It was Bury then, Morecambe now, who next?

In the next 24-48 hours England may yet again lose another football club to a disasterous owner and it begs the question of who’s next?

The demise of Bury was well publicised but all too late and I fear that Morecambe may be the latest victim of bad owners destroying a community. There is obviously deeper issues at any club then just surface level of owner. Bad leadership and poor management in general tend to follow bad owners. I do worry that a club like Sheffield Wednesday will be next and the footballing authorities seem unable to do anything. The reality is, a football club is more than just a club. Its jobs, its advertising, its community, its money. All of which can be lost because of an individuals actions or lack of in some cases.

I have advocated for years for the Premier League and the EFL to do something. There is plenty of money about and some of it may as well be put to good use. Below I’ll outline some ideas and how they would work in theory. They might be insane non starters but insane non starters is better than standing by watching in my opinion.

Emergency Fund

If an owner cannot provide the funds to run a club and can prove it, an emergency fund should be available to ensure that all players and staff are paid. In order to access this, owners must be actively trying to either fund or sell the club. The money from that fund is replenished by the sale of the club. So as an example

A club uses £2,000,000 to pay wages over 2 months. The club is then sold for £10,000,000. The seller gets £8,000,000 and £2,000,000 goes back into the pot. This would be a contracted clause between the owner of any Premier League or EFL club. don’t like it, don’t buy a club.

Where does this fund come from? The 92 clubs all pay 1% of their turnover into the fund, this way it evens out the payment structure. It also means that any funds used are not specifically from any club but all clubs. So if Newcastle were in financial ruin, the Premier League would solely use Sunderland money it would be a share of each club. Whatever money is left over at the end of the financial year is then returned to the clubs.

It’s complicated and annoying but it’s fair.

League Ownership Scheme

Whether you are in the premier league or the EFL, the league itself owns a small percentage of your club. That way if an owner can prove beyond any doubt that they are unable to fund the club, that league can purchase a majority share of the club until a new buyer can be found. Again, this cannot be over a prolonged period but could ensure that all players and staff are paid.

This scheme can also bring a degree of controversy so the league itself cannot have any vote or say in how the club is ran unless an “emergency clause” is activated. At that point, it is down to the owner of that football club to demonstrate they cannot continue to fund the club or will be unable to fund the club after 6 months. If they don’t cooperate or fail to comply with requests, the league should get legal backing to assume control of the club. That owner is subject to fines, legal action or be banned from running a company in the future.

This protection could potentially guarantee the safety of a football club. I don’t think many owners would go for this or support it in any shape or form but I think it the argument is, they are custodians and they have a responsibility to ensure the continuation of that football club.

Tighter regulations

I think we can all agree that the “tests” the football leagues do not offer enough protection to clubs. Every 3 years a lot of people in this country are subject to a DBS check. This is to check for convictions but to also provide a safeguarding ring to the people they work with. Why can’t owners but subject to regular checks every 3 years? You could argue that in football it’s obvious when an owner is failing a club, which is true, but where’s the ring fence? Where are the safeguards to people’s livelihoods?

Tougher regulations and sanctions will put off potentially bad owners from investing into football clubs. It’s important to understand that nothing is guaranteed but by running more stringent checks, having accountability and pushing owners to be better will reduce the risk of clubs going under.

What I’ve mentioned above is not a solution or a fix. At the start I mentioned that standing there doing nothing is always infinitely worse than doing something. I don’t think a football regulator will have any power or jurisdiction and is a lovely gesture but what can it do? The UK government were able to force Roman Abramovic to sell Chelsea but that was extreme circumstances. The government will not want to be seen as overstepping so will probably shake a fist and make a statement but not much else.

It’s better than nothing don’t get me wrong, it’s just not enough because one day (god forbid) it might just be us. It nearly was…