Topic: MCOs - Multi-Club Ownerships in football...

[Samie]

So what's the difference to this compared to the old feeder teams or is this just moral outrage? We always had connections with the likes of crewe etc. If we say did something with tranmere and it gave them financial stability to survive then I don't see the downside. Unless I'm missing something

Diffrence is FSG would own that other club too. So they'd be our brother/sister club.

[Peabee]

A lot of brands are owned by the same entity. That's one way they fix prices without it being illegal.

[thejbs]

Everton are for sale. Handy having the feeder club so close to home.

[Redley]

So what's the difference to this compared to the old feeder teams or is this just moral outrage? We always had connections with the likes of crewe etc. If we say did something with tranmere and it gave them financial stability to survive then I don't see the downside. Unless I'm missing something

I think the point is that this would, potentially, be a team with the goal of feeding Liverpool. Not just a friendly relationship where we occasionally send them players on loan and even more occasionally sign players from them.

[oojason]

So what's the difference to this compared to the old feeder teams or is this just moral outrage? We always had connections with the likes of crewe etc. If we say did something with tranmere and it gave them financial stability to survive then I don't see the downside. Unless I'm missing something

'Moral outrage?'

It may be worth reading up on what fans of some of the clubs now under MCOs feel, such as this below, from in the OP of this thread...

Empathy-wise - how would we like it if our club was in their position, or this position below...? Is this really for the good of the game? How many clubs under MCO are enough, etc etc?

RC Strasbourg supporter group Ultra Boys 90 have now released a statement demanding an explanation [from BlueCo ownership group (US owners of Chelsea)]:

“Racing is now nothing more than a financial asset, owned by an investment fund that already owns another football club. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Multiclub is killing football, and we’ll fight it!” said the statement.

“Two transfer windows have also come and gone, and all we can do is watch helplessly as our club is stripped of all its experienced players. In favour of young up-and-coming players. It is now clear that BlueCo requires the recruitment of players aged 23 years or less. We’re not fooled! No professional club can be competitive under these conditions.

“Without balanced recruitment, the tens of millions invested in these young players will not serve Racing but only the interests of the new owners.”

^ from https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2024/03/11/chelsea-owners-blueco-fire-fans-performing-rc-strasbourg

There are similar stories from fans of other clubs too - whether currently 'successful' - or not.

(as well as the main OP article, there are also around 10+ articles listed in there as a starting point)

[Mister Flip Flop]

We have to do it to avoid getting left behind. The regulators seem fine with it.

It's more important to be morally correct than to be winners imo. The whole thing stinks of corruption and just another reason why the games gone to shit.

[jillcwhomever]

Diffrence is FSG would own that other club too. So they'd be our brother/sister club.

Load of tosh, football is supposed to be competitive. It's should never be about rich clubs getting richer out of using other clubs in such a blatant way. None of you would like it if someone did this to our club and you know it. But suddenly people defend it when they are ones on top. Garbage.

[WillG.LFC]

I think the point is that this would, potentially, be a team with the goal of feeding Liverpool. Not just a friendly relationship where we occasionally send them players on loan and even more occasionally sign players from them.

OK so how is that bad? Again if I'm a fan of say crewe and we get access to decent young players and financial security how is it a bad thing?

[DelTrotter]

OK so how is that bad? Again if I'm a fan of say crewe and we get access to decent young players and financial security how is it a bad thing?

Read a few posts up for quotes from fans of a club going through that.

[WillG.LFC]

'Moral outrage?'

It may be worth reading up on what fans of some of the clubs now under MCOs feel, such as this below, from in the OP of this thread...

Empathy-wise - how would we like it if our club was in their position, or this position below...? Is this really for the good of the game? How many clubs under MCO are enough, etc etc?

There are similar stories from fans of other clubs too - whether currently 'successful' - or not.

(as well as the main OP article, there are also around 10+ articles listed in there as a starting point)

and is this the majority of fans' thoughts within these clubs or just the loudest? Many might like the stability it brings. It seems odd for us to hate the idea when it's not really our club that's affected.

[WillG.LFC]

Read a few posts up for quotes from fans of a club going through that.

