Unofficial Review of Season 2023-24

[thedoc]

https://shrimplythebestfootball.com/202 ... he-season/

[Keith]

https://shrimplythebestfootball.com/2024/05/08/unofficial-review-of-the-season/

It's taken me a while to gather the strength to read this, as it is too depressing to think about last season. But, I have today.

A couple of things I'd take issue with. Firstly, the EFL. I really don't blame them, I think it is simply they do not have the teeth, in law, to asset strip an owner or anything else substantial. If they didn't implement the three point deduction, then it would be unfair on the clubs that did get a deduction.

Football needs a state appointed Regulator with the legal powers that are required to sort the mess out. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, so the EFL can only do what is within their powers.

Second point; "Everything that has gone wrong at Morecambe Football Club over the last three seasons and longer can be traced back to one causal source: the ownership by the Bond Group". Last three seasons, fair enough, "and longer" goes right back to McGuigan's failure to sell the club to a sensible owner. Arguably, even the mess made in moving the club. Bond Group are the latest chapter in a horror story that was already unwinding well before they arrived. Underwater casinos anyone?

[thedoc]

A couple of things I'd take issue with.

Firstly, the EFL. I really don't blame them, I think it is simply they do not have the teeth, in law, to asset strip an owner or anything else substantial. If they didn't implement the three point deduction, then it would be unfair on the clubs that did get a deduction.

Football needs a state appointed Regulator with the legal powers that are required to sort the mess out. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, so the EFL can only do what is within their powers.

"Take issue with"? - I thought that was exactly what I said in the article with the exception of it needing a State regulator. I'd prefer the clubs themselves to appoint the Regulator - this would surely be more democratic. Rather than saying `it would be unfair on clubs that did get a deduction', how about re-phrasing it as `no club should get points deductions for the offences of nefarious owners off the field?' The whole points deduction thing - as I state in the article - is a blunt instrument that punishes the wrong people for the wrong things.

Second point; "Everything that has gone wrong at Morecambe Football Club over the last three seasons and longer can be traced back to one causal source: the ownership by the Bond Group". Last three seasons, fair enough, "and longer" goes right back to McGuigan's failure to sell the club to a sensible owner. Arguably, even the mess made in moving the club. Bond Group are the latest chapter in a horror story that was already unwinding well before they arrived.

Again, I don't think you're `taking issue' with me Keith: that's exactly what I implied. Thanks for filling-in the details!

[Billy bodger]

Been thinking about what Keith and the doc have posted about the debate around the EFL and football having an independent regulator, especially when you look at his Morecambe FC ended up with a 3 point penalty points deduction.

The EFL where quite clear in the ruling on Reading FC with the problems at that Club, (which a lot of people where saying was like our problem),
‘that you can separate the owner from the Club,
but you cannot separate the Club from the owner’.

In both instances this ruling was applied to both Reading and Morecambe, as well as other clubs in similar circumstances to the letter. So in the end the EFL has been consistent.

The doc seems to be saying that that ruling is the wrong because the club/clubs are punished because of the owners.

There is no doubt it is a catch all ruling with little room to get out of. Somehow we did get out of it last year (as the deduction was put on hold and stipulated rules where put in place which we had then had to follow), unfortunately because it happened again we were caught, or Jason was caught and the Club paid the penalty.

Are there instances when that catch all ruling should be applied with a degree of common sense? Well ‘the doc’ I’m with you I think there should be.

In Morecambe’s case Ben certainly was under that impression when he had talks with a certain member of the EFL!!! the ruling was being applied with common sense but Obviously someone else at the EFL realised this would render the actual ruling worthless and reversed the decision, no matter the merits of Morecambe’s case if common sense was applied.

I would think it would never be changed as instead of professional judgment being used, laziness kicks in and the rule is something to hide behind.

Where the EFL fail on ownership is they cannot do what an independent government regulated body that runs our football would surly be able to do. Kick out bad Owners.

It has always bothered me when our owners where barred from being directors of a company
(subsequently resigning from Morecambe’s Board of Director’s), they [thou Colin soon stood down from that for whatever reason!!!] remained as our owners. The EFL could not do nothing about their continued ownership, where a Government appointed regulator, it would be hoped, would.

[black morse]

Been thinking about what Keith and the doc have posted about the debate around the EFL and football having an independent regulator, especially when you look at his Morecambe FC ended up with a 3 point penalty points deduction.

The EFL where quite clear in the ruling on Reading FC with the problems at that Club, (which a lot of people where saying was like our problem),
‘that you can separate the owner from the Club,
but you cannot separate the Club from the owner’.

In both instances this ruling was applied to both Reading and Morecambe, as well as other clubs in similar circumstances to the letter. So in the end the EFL has been consistent.

The doc seems to be saying that that ruling is the wrong because the club/clubs are punished because of the owners.

There is no doubt it is a catch all ruling with little room to get out of. Somehow we did get out of it last year (as the deduction was put on hold and stipulated rules where put in place which we had then had to follow), unfortunately because it happened again we were caught, or Jason was caught and the Club paid the penalty.

Are there instances when that catch all ruling should be applied with a degree of common sense? Well ‘the doc’ I’m with you I think there should be.

