BANTAMS SUPPORTERS TRUST

It’s clear that after the general election, whichever political party wins will have it’s own take on the Bill but what is unclear is how exactly it will change if at all. It is important however to know what the Bill looks like as it is , and the Football Supporters Association (FSA) staff and volunteers have gone through it with a fine toothcomb to bring out any weaknesses and at the same time submit amendments for improvement. The FSA have 11 amendments, citing clarity on the objectives of the Bill in view of the FSA’s national policy commitments in promoting fans’ interests. We would like to highlight Clause 55 (revenue distribution), Clause 56 (backstop powers) and Schedule 4 (fan engagement) as key proposal in context to the national perspective. Clause 8. The Independent Football Regulator’s (IFR) regulatory principles This lists those with whom IFR is required to cooperate and engage with. We think it is important that it should be amended by adding “supporters and supporters’ organisations” alongside other football stakeholders such as clubs, owners and competition organisers. Clause 10. State of the Game report The bill says the IFR must publish a State of the Game report including an overview of the main issues that the IFR considers to be affecting English football and whether any of those features “risks jeopardising” its main objectives (which are protecting the financial sustainability of individual clubs and the resilience of the game, while safeguarding traditional features which matter to supporters and communities). The legislation says the first report is to be published within three years, but we feel that is too long and urge that the first report should be published within a year. We also feel its responsibility should include fan engagement across the game. Clauses 12. Guidance published by the IFR and 13. Guidance published by the Secretary of State The IFR is tasked with consulting “such persons as the IFR considers appropriate before publishing” its guidance. We fully expect that the IFR and Secretary of State guidance will include the FSA on the list of those to be consulted but appreciate any supportive messages to MPs from members on this subject. Clause 37. Matters relevant to determinations Clause 37(2) says that in making a decision on a new or current owner “the IFR must ... have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives” of the Government. It’s a debatable point but this could give rise to concerns about the breach of UEFA and FIFA statutes so it would be preferable to replace the word “must” in 37(2) with “may.” Clause 45. Duty not to operate a team in relation to a prohibited competition This prevents regulated clubs from taking part in prohibited competitions - it is the clause that kills the European Super League in relation to domestic club participation. However, there is no explicit requirement for clubs to consult fans about a proposal to play in a potentially prohibited competition - we believe that clubs should have to consult their fans as it might give them pause for thought before releasing madcap plans to the world. The IFR would be required to consult fans if new competition ideas were proposed. Clubs should too. The bill doesn’t specify that IFR’s powers are limited to “new” competitions either, so existing competitions may fall under its remit. Therefore alterations to any competition which contravene 45(5v) - “harms, or would harm, the heritage of English football” - could lead to it being specified by IFR. This has relevance in relation to recent FA Cup replay debates. Clause 46. Duty not to dispose etc of home ground without approval At present there is no mention of a requirement for IFR to consult any other parties such as supporters, local stakeholders, competition organisers, etc. about a proposed sale of a ground. There should be. Numerous grounds are already in separate ownership from the clubs who play on them which leaves those clubs facing potential forms of jeopardy, in the form of rent rises or cessation of football and redevelopment. We know that extending the Bill to such grounds would be problematic but feel some steps should be taken to address this. Clause 48. Duty not to relocate without approval There are no explicit requirements for the club or IFR to consult competition organisers, supporters or anyone else about such proposals. Such a requirement should be added. Clause 55. Distribution of revenue Possible direct payments - There is a concern that a competition organiser could seek to evade the revenue distribution provisions by arranging for clubs to receive the TV money directly (e.g. via a Netflix model whereby subscribers choose their club who receive that fee). That revenue is currently within scope of the IFR if it is “received by the competition organiser.” Adding words to include monies received directly by clubs would solve the “Netflix” problem. Parachute payments - These are also excluded from being within the scope of the regulator’s so-called “backstop powers” on revenue distribution. Given the huge financial problems they cause we don ’t see any justification for their exclusion, which should be deleted. The exclusion of parachute payments would cement the current grotesque inequalities in revenue distribution and undermine IFR’s ability to deliver its systemic financial resilience objective. Clause 56. Applications for resolution process to be triggered This refers to the starting of the so-called “backstop” powers. It should be amended to allow IFR itself to trigger the resolution process when competition organisers fail to agree or fail to move the matter towards resolution. It should also be possible for the IFR to trigger the process if a settlement is agreed which compromises the IFR’s systemic financial sustainability objective. Schedule 4 - Threshold requirements (Fan Engagement) Fan engagement is the “core business” of the FSA. Given the fundamental requirement in the bill that “English football is sustainable if it continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs” we are particularly keen to ensure that the fan engagement regime established under the bill is robust. It should be appropriate at all regulated clubs, according to their circumstances, based on democratic principles and regulated not solely on the basis of the appearance of arrangements “on paper” but with regard to the conduct of those involved and the outcomes secured by the engagement process. It is left to the IFR to define some of the key terms (including “adequate means”, “operational issues” and the means of consultation). The Premier League has developed its own fan engagement standard centred around Fan Advisory Boards but it has been set at the lowest standard that sufficient clubs were willing to sign up to. Moreover, while some clubs have embraced and exceeded that standard, others are yet to deliver it. We also have concerns that some clubs are avoiding or limiting consultation on important matters – ticketing policy has been a particular concern. Crucially, there is no qualitative assessment that what is put in place is properly used by clubs to consult and take fan views into account in decision-making. The “light touch” collaborative approach in the bill puts considerable onus on the regulator to create an acceptable framework through its guidance. There is also a risk that the leagues and clubs will seek to dilute any such guidance. Schedule 5 - Mandatory Licensing Conditions This section must make clear that those selected as representing the views of the club’s fans should be appointed through a process that is democratic and independent of club control. Where the club has an established, legally registered supporters’ trust, that body should have appropriate representation in the club’s consultation processes.