Yes but we have split thoughts within our own club about FSG as owners. It's unlikely everyone is happy all the time. Is this beneficial to the stability of lower league football? Are these links permanent or can they be stopped by the smaller Club if they become more successful

[MonsLibpool]

Yes but we have split thoughts within our own club about FSG as owners. It's unlikely everyone is happy all the time. Is this beneficial to the stability of lower league football? Are these links permanent or can they be stopped by the smaller Club if they become more successful

Of course it's beneficial for lower league fiotball because "smaller" sides get better players. It also gives their players an incentive to do improve because they have the carrot of potential playing for a juggernaut like us.

It will develop football in more obscure areas and make the football world smaller. How is that a bad thing?

Not every player will be good enough to make the step up but they will still be better than who those clubs can normally get and if they improve to a level where they can start competing with us, again how is that a bad thing??

FSG will simply reduce their investment. Our owners, for all the stick they might get, are ethical and they prioritise the long term development of their teams. Has anyone seen anything to suggest otherwise?

Also, these clubs are and will always be selling clubs. The only difference will be that they will be able to get better players and keep the ones that are  not quite up to our level but very good at their level.

Bridging the gap between smaller leagues and bigger leagues will be good for football as it will improve the chances of talented players in remote regions making it at the highest level. That's why we aim to recruit globally.

[Redley]

OK so how is that bad? Again if I'm a fan of say crewe and we get access to decent young players and financial security how is it a bad thing?

We're not likely to be talking about a club the size of Crewe, but even then as a fan of Crewe you'd probably get bored of having good players who kept getting given to Liverpool and stopped you from ever really being able to progress as far as you might be able to.

Saying its going to bridge the gap between smaller and bigger leagues is laughable

[B0151?]

'Moral outrage?'

It may be worth reading up on what fans of some of the clubs now under MCOs feel, such as this below, from in the OP of this thread...

Empathy-wise - how would we like it if our club was in their position, or this position below...? Is this really for the good of the game? How many clubs under MCO are enough, etc etc?

There are similar stories from fans of other clubs too - whether currently 'successful' - or not.

(as well as the main OP article, there are also around 10+ articles listed in there as a starting point)

Sounds like what people have said about FSG in the past to be honest. It seems like they're more upset about the idea of it than anything.

And don't get me wrong, I get it. I understand the concerns but I mean I don't think there's a type of ownership that doesn't have the potential to be bad ownership and have fans protesting.

[classycarra]

It seems odd for us to hate the idea when it's not really our club that's affected.

at least you're honest about only having a selfish viewpoint on it

[WillG.LFC]

at least you're honest about only having a selfish viewpoint on it

I don't have a selfish viewpoint on it thanks, acknowledging our club isn't negatively affected by this and then ASKING what the downside would be as my opinion is fairly neutral as my club is not affected.

What I don't get is the straight up outrage. It is rarely the case that something is 100% a bad thing yet we get many people just focusing on the negative like this is the latest worst thing in the world.

It could help spread money throughout the lower leagues, something proving increasingly difficult. How you then say my viewpoint is selfish is laughable but shows a typically shallow response

[WillG.LFC]

We're not likely to be talking about a club the size of Crewe, but even then as a fan of Crewe you'd probably get bored of having good players who kept getting given to Liverpool and stopped you from ever really being able to progress as far as you might be able to.

Saying its going to bridge the gap between smaller and bigger leagues is laughable

So lower league clubs and fans would get board of having better players?? I mean I think lower league football is quite chaotic as it is in terms of the best players being sold.

Would fans of clubs that have folded like Bury be against something like this if it was presented to them pre-collapse?

As usual there seems to be very one sided opinions on these topics we don't experience much ourselves. There will be benefits to this, there could also be negatives, it's why it's important to actually find out what this entails before we just flat out say this is awful

[The North Bank]

I dont like it, its open to abuse. Your feeder club could sign someone like Ruben Neves or Benzema , then loan them to you because you cant sign them as you have reached your ffp limit.
Obviously those 2 names were chosen randomly

[Fromola]

I dont like it, its open to abuse. Your feeder club could sign someone like Ruben Neves or Benzema , then loan them to you because you cant sign them as you have reached your ffp limit.
Obviously those 2 names were chosen randomly

The problem is some clubs will always take the piss and use any advantage they can.