In Morecambe’s case Ben certainly was under that impression when he had talks with a certain member of the EFL!!! the ruling was being applied with common sense but Obviously someone else at the EFL realised this would render the actual ruling worthless and reversed the decision, no matter the merits of Morecambe’s case if common sense was applied.

I would think it would never be changed as instead of professional judgment being used, laziness kicks in and the rule is something to hide behind.

Where the EFL fail on ownership is they cannot do what an independent government regulated body that runs our football would surly be able to do. Kick out bad Owners.

It has always bothered me when our owners where barred from being directors of a company
(subsequently resigning from Morecambe’s Board of Director’s), they [thou Colin soon stood down from that for whatever reason!!!] remained as our owners. The EFL could not do nothing about their continued ownership, where a Government appointed regulator, it would be hoped, would.

Kick out bad owners? That's a novel idea. 50% of big business owners are not there by being good guys! A great number of football clubs would find themselves without an owner!

[Billy bodger]

Been thinking about what Keith and the doc have posted about the debate around the EFL and football having an independent regulator, especially when you look at his Morecambe FC ended up with a 3 point penalty points deduction.

The EFL where quite clear in the ruling on Reading FC with the problems at that Club, (which a lot of people where saying was like our problem),
‘that you can separate the owner from the Club,
but you cannot separate the Club from the owner’.

In both instances this ruling was applied to both Reading and Morecambe, as well as other clubs in similar circumstances to the letter. So in the end the EFL has been consistent.

The doc seems to be saying that that ruling is the wrong because the club/clubs are punished because of the owners.

There is no doubt it is a catch all ruling with little room to get out of. Somehow we did get out of it last year (as the deduction was put on hold and stipulated rules where put in place which we had then had to follow), unfortunately because it happened again we were caught, or Jason was caught and the Club paid the penalty.

Are there instances when that catch all ruling should be applied with a degree of common sense? Well ‘the doc’ I’m with you I think there should be.

In Morecambe’s case Ben certainly was under that impression when he had talks with a certain member of the EFL!!! the ruling was being applied with common sense but Obviously someone else at the EFL realised this would render the actual ruling worthless and reversed the decision, no matter the merits of Morecambe’s case if common sense was applied.

I would think it would never be changed as instead of professional judgment being used, laziness kicks in and the rule is something to hide behind.

Where the EFL fail on ownership is they cannot do what an independent government regulated body that runs our football would surly be able to do. Kick out bad Owners.

It has always bothered me when our owners where barred from being directors of a company
(subsequently resigning from Morecambe’s Board of Director’s), they [thou Colin soon stood down from that for whatever reason!!!] remained as our owners. The EFL could not do nothing about their continued ownership, where a Government appointed regulator, it would be hoped, would.

Kick out bad owners? That's a novel idea. 50% of big business owners are not there by being good guys! A great number of football clubs would find themselves without an owner!

It won’t happen, but as it stands good Clubs have folded because of them and that is where we teeter, on the edge!

[Keith]

"Take issue with"? - I thought that was exactly what I said in the article with the exception of it needing a State regulator. I'd prefer the clubs themselves to appoint the Regulator - this would surely be more democratic. Rather than saying `it would be unfair on clubs that did get a deduction', how about re-phrasing it as `no club should get points deductions for the offences of nefarious owners off the field?' The whole points deduction thing - as I state in the article - is a blunt instrument that punishes the wrong people for the wrong things.

'Disagree with' may have sounded less confrontational?

My point remains. The EFL and/or the clubs themselves can appoint whoever they want, with whatever rules they choose, but they can't take someone's assets off them. That needs a change in legislation. Without legislation and a State Regulator, there is very little that the EFL can do, beyond their blunt instrument of points deduction. I wonder what they can do if the fines they've imposed on the owner are unpaid? Then what? Ever-increasing fines that remain unpaid? The pawn-brokers were stopped from being directors of any company but they can't be asset stripped (by the EFL at any rate).

[black morse]

"Take issue with"? - I thought that was exactly what I said in the article with the exception of it needing a State regulator. I'd prefer the clubs themselves to appoint the Regulator - this would surely be more democratic. Rather than saying `it would be unfair on clubs that did get a deduction', how about re-phrasing it as `no club should get points deductions for the offences of nefarious owners off the field?' The whole points deduction thing - as I state in the article - is a blunt instrument that punishes the wrong people for the wrong things.

'Disagree with' may have sounded less confrontational?

My point remains. The EFL and/or the clubs themselves can appoint whoever they want, with whatever rules they choose, but they can't take someone's assets off them. That needs a change in legislation. Without legislation and a State Regulator, there is very little that the EFL can do, beyond their blunt instrument of points deduction. I wonder what they can do if the fines they've imposed on the owner are unpaid? Then what? Ever-increasing fines that remain unpaid? The pawn-brokers were stopped from being directors of any company but they can't be asset stripped (by the EFL at any rate).

Quite right Keith, which is exactly what is happening at Everton. Your view of clubs regulating themselves Doc would only work if most of the owners were honest responsible people. In my view they are not and any effective regulation action will only be carried out if a state regulator is appointed with powers to go with the job. Whether that will ever happen is open to debate