With the general election now called for the 4 th July, the Football Governance Bill, which has had 2 readings in parliament already, will not have time to go through the final Committee stage during this parliament. However, all is not lost, as there is cross-party support and the Football Supporters Association (FSA) to which Bantams Supporters Trust is affiliated to, has launched an open letter to the political parties appealing for their commitment to the bill in their manifesto’s should they win the election. The letter is co-signed by Kevin Miles, CEO of the FSA, and Tracey Crouch, the Chair and author of the Fan-led Review. The letter also has more than 200 FSA member supporters’ group signatories including Bantams Supporters Trust. You can see the full letter and signatories here . Concerns about the Bill after the general election and proffered by the PL The Guardian, 23 rd May says that, “There remains uncertainty, however, over whether an incoming government would pick up the bill as it is or seek to redraft it. This could lead to another extended period of lobbying by football stakeholders, and further delay the introduction of a regulator.” And the Premier League (PL) clubs cannot agree a distribution package to the EFL and cannot agree with the EFL regarding the regulator’s proposed backstop powers to enforce financial redistribution from the top flight down the pyramid. The Football Governance Bill – an opportunity for the Premier League, not a threat The PL, who are not entirely on board with the Football Governance Bill, have called it a threat to a successful British business, when in fact the PL could help bring about an improved healthier competition throughout the whole pyramid with a significantly better financial redistribution process. And as well as the wider improvements the Bill can bring to the PL, it will improve it as a business. The PL’s income is already far ahead of the top divisions in Germany, Spain, Italy and France. According to Deloitte forecasts, Premier League revenues in 2023/24 will be €3.2bn ahead of its nearest competitor, Germany’s Bundesliga. Deloitte 2023/24 projections ( Annual Review of Football Finance 2023 ): 1. Premier League - £6.66bn* 2. Bundesliga - £3.45bn 3. LaLiga - £3.4bn 4. Serie A - £2.45bn 5. Ligue 1 - £2.05bn It would take a failure of spectacular proportions for this commercial dominance to be lost, and that failure will not come a result of improvements to governance that have been carefully thought through by MPs, fan organisations and clubs at all levels of the game. The huge income of the PL is offset by massive financial losses, due to a lack of financial constraints. The latest financial returns show combined annual losses by PL clubs exceeding £1bn – all while paying players and agents a combined £4.4bn. *New reports indicate the latest Premier League club accounts showing revenue as £6.1bn. Championship club owners, gambling to earn a share of the riches at the top of the game, delivered annual losses for their clubs of £400m . The dreadful lack of financial controls in the game has led over the years to significant numbers of insolvencies. Since the PL was formed in 1992, 64 English league clubs have gone into administration or been liquidated. What does success look like? The PL is an enormous cultural success generating enormous global interest as its clubs collect the biggest prizes in football and create fantastic sporting moments. But is that the only measure of success and how sustainable is that success for every member club and every other club trying to be a member? How does the vast commercial gap between the PL and the rest of English football affect the strength and sustainability of the whole game? How is success defined? Is success a club like Nottingham Forest spending more on players in one summer transfer window than it had previously spent in its entire 157-year history? Is success Everton making losses that broke the Premier League’s own rules three seasons in a row? Is success Crystal Palace going bust, twice, to clear debts? Is success Brighton and Hove Albion, a club often cited as an example of what good management can achieve, being one of the most indebted in football and sustained by the huge generosity of a single owner via a £373m interest free loan? Bolton Wanderers and Derby County show how quickly that approach can go wrong. One problem the PL does not acknowledge is that its success incentivises its own clubs to take desperate measures to stay in it, while EFL clubs take desperate measures trying to get into it – all because of the enormous disparity in income between Premier League and EFL clubs. It has even distorted the commercial market and the competitive playing field by introducing a special system that recognises this - so-called ‘parachute payments’ to clubs who are relegated from the Premier League. These payments are made over a three-year period to help relegated clubs bridge the income gap they experience when dropping out of the top division. But the very existence of that system is an admission of commercial weakness. And it distorts competition, because clubs not receiving payments must deal with the realities created by clubs that are. Parachute payments or trampoline payments? While we have referred to them as parachute payments there is no doubt they act as trampoline payments – giving relegated teams a huge advantage over other Championship clubs. The threat to football’s competitive balance is that the same handful of clubs could repeatedly be promoted to, and relegated from, the PL – creating a de facto closed shop league. The recent offer proposed by the Premier League to the EFL would allow relegated clubs to spend 85% of their revenue on wages while other clubs in the Championship would be limited to 70%. Clubs in the 85% band already receive more revenue and would be allowed to spend a higher percentage of that revenue. EFL chairman Rick Parry said this would equate to a budget of around £110m for relegated teams while the EFL was bound to restrict EFL clubs to a £20m budget. This cliff edge must be removed and revenues spread more equitably through the game. Of course, some clubs will always be more financially healthy than others, and so be able to spend more, but the game should