFA and we had no idea all we were going to get was one vote. There is something wrong if we cannot do better than that. We should have known, for example, and maybe this is a criticism of FIFA and the chairman-if he has an agenda that he wants to spread football around the world that is a perfectly reasonable agenda in my view. If he wants to go to Russia, there is nothing wrong with going to Russia if he wants to spread the gospel, or the Middle East for that matter so long as we can play it in the summer. But things like that ought to be known and we say, "We are out of it, we have no chance". It surprises me that we are not smart enough to get a feel and get a flavour for what is going on and end up with egg on our face with one vote. So, yes, I was very upset about it. I wanted the World Cup in England obviously and I thought we had a chance from all that people were saying, but we seemed to have no chance.
I must admit, I wanted England to win the FIFA 2018 World Cup bid as well - Especially for a Late Old New Zealand Timer by the name of 'Charlie Dempsey' the ex-president of the OFC (Oceanic Football Confederation), and for Myself as well...Not only that but England developed the game and it was called back a Yonder...'Soccer' Charlie got in trouble...He abstained from voting, when he was instructed to vote for a particular country and Germany ended up winning the hosting rights for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Charlie resigned after threats were made to him. Rest in Peace Mr Dempsey.
Paul Farrelly: Niall, you have seen a few ructions in your time between the blazers and the players in Ireland. What is your perspective?
Niall Quinn: Well, I was heavily involved and I led the campaign in Sunderland. We got a great camaraderie going not just in Sunderland but the region. We called it a regional bid. We were thrilled to be called out first as the first city that was going to be hosting a game if it did come our way. We got very excited. But looking back now that it is all done and dusted and where it went, what I would say is if we were back again there was a lot of good stuff, but a lot of that good stuff got drowned in arrogance. I really believe that. We did not hear anything from Russia in those 18 months. People heard from us all the time. I am not saying that that would have annoyed or upset the people, but it did really take away from a lot of the real gilt-edged stuff that we had done. The next person who would dare venture to take on something like this in the future, I would plead with them to keep your good stories and keep your successes wrapped up and roll them all out in the last couple of days.
Paul Farrelly: David, in Germany we heard from a very senior, respected and reliable source that Sir Bobby Charlton was told a year prior to the failure that England had no chance because the numbers, were not there. Are you aware of that? Has that passed through? Does the game share this conviction?
Sir Bobby Charleton
David Gill: I am not aware of that situation.
Mr Watson: My interest in the governance of football is about how you protect players. As chairman, can you tell me if you know of any current or past players who may have had their privacy invaded through phone hacking?
Wayne Rooney was handed documents the other day by the Police...His phone..Hacked!
David Gill: I am not aware of anyone at Manchester United, no.
...well you are now, David!
Mr Watson: Niall, you played against Sol Campbell a few times. Were you aware when you played against him that his phone was being hacked?
Niall Quinn: No, I did not. Thankfully, nobody has any suspicions around the club. We do not feel threatened at all.
Mr Watson: You do not know whether Alex Ferguson’s phone was hacked?
David Gill: He has not mentioned to me, no.
Chair: Right, I think that is it. Can I thank the four of you very much?
I would like to conclude this very laborious blog, with the final words from UEFA President, Michel Platini.
ByeBye.
No comments:
Post a Comment