I don't object to us having links with another club in order to develop top young talent and give them a path into Europe, or somewhere to loan some of our lads and FSG hold a stake in it.

The other club needs to keep its own identity though and it needs to beneficial for both. The other option is B teams in the lower league and I would be massively opposed to that, regardless of how we'd benefit.

[WillG.LFC]

I dont like it, its open to abuse. Your feeder club could sign someone like Ruben Neves or Benzema , then loan them to you because you cant sign them as you have reached your ffp limit.
Obviously those 2 names were chosen randomly

Yes that is definitely a concern. So if there are positives and negatives it's about how it should be regulated rather than people just saying this is awful and the worst thing ever

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

So lower league clubs and fans would get board of having better players?? I mean I think lower league football is quite chaotic as it is in terms of the best players being sold.

Would fans of clubs that have folded like Bury be against something like this if it was presented to them pre-collapse?

As usual there seems to be very one sided opinions on these topics we don't experience much ourselves. There will be benefits to this, there could also be negatives, it's why it's important to actually find out what this entails before we just flat out say this is awful

You seem to be basing your whole thought process on FSG buying a League One or League Two club, which is absolutely not going to happen. They're very likely going to buy a club in the top flight of a European league.

[BarryCrocker]

Mad they we're the most successful English club ever and one of the most supported teams in any sport in the world without having to use this model.

[Kloppage Time]

You seem to be basing your whole thought process on FSG buying a League One or League Two club, which is absolutely not going to happen. They're very likely going to buy a club in the top flight of a European league.

I could get behind FSG buying a Dublin based League of Ireland club, Maybe Bohs? who are developing their stadium or or do a Manchester City and buy Rovers who lease a stadium from the council, they'd be "close to home" English speaking and it's an up and coming league, why not?

[WillG.LFC]

You seem to be basing your whole thought process on FSG buying a League One or League Two club, which is absolutely not going to happen. They're very likely going to buy a club in the top flight of a European league.

To show its not all negative. That was my point. There seems to just be am outcry without acknowledging there are potential benefits to this model.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

To show its not all negative. That was my point. There seems to just be am outcry without acknowledging there are potential benefits to this model.

Of course there are benefits. Mostly for us, but that's a selfish thought process.

Even if it ends up benefitting the feeder club too, that comes with a large degree of unfairness to the clubs their competing against. All of a sudden a team in their league has access to resources they would never be able to get organically, just because of their attachment to Liverpool. That's not too far detached to us having to compete with Man City (although obviously not to the same degree of cheating) and just distorts the whole footballing landscape.

RB Salzburg as an example now pretty much have a monopoly on Austrian football. Great for them, great for Leipzig, shit for every other club.

[Kloppage Time]

Of course there are benefits. Mostly for us, but that's a selfish thought process.

Even if it ends up benefitting the feeder club too, that comes with a large degree of unfairness to the clubs their competing against. All of a sudden a team in their league has access to resources they would never be able to get organically, just because of their attachment to Liverpool. That's not too far detached to us having to compete with Man City (although obviously not to the same degree of cheating).

Not sure, if FSG came in and bought a League of Ireland club it would feel like the equivalent of being bought by the Saudis, From an FSG point of view they would be looking at qualifying yearly for European football and the possibility of bringing on players for sale to bigger leagues, the other clubs would initially lose out but if successful for FSG other buyers would move in thus making the league stronger

It could be a win win for everybody long term?

Being a League of Ireland supporter I'd be all for FSG coming in, even if it wasn't for my club

[WillG.LFC]

Of course there are benefits. Mostly for us, but that's a selfish thought process.

Even if it ends up benefitting the feeder club too, that comes with a large degree of unfairness to the clubs their competing against. All of a sudden a team in their league has access to resources they would never be able to get organically, just because of their attachment to Liverpool. That's not too far detached to us having to compete with Man City (although obviously not to the same degree of cheating) and just distorts the whole footballing landscape.

RB Salzburg as an example now pretty much have a monopoly on Norwegian football. Great for them, great for Leipzig, shit for every other club.

exploring positives is not a selfish thought process ffs

It's the difference between rigid and adaptive mindsets. No one had issues with less formal feeder club relationships which could do the very same thing you mentioned.