not put systems in place that widen the financial gap, nor encourage reckless behaviour in the name of fair competition. The very existence of parachute payments is an admission of failure – the free market that so many in football argue should be left to run naturally needs intervention because otherwise clubs would go out of business. The answer is to address the distortion of the market at root, not seek to mitigate by distorting it further. The Football Governance Bill could do this, but the PL is insisting parachute payments should be beyond the new regulator’s remit, and the Bill as it currently stands entrenches that position (Clause 55). One of the Bill’s key objectives is “to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”. How can it hope to deliver on this if it is unable to address what is widely considered to be the one element which distorts the football pyramid more than any other? That clause should be removed, and we ask for your support for an amendment that does so. England’s unique football ecosystem The PL deserves credit for funding community projects and for “solidarity” payments to the EFL, National League (NL) and women’s game – that solidarity principle is now well established, and we believe they can go further. The PL’s success is based on a football ecosystem that extends deep into our communities and our culture. No other country attracts 38,000 supporters to a fifth tier play-off final as the NL did last season. The chance that any club can rise through the system to achieve the top prize is central to our game, and tens of thousands of fans showed how much they valued that when they showed their anger at the plans by the top six PL clubs to break away into a European Super League. That attempt could have destroyed the English game, but instead it sparked the fan-led review, which led to the Football Governance Bill and a potential new lease of life for football. Clubs throughout the league develop players and coaching staff that PL clubs recruit. The game, our national game, is embedded in the nation’s psyche and loved by so many because it is played at so many levels from Sunday league youth games right up to elite level. That is what generates the loyalty and the passion that makes football such a lucrative and successful business. Left unchecked, the PL club owners will destroy the fertile ground that nurtures its roots. And that is more of a commercial threat than a Bill that seeks, as the PL admits, to embed more normal business practices in the game. The PL sees the Bill as a threat because it sees the money its clubs have as PL money. But it is not. It is football money, generated by this national game of ours. Facts and figures Recent media stories reporting that the PL would pay £106m to fund a regulator have been jumped upon by opponents trying to portray this as an unaffordable cost. But let’s put the figure into context. That’s £106m across 10 years, equating to £10.6m per season, or £530,000 per club. Club sources tell the FSA the Premier League currently spends more than £20m per annum on legal and governance – twice as much as what a regulator would cost. Let’s look at some more facts and figures to put regulator costs into perspective: · £400m spent by Premier League clubs on agent fees in one year. · £4bn spent on player wages during 2022/23 with a median wage of £70,800p/w. · £3bn spent on player purchases, up by 57%, with £979m recouped on sales. · £9.4bn total squad purchase costs. · £54m spent across all clubs on director and executive staff pay. · £3m bonus for Spurs chairman Daniel Levy – rewarded in the aftermath of 2022/23 when the club’s pre-tax loss increased from £61m to £95m, despite competing in the Champions League. Fortunately for the club Levy’s bonus will be covered “thanks” to an increase in season ticket prices and the phased withdrawal of concessionary rates. · Parachute payments fact #1: Between 2019-22 the PL shared £887m via what it terms “core funding” - but £663m of this went to relegated clubs via parachute payments. That is 75% of the total given to the Championship as a whole. A small group of recently relegated clubs get most of the money leading to competitive imbalance. · Parachute payments fact #2: The PL shared £97.3m with League One and League Two teams across three seasons (2019-22). PL clubs have spent more than four times that amount (£400m) on agents fees since February 2023. £97.3m across three seasons equates to an average of £675,000 per club, per season. · Parachute payment fact #3: The EFL argues that instead of parachute payments there should be a solidarity fund combining the Premier League and EFL media incomes with 25% of that being awarded to EFL clubs. This would lower the cliff edge and be less likely to encourage risky financial behaviours by those desperate to claim a top-flight slot. Premier League: A threat to itself? We’ve explained how the commercial model the Premier League has created is storing up problems that can threaten clubs. But so are the Premier League’s attempts to regulate the financial monster it has created. It took 22 years for the Premier League to introduce a set of profit and sustainability rules for its clubs to follow. The clubs themselves voted for those rules, but some found they had to break them to try and compete in the distorted landscape the PL has created. So the Premier League had to punish them. But the League’s belated attempt to regulate itself has resulted in a bungled process that is opaque, contradictory and which has failed to gain the confidence of fans. This is damaging the integrity of the brand, as people question why and how points are won and lost, with many supporters arguing that not all clubs are treated equally. An independent regulator can restore faith by introducing clear rules and a clear regime of governance. That is the sort of system that has enabled many other industries to gain confidence from investors and consumers that has driven success. Far from being a threat, the Football Governance Bill protects and strengthens a great British success story. We will write a further article (Part 2) with a view to seeking amendments to clarity within the Bill as to how it looks at present. This will give an idea to members what work still needs to be done.

