The Vincent Tan addendum

[Pietro Paolo Virdis]

This Vincent Tan sure is a muppet.

Does the EFA have anything in their guide lines or rule book where they can strip someone off the ownership of a club? Beyond financial grounds?

There must be something. Or can he take Cardiff, sack all the staff and turn the brand into a Playboy mansion whenever he wants? I mean a real Playboy mansion before the jokes come raining, or a Tesco sort of chain, or just make a kebab shop out of it and not a single thing the EFA can do?

Same question goes for other countries.
Surely, there must be a limit to what you can do with and to a club. I would think that in England, especially, there must come a point where the owner is given a reprimand by the FA, or is now where such a chapter will be added to the EFA rule book?

It is among the biggest jokes in football history past decades, by now.

[Bored Of Education]

The Vincent Tan addendum

This was foreshadowed by what happened to Wimbledon though. It seems like the FA doesn't like name changes (a la Hull) but that is about it. I think the name change opposition will fall by the wayside soon.

[RobM]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Bored of Education wrote: This was foreshadowed by what happened to Wimbledon though. It seems like the FA doesn't like name changes (a la Hull) but that is about it. I think the name change opposition will fall by the wayside soon.

Depends on the name change I suppose, they were OK with Orient to Leyton Orient (hardly the same as the Hull thing, I know).

[Janik]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Or, much more recently, Stevenage dropping Borough from their name.

I think the various Orient changes, or AFC Bournemouth from Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic/Scunthopre United dropping '& Lindsey' are not that dissimilar from the FAs perspective to what Allam is proposing (he hasn't pulled 'Tigers' out of thin air after all, its a word with a long association with Hull City). The key difference is the attitude of the fans to the proposed change.

[Bored Of Education]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Of course, they passed the "MK Dons" name change as well but they had already fucked up there.

I had no idea that Orient re-added the "Leyton" as late as 1987.

[Sean of the Shed]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Janik wrote: Or, much more recently, Stevenage dropping Borough from their name.

I think the various Orient changes, or AFC Bournemouth from Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic/Scunthopre United dropping '& Lindsey' are not that dissimilar from the FAs perspective to what Allam is proposing (he hasn't pulled 'Tigers' out of thin air after all, its a word with a long association with Hull City). The key difference is the attitude of the fans to the proposed change.

It might be the FA's spin on their perspective, but they know perfectly well, just as everyone else does, that it is a rebranding for commercial purposes. The fact that Hull have been known as the Tigers is fortuitous and convenient for Allam, as he would have suggested a similar monicker whatever their nickname was. It's more akin to Opal Fruits being rebranded as Starburst than Bournemouth dropping the Boscombe from their name.

[Antepli Ejderha]

The Vincent Tan addendum

They seemed to do very little with asset stripping chairmen. Wrexham was nearly destroyed by that and the FA did sweet FA iirc.

[NHH]

The Vincent Tan addendum

They're wedded to a notion that the last thing they either should or can do is to exercise judgement and discernment (they cling to a notion that this would somehow be illegal) and so their fit and proper tests relate to forbidding people who have fallen foul of other judgements by other bodies; criminal prosecutions or judgements by other sporting governing bodies. To sit down with someone and question them as to their plans and decide, upon reflection, that the person who wishes to join your sport is a nutter is simply not on.

Part of this is a wider ideological perspective, that an owner of an asset like a club is free to do with that property as they wish; the notion that this property isn't solely theirs, and takes it value from participating in a collective endeavour, is a relic of a bygone age.

Then there's the fact that the people who need to pass such a regulation have half an eye on needing idiots, what with selling to a greater fool being the main exit strategy, so fools need to have no obstacles placed in their paths.

Then, there's the sad reality that the people who would be called upon to exercise any judgement would be other club owners and Chairmen, who would be highly unlikely to see much wrong with Tan's behaviour, and would be highly conservative in their judgments, lest they set a precedent that would bite them on the arse later.

[rick derris]

The Vincent Tan addendum

I had no idea that Orient re-added the "Leyton" as late as 1987.

as an ex cardiff fan you must recall their first game with the re-added "Leyton" was away to the bluebirds opening game of the season 87-88

a 1-1 draw, jimmy gillighan equalising with a header from a corner. the start of a great promotion season

[Grimmer]

The Vincent Tan addendum

NHH wrote:

Part of this is a wider ideological perspective, that an owner of an asset like a club is free to do with that property as they wish; the notion that this property isn't solely theirs, and takes it value from participating in a collective endeavour, is a relic of a bygone age.
.

Surely the owner of an asset is free to do with it what they wish (presuming that what they want to do with it is legal).

I'd always presumed that the football authorities powers would be limited to kicking that asset (Cardiff) out of their competitions if they are unhappy with how it is being run - surely they don't have the powers to remove the club itself from Tan.

What am I missing?

[Bored Of Education]

The Vincent Tan addendum

rick derris wrote:

I had no idea that Orient re-added the "Leyton" as late as 1987.

as an ex cardiff fan you must recall their first game with the re-added "Leyton" was away to the bluebirds opening game of the season 87-88

a 1-1 draw, jimmy gillighan equalising with a header from a corner. the start of a great promotion season

I wasn't into football then. I was into punk rock. Wish I had stayed like that.