Topics are meant to be explored, that exploration being deemed selfish is baffling to me. Notice I've not once said this proposal is a good idea, simply if its inevitable and has benefits its about how we regulate its inclusion to minimise the negatives

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Not sure, if FSG came in and bought a League of Ireland club it would feel like the equivalent of being bought by the Saudis, From an FSG point of view they would be looking at qualifying yearly for European football and the possibility of bringing on players for sale to bigger leagues, the other clubs would initially lose out but if successful for FSG other buyers would move in thus making the league stronger

It could be a win win for everybody long term?

FSG aren't going to buy a League of Ireland club

[Kloppage Time]

FSG aren't going to buy a League of Ireland club

Why not?

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/league-of-ireland-takeovers-kick-off-international-investment-in-clubs-here/

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

It's the difference between rigid and adaptive mindsets. No one had issues with less formal feeder club relationships which could do the very same thing you mentioned.

No one had an issue with this because it was two completely different entities entering into what they saw as a mutually beneficial agreement. This could then be ended at any point if one of the parties decided to end it, and it was something all clubs could explore.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Why not?

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/league-of-ireland-takeovers-kick-off-international-investment-in-clubs-here/

Because the standard is nowhere near high enough.

[BarryCrocker]

Being a League of Ireland supporter I'd be all for FSG coming in, even if it wasn't for my club

Just say you're a Bohs/Rovers/Pats fan an Man United came in and bought the club you've supported your whole life. How'd that make you feel?

[Kloppage Time]

Just say you're a Bohs/Rovers/Pats fan an Man United came in and bought the club you've supported your whole life. How'd that make you feel?

It wouldn't be Man united, or Liverpool for that matter, it'd be the Glazers    or FSG, I'd continue supporting the club in both those instances maybe slightly worried with the Glazers and delighted with FSG, whereas I'd stop supporting the club if a "sportswashing" venture happened along.

[WillG.LFC]

So here we have a fan of a smaller league actually saying they wouldn't mind it and we have people trying to convince them they are wrong

This is the point of my original post. Seems there's outrage from our fans without exploring the reality of the situation. This does and will have negative affects, this is also inevitable as it exists already. So the idea should then be to speak to all fans, not those that just shout the loudest and deem it horrific from our own bias

Benefits seem to be more financial security, access to a wider pool of players. Negatives could be loss of identity and manipulation. So you look at ways of how to regulate that and make progress.

All I have to say on the matter, going straight to this is shite limits the ability for football to improve and also makes it harder to tackle the actual problems in football

[DelTrotter]

So here we have a fan of a smaller league actually saying they wouldn't mind it and we have people trying to convince them they are wrong

Funny how one persons opinion in here means everything to you but Troyes fans fuming and boycotting games and you're like "don't care, there's benefits". Grim attitude.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

So here we have a fan of a smaller league actually saying they wouldn't mind it and we have people trying to convince them they are wrong

This is the point of my original post. Seems there's outrage from our fans without exploring the reality of the situation. This does and will have negative affects, this is also inevitable as it exists already. So the idea should then be to speak to all fans, not those that just shout the loudest and deem it horrific from our own bias

Benefits seem to be more financial security, access to a wider pool of players. Negatives could be loss of identity and manipulation. So you look at ways of how to regulate that and make progress.

All I have to say on the matter, going straight to this is shite limits the ability for football to improve and also makes it harder to tackle the actual problems in football

Where's the outrage?

[Mister Flip Flop]

Not sure, if FSG came in and bought a League of Ireland club it would feel like the equivalent of being bought by the Saudis, From an FSG point of view they would be looking at qualifying yearly for European football and the possibility of bringing on players for sale to bigger leagues, the other clubs would initially lose out but if successful for FSG other buyers would move in thus making the league stronger

It could be a win win for everybody long term?

Being a League of Ireland supporter I'd be all for FSG coming in, even if it wasn't for my club

I'm a Rovers fan and FSG can fcuk off with that idea.

[redtel]

This thread has many examples of problems with MCO. I suspect many who think it’s fine either haven’t read the journalists examples or have forgotten some of them after reading. It’s not comparable to anything we have done in the past where we had a good relationship with another club for signing players.