How many family households love Bradford City? You and your family household could be on Look North and tell them how much you love your match-going routine. Look North, the BBC’s regional news programme want do a big spill into a City fan household to find out how much Valley Parade mean to City fans and link it to the Trust’s application to list the ground as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). Find out more about our application to list the stadium as an ACV and how it can safeguard the stadium here . If you would like Look North to come to your home and interview you and your devoted City supporting family contact us at hello@bantamstrust.co.uk and we can put you through to the dedicated BBC reporter. The deadline for this is Wednesday 22 nd so you need to get in touch as soon as you can.

On the 15 th May the Club announced the total amount raised from the bucket collection before the last game of the season on the 27th April. The Supporters Trust played a leading role in organising the collection by getting the volunteers, this year with the support of Bradford City Disability Football Club and Shipley Bantams. There were approximately 30 volunteers raising £4,176.71 before the last match of the season against Newport County last month. A further £1, 1,130.36, collected by and donated on behalf of Co-op Funeralcare, at the annual memorial service in Centenary Square on Saturday 11 th May, marking the 39 th anniversary of the disaster. Read the Club’s article here . It is a fantastic amount raised by those dedicated to help out last month and the total must be up there as one of the largest amounts we’ve raised. It is something that has been traditionally been done every year since the fateful tragedy and should be continued as a way of paying our respects to those who we should always remember. The Trust would like to give a special thank you to all involved in the collection that day.

Remembering the 54 Bradford City supporters and two Lincoln City supporters who went to watch a game of football but never returned home.

There will be a Service at Centenary Park this Saturday 11th May, from 11am in Centenary Square marking the 39th anniversary of the Valley Parade Fire Disaster.

This season has been one of the most turbulent roller coaster rides a Bradford City team has given us for many years.