Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of what the Minister said this evening. It is right that we talk a little about the new arrangements for mediation and the backstop. The original amendment was overcomplex, but many of us were concerned about the binary nature of the choice that was to be made. For many of us, the important factor in finding a way forward was that we maintained a backstop, because we are not talking about negotiations between equal partners. That is why we needed the retention there; that is very important. I congratulate Ministers on finding a way through this which is satisfactory to everybody who expressed concerns and wanted to move forward.

I welcome what the two previous speakers said about the new independent regulator. He is intent on making this job work and moving things forward very quickly, which is exactly what football needs.

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam, who cannot be here this evening, we are very impressed by and very much welcomed the engagement of the Minister in this House, my noble friend Lady Twycross. It is a model of how Ministers, Back-Benchers, civil servants and external parties can react. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we have not agreed on every aspect of this Bill. That has been important.

I should declare my interest: I am looking forward to the new season, with Bolton Wanderers playing Stockport on that first Saturday—I think I am looking forward to it anyway. Bolton Wanderers went through all the problems that are very well known. I was struck, in the final stages of the debate in the other place, by how many individual MPs had to get up to say that their individual clubs had just gone through difficulties or were facing similar difficulties in the very near future; Sheffield Wednesday is the most obvious example.

The need for this Bill is well and truly proven. It is now in extremely good shape, and I congratulate those who have been involved. We should mention Tracey Crouch, who started this process with her review. I will also say that I am very pleased that three talented women Ministers have been the ones to see this through.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be reasonably brief. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, covered most of what I was going to say on the technical stuff. We sent the Bill back, and I think everybody agreed it was not perfect. Then we got this list of amendments back, and my heart sank at the thought of another 12 hours’ debate on each and every one of them. The only person whose eyes lit up was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who obviously gets paid by the hour by Manchester City. We are nine months into waiting for the 115 charges result; we are still playing a lot of extra time on that one, but let us park it. I am not sure who is the underdog in the game between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County, but it will be an interesting encounter.

We went over these amendments to try to find fault with them, to pick something out, and to see whether the Government were trying to slide something through. Honestly, they have improved the Bill tremendously, and that is partly because of the slight input from the regulator designate, who has clarified the situation. We were a little bit in the dark before about what we thought the role should be and what it was morphing from and to, but just talking to David and understanding his love of what he is going to do, and hearing the passion with which he speaks about being the regulator, tells me it is in safe hands.

I had a number of chairmen, not so much from Championship but from League One and League Two clubs, emailing me, and I said that it is going to be good for the game. That is really where I have always been: at the bottom of the pyramid. The Premier League is fantastic—it will flourish and it will carry on delivering—but League One and League Two clubs, and some of those in non-league clubs, will take a deep breath now and say, “Let’s see this happen”. It will give them that certainty and hope that there will always be something there for them when times are difficult. I have known football clubs that have had to come to local authorities and beg and borrow for assistance. That is a difficult thing to do with public funds, but we did it, and the benefits for the economy, for local councils and for shopkeepers are there now for all to see. The community is all football, and if you had any doubt about that, you would look at this.

I have no complaints about Chelsea becoming the world champions, but that was the most ridiculous competition in the most ridiculous place. Any regular football fan seeing two o’clock in the morning kick-offs was the Armageddon that was said would happen to us. It has not happened because we have got our Bill through; we have got our ducks in a line, and we will be able to protect the league that we love and cherish. I wish the Bill well on its way now. We can move forward. If the noble Baroness has nothing to do, she might want to help me out with the employment Bill tomorrow if she is free, because that is another challenging Bill.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the House that the Bill will not abolish parachute payments or change the architecture in the way that has just been suggested. When the noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about the need to have confidence, so that clubs can invest in new players and have confidence in the strong club structure and financial position, he mentioned only the Premier League. He did not refer at all to the rest of the football pyramid. The Bill needs to make sure that we have sustainability, not just of those clubs in the Premier League, but of the whole English football pyramid. It is important to bear that in mind because, while parachute payments may have a place—as most people have acknowledged, certainly at the moment—there is no doubt that the level of parachute payments is such that it distorts competition in the Championship. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, when we were in Committee, whether she would acknowledge that, and she declined to comment.

