The Football Governance Bill and an extensive raft of some 180 proposed amendments to it are currently being debated by a committee of MPs before it returns to the House of Commons, where it will hopefully pass into law before the summer recess begins in late July. The Bill Committee comprises 17 MPs plus a Chair with Derby County “represented” on the committee by two local MPs, Baggy Shanker (Derby South) and Jon Pearce (High Peak). The latter is a member and former RamsTrust Chair, an interest he formally declared at the beginning of the first debate and has referred to in subsequent contributions.

Inevitably given our club’s recent history Derby County has been referenced more than once during the Committee debates so far. These references include comments by Jon Pearce in which he cited the “three amigos” in connection with the need for transparency around club ownership arrangements and the Chris Kirchner shaped bullet we dodged a few years ago in support of the need for more rigorous testing of suitability for owners and directors.

Prior to the committee stage’s commencement we again wrote to our MPs reinforcing RamsTrust’s support for the Bill and offering our thoughts on certain tabled amendments. The responses received were positive and we are particularly pleased that both Baggy Shanker and Catherine Atkinson (MP for Derby North) have proactively reached out to RamsTrust in the last month to discuss our position in greater detail, to share their thoughts and provide insights into the legislative process.

National organisations – notably the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA ) and Fair Game – are also lobbying in support of amendments designed to make the Bill more robust at a detailed level.  There is though a general recognition that progress towards enactment should not be delayed and the Government is clearly committed to the principle of relatively light touch regulation and an independent regulator that can apply its powers with flexibility to do what it feels is right in the circumstances. As such it is arguing that greater specification of requirements is invariably not required, as the objectives are already covered by more general provisions and the overriding objectives of the Bill and the role of the regulator.

Consequently amendments designed to specifically require fan consultation in connection with proposed changes to features of a club’s heritage and the involvement of the FSA in the reporting responsibilities of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) for example, have either been withdrawn or defeated. There will though be an opportunity for these and other amendments to be reintroduced when the Bill goes back to the full House of Commons at the report stage.

However, a proposed Government amendment will – in defined circumstances – allow the IFR to design a revenue distribution deal of its own if it does not agree with either competition organisers’ (most likely the Premier League and EFL) proposals. Related amendments introduce a requirement for distribution deal proposals to be consistent with the findings of the IFR’s most recent State of the Game report. These changes represent a notable increase in the IFR’s powers and will go some way to address a major amendment requested by Fair Game. It is also pleasing to note that yet another Conservative attempt to remove parachute payments from the revenue distribution provisions failed, following a debate in which Jon Pearce cited Derby as an example of the consequences of clubs mortgaging their futures to achieve Premier League status with no guarantee of success.

We have recently seen the the resolution of the long standing ownership problems at Reading but have now seen the issues at Sheffield Wednesday, with wages of back-office employees as well as players not being paid in full. These demonstrate the inadequacies of governance that exist in the game and the need for enhanced suitability testing for owners and more rigorous financial management. Capacity restrictions at Wembley impacting fans wanting to attend the recent National League playoff final, and several developments at Premier League clubs around ticketing that discriminate against so-called “legacy fans” in favour of “football tourists”, show that at all levels of the game fans need to be given a louder voice. The Bill as it currently stands may not give us everything we want but it is clearly a considerable step in the right direction and one that needs to be taken as soon as possible.