Brighton are owned by Tony Bloom who is also majority shareholder of Union St Guilloise who we met in the EL Group stage. Five current Brighton players have played for both clubs via loans or transfers. Brighton also qualified for the EL this season. They would obviously have conflict of interest if they were to meet.

———————-
In 1998 UEFA rules were amended to prevent this occurrence.

Article 5 Integrity of the competition / multi-club ownership
5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa Conference League), the following criteria apply:

No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

5.02
If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order):

the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Europa Conference League);
the club which was ranked highest in the domestic championship giving access to the relevant UEFA club competition;
the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).

5.03
Clubs that are not admitted are replaced in accordance with Paragraph 4.09.

5.04
This article is not applicable if any of the cases listed under Paragraph 5.01 happens between a club directly qualified to the UEFA Champions League group stage and one qualified for any stage of the UEFA Europa Conference League.

———————-

Now that UEFA have a different group of directors or management these rules have been bypassed. Tony Bloom altered or reduced his holding in the Belgian club. Thus making it possible for both to enter according to UEFA although they didn’t meet. They are obviously not governing by their own rules but have become facilitators of the rich clubs. Much the same as the PL have never governed but have allowed all sorts of owners to come in and change the game as we know it. From Portsmouth to Man C to Newcastle.

The PL have finally attempted to govern with P&S charges but much too late I feel. However, back to UEFA who are now faced with Girona and Man City both in CL spots are wishing to enter the CL for 2024-25.
The team that finishes higher in their league will enter the CL and the lower team the EL according to their rules.

However that may not happen as earlier this season we learnt this:

Girona’s incredible start to the campaign has led to questions regarding the feasibility of the club being able to play in a UEFA competition, due to strict rules against multi-club ownership set out by UEFA’s regulations.
However, should both Manchester City and Girona qualify for the UEFA Champions League in 2024/25, then a previous report from Mundo Deportivo suggests that both teams could feature in the European competition.
The Spanish outlet claim that Girona were previously granted a UEFA license last season despite links to Manchester City, permitting the club to compete in European club competitions.
Girona sought clarity towards the end of last year after bidding to secure a Europa Conference League spot, however the club finished 10th in La Liga, after failing to win any of their last five matches.
The City Football Group own a 47% share in Girona, and the Spanish club are one of 13 clubs within the multi-club model.

Nobody knows for certain what will happen but chickens are coming home to roost for MCO which like many corporate ventures has money over morality where 2 clubs with same owners could meet up in major European competition.

This is not the only negative either as various European clubs can testify.

[MonsLibpool]

MCO might shift competition is the smaller team's league. Why didn't people have an issue with this when suggesting a potential takeover by the Norwegian fund?

The first argument was that we'll use the club and their results might not improve. Also, that they'll get tired of losing players to us. Just like our youth team, a small to moderate percentage of the players will be good enough to make the step up so that's just not true.

The second one is that improving their results will affect the competitive balance and will be a bad thing🤣🤣🤣 Why will improving a club's results and value be a negative??

If they improve, it's a problem.  If they don't,  it's also a problem because MCO is totally negative and nothing good can come out of it (hyperfocus on clubs that aren't doing it right).

A huge positive for me is the increased globalisation of football. The truth is that where a player was born has a huge impact on whether or not he/she makes it at the highest. No matter how good you are, if you were born in India for example then you're not likely to make it at the highest level.

Clubs venturing into and having direct links with other continents will encourage youngsters in more obscure areas because they'll have a clear pathway to the top. Also, they'll invest in the club's infrastructure. That's very good for the game.

[DelTrotter]

MCO might shift competition is the smaller team's league. Why didn't people have an issue with this when suggesting a potential takeover by the Norwegian fund?

The first argument was that we'll use the club and their results might not improve. Also, that they'll get tired of losing players to us. Just like our youth team, a small to moderate percentage of the players will be good enough to make the step up.

The second one is that improving their results will affect the competitive balance and will be a bad thing🤣🤣🤣 Why will improving a club's results and value be a negative??

If they improve, it's a problem.  If they don't,  it's also a problem.

I'm shocked someone who is massively pro sportswashing loves this idea too