[Bored Of Education]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Grimmer wrote:

Part of this is a wider ideological perspective, that an owner of an asset like a club is free to do with that property as they wish; the notion that this property isn't solely theirs, and takes it value from participating in a collective endeavour, is a relic of a bygone age.
.

Surely the owner of an asset is free to do with it what they wish (presuming that what they want to do with it is legal).

I'd always presumed that the football authorities powers would be limited to kicking that asset (Cardiff) out of their competitions if they are unhappy with how it is being run - surely they don't have the powers to remove the club itself from Tan.

What am I missing?

Nothing really. By the rules and laws, you are probably right. It is just that they are toothless even if they were applied, which they aren't.

[Stumpy Pepys]

The Vincent Tan addendum

What's the precedent here though?

Clubs have changed their names and colours since time immemorial. My lot used to be Christ Church FC and play in several shirts that were not white.

[Grimmer]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Depressing!

(The toothless ness not the Christchurch thingy)

[Harbinger of Hope]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Heard an interesting rumour today. Paul and Tom Ince to Cardiff.

Recently Ince senior whinged about having no budget at Blackpool.

[Big Boobs and FIRE!]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Morton only added the Greenock part of their name in 1994.

I can only think this was a moral consideration to give prior warning to potential visitors.

[G-Man]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Grimmer wrote:

Part of this is a wider ideological perspective, that an owner of an asset like a club is free to do with that property as they wish; the notion that this property isn't solely theirs, and takes it value from participating in a collective endeavour, is a relic of a bygone age.
.

Surely the owner of an asset is free to do with it what they wish (presuming that what they want to do with it is legal).

I'd always presumed that the football authorities powers would be limited to kicking that asset (Cardiff) out of their competitions if they are unhappy with how it is being run - surely they don't have the powers to remove the club itself from Tan.

What am I missing?

Just because the law is an ass doesn't mean there should be no opposition to those who exploit the law which is an ass.

The ownership model in English football is inherently problematic because it excludes by its nature the community within which the club is located, and is independent of the roots and ties the club has in the community.

A football club should be more than just a business. Ownership should require responsible stewardship that is accountable to the community.

And it's not some sort of fuzzy ideal. German football exists on these principles (even if the reality doesn't always coincide with the ideal), and German clubs are getting by OK.

Obviously it's too late for the English system to adopt the German model, but surely it isn't too late to agitate for changes that would limit the damage owners can do to a club.

[Pietro Paolo Virdis]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Of course a PL club is like any other company and the owner can do whatever he wants as long as he abides by the law.
But I was thinking that the EFA might have or could impose new rules.

I don't know if I've watch Any given Sunday too many times but in that movie one story is how Cameron Diaz' character wants to move the club and is almost stripped off the licence because it's against NFL regulations. It's that sort of thing I'm thinking of here. Can Tan behave how the hell he pleases or is there a limit when the FA thinks he's bringing the whole reputation of PL down, regardless of it being within British law?

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Trouble is, all the things in isolation (changing shirt colour, badge, even name - which Tan hasn't done yet) have established precedents, as discussed. Arsenal changed their home shirt colour for a season as recently as 2006, and I don't think they needed anyone's permission to do it. Hardly any of the top flight clubs have the same badge on their shirts that they had twenty years ago, with the possible exception of Everton (who caused uproar among fans when they too tried to change theirs at the start of this season).

Owners treating managers like shit and changing backroom staff or even players on a whim is hardly new, and has happened almost everywhere at some point.

Tan must have seen all this happening at other places and is possibly a little mystified as to why him doing it at Cardiff is causing so much of a fuss.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Obviously it's too late for the English system to adopt the German model

That's the problem really - once you have a system in place you're more or less set with it. It's not like the FA or even the Government can just confiscate clubs off wrong'uns and give them to supporters' trusts.

[Stumpy Pepys]

The Vincent Tan addendum

As much as I prefer the German model, it didn't stop Red Bull buying another team's license and renaming the club RB Leipzig.

[BeninRacingClub]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Big Boobs and FIRE! wrote: Morton only added the Greenock part of their name in 1994.

I can only think this was a moral consideration to give prior warning to potential visitors.

I think they were Greenock Morton historically,then dropped it for some reason before re-instating it in 1994

[NHH]

The Vincent Tan addendum

To answer Grimmer - you're right in that you can't stop the legal owner being able to do what they want with it, but the equal right is of the competition to set whichever entry conditions they wish and whichever rules to govern membership that they wish, subject to law.

You can a) stop the club being part of your competition and b) since everyone is in the competition already, you make a condition of membership that no sale can go through until and unless a new owner has been approved, with the punishment being expulsion.

[Pietro Paolo Virdis]

The Vincent Tan addendum

Must any sort of papers be signed by a new owner of a club in England, which are EFA papers? Anything which must go through the FA before an owner can take over?

[NHH]

The Vincent Tan addendum

The process is:

1) Owner fulfils legal purchase of club
2) Owner then registers themselves with the FA & league

This is the major issue, because by the time 1) has happened, the league's main power in reality is to prevent the club from playing until they cease to be owner, but the failure to reverse this lies in the fact that it oversteps a mark for aggressive regulation that none of the regulated wish to see.