If we look at the actual figures involved, there is no doubt that the current arrangements distort competition. At the moment, clubs that are relegated receive, in year one, £48.9 million. Other clubs receive £5.3 million. The redistribution that is often talked about from the Premier League to the EFL does not help all the clubs in the EFL equally. It distorts competition, which is something we should bear in mind when we are talking about parachute payments. Although they may help a few, they do not help the sustainability of the whole pyramid, as they could—and should—if we had a fairer system of distribution.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, especially after Saturday’s result between Bolton and Stockport County—thereby hangs a tale.

I was following the thread from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, really well until he mentioned that every game is competitive. Ipswich Town supporters would not agree with that this season. The evidence suggests that is not the case. If we look at leagues across Europe, they have jeopardy. There are last games of the season where relegation and promotion come to the edge. It is not the be-all and end-all.

It is right that you need a fairer distribution than this endless three up, two down, three down, and that money needs to go further down the pyramid to encourage further clubs to be able to compete. It looks as if the three that came up this season are going to go down. If that continues to happen, it will have a detrimental effect on the Premier League—it must have. It gets more and more difficult every year to sustain. The Brightons and the Bournemouths have burst through, as have other teams, and they are managed really well. But there are unintended consequences if we do not look at these things in totality and just isolate them. If we say, “Leave the parachute payments alone—everything is all right with it”, that is not making progress, and we need to make progress. That is why we need to look at this within the bigger picture. It is not in the Bill but it needs looking at.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 219 relates to Clause 46 and the question of the disposal of home grounds, and the kinds of approvals that are going to be required. I have just three points to make. First, are the words “home ground” sufficient? We suggest that we should say “specified properties”. This relates very much to what I was saying the other night about assets of community value. I said that when my own club, Bolton Wanderers, made its ground an asset of community value, it covered not just the ground itself, the pitch and the stands but the concourse. We have to talk about whether it should cover a training ground and even advertising hoardings, car parks and the fan zone. If we simply say “home ground”, will that cover an item such as a fan zone? That is why the amendment I have tabled suggests that we should have specified properties. They may be different in the case of different clubs, but a home ground is more than just what is on the pitch or even within the boundaries of the stadium. That is something that I hope the Minister will consider.

My second point is that this should relate to the assets of a club being used as security for a loan by the owner. There is clearly potential danger there if the loan is called in but the owner does not have the wherewithal to cough up the money that he has borrowed. Could that situation jeopardise the heritage of a club if it is vulnerable because it has been given as security? That is a valid consideration.

The third point is the need to make sure that fans are fully consulted and engaged in any discussion about the disposal of the specified properties. Often, when we are talking about which properties might be involved, it is the fans themselves, especially if there is a fan zone, who have a clear vested interest. We have talked on the Bill about moving five miles. In any circumstances, the fans have to be involved and, therefore, I hope the Government will consider the amendments that we have tabled.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, because I have walked this tightrope. When I was leader of Stockport Council, we had to financially advise and support Stockport County on several occasions. In the end, in 2013, we acquired the freehold and leased it back to the new owner of Stockport County, Mark Stott, for 250 years. That enabled him to get investment in and get the football club moving back into the league and climbing the divisions. That is where we start from: the position of the club and its value as a loan against something.

If we can get local authorities and other people to get hold of the freeholds, that will save Toys-R-Us from being built on certain football grounds on the south coast and give the clubs real opportunities to move forward. So we should support the amendments. We should also probably be thinking about how we can strengthen that in future. There is more involvement in the community value and the asset to a town and area of a football club, so we could be a bit more imaginative about how we protect that, rather than just arguing over how we should cover a loan against the ground.