The Independent Football Regulator is coming...

Abolish PSR on Day 2.

Moreover, FIFA itself might unravel as players say “I'd rather stay in the Premier League then earn less in another league.” Then maybe we can have a great reset based around the interests of fans and health of players when it comes to scheduling.

But obviously FIFA are corrupt so, while Togo get banned as their president evacuated them after being shot, we will get away with government intrusion.

Qatar in 2022 was obviously bought. The infrastructure was non-existent. Eighty percent of the gazetted hotel rooms were taken by teams, and the "FIFA Family", meaning the bulk of visitors had to stay in temporary accommodation, or neighbouring countries.

Logistically they delivered an excellent event - they were always going to - the old airport runway (right next to the new airport) was brought out of mothballs, along with some terminal facilities, and at the peak, over 300 extra flights from Dubai alone were landing. But it was a very expensive exercise for fans. The next iteration in US/Mexico/Canada will be no different. Hardly the environmentally friendly event it was sold as.

UK (like a lot of countries) has a real questionable record with regulators. Too many examples of regulatory failure / capture - most recently OFWAT.

I expect the composition of the regulator to be a who's who of lawyers, and wealthy friends of government. Consultation with the "fanbase" will be token at best - just like the existing club advisory boards.

The FA will be receiving grants from the government.

Why was it set up? Already showing they haven't a clue. Because, as Kieran rightly states, Government interference is prohibited by FIFA. And any investigation or application they deem is necessary upon the Premier League or FA etc would (in theory) lead to a ban in world football for the English game.

Another dictatorial move by Stalin Starmer and his crooked Stasi ministers, supported by the pathetic wimps of a Tory party and other MPs. Living outside of reality and in the pockets of the less wealthy.

"In the pockets of the less wealthy"?

How does that work?

- constraints on owners?

- club heritage?

- fan engagement?

- adherence to sustainability rules?

As a club which nearly went bust under a poor owner with an idiotic approach to spending, surely we would share some of these thoughts?

Presumably the backlash is because we'd rather any owners could spend spend spend in order to catch up quickly with the big boys. However if these rules are lifted then the existing big boys are much better placed than we are to go on spending sprees.

It's all probably going to be run by the people with all the money & influence just as FIFA and every corrupt Government (all of them) on the planet.

The only way to enjoy football in its purest form is to stop following at the top level and watch lower-level football. Even non-league if you want it to feel more 'real'.

Football at the top stinks to high heaven in pretty much every way, but we're all burdened with the curse of 'support' for life and that's the perfect business model for Governments and corporations to fleece us until the day we die — jeez, we even blindly indoctrinate our own children into it from Day 1.

Two words: Food Banks.

The "regulator" has no authority to intervene. Had they negotiated with Fifa and in turn Uefa, and come to an agreement, with the regulations in football then altered to accommodate government interferenc,e and this had then been implemented, then great.

But they never. They have no business being in football whatsoever.

I also wonder about where the crossover of power will be as we will still have Masters or someone else managing the Premier League. I know the IFR will look at all of football issues right down to grassroots football, but will they be able to persuade the Premier League clubs to give a bigger slice of the TV money to lower leagues and grassroots football?

Will the IFR impose a salary cap on clubs, and how will they be able to stop the power of the minority over the rest of the Premier League be tackled?

Also if some of the rich and powerful clubs don't like the new regulations, could this lead to a new Premier League being formed? And while many would say good riddance to the rich and powerful, sadly all the Sky money would go with them; that would mean even less money for lower league clubs and grassroots football.

Given the massive loss to a community, livelihoods and local economy if the football club (as ours nearly was) is destroyed by incompetent owners (or dodgy owners) then it seems very much the role of government to step in.

There needs to be a more balanced facility to allow cash to flow without limiting fresh injection. PSR at its roots was a great idea. As always, its implementation and interpretation is what's caused clubs frustration.

I can't imagine the Premier League considered the uber rich buying a club. Any new rule has to account for these scenarios, rather than limit the capacity for rising clubs other than the Sky 6.

Teams should then be allowed to ‘level-up' by spending whatever the difference is between the club that spent the most in the 5 years leading up to PSR (e.g. Chelsea) and what they actually spent during the same period, allowing for inflation. They should be given 5 years to do this, spending the difference in addition to the maximum they can spend under current PSR rules.

This would give the likes of Everton 5 years to catch-up.

Not perfect but at least it would acknowledge the advantage that teams that spent astronomically - often doing so in dubious circumstances (again, Chelsea and the Abramovic money-laundering era) - have over the rest of us.

Although Forest fans are probably very happy with the heavy year on year spending and the quality squad it has assembled, I expect some are also worried about what happens if / when the bubble bursts.

Their owner is rumoured to have earned his money in "recreational pharmaceuticals" (and not the kind you can buy in Boots) - and they don't appear to have the commercial presence to sustain this spending. The future of their club is being gambled. Nice while it lasts - but as we saw with the result of the idiotic management of 2016 to 2021, it's not so nice when the party is over.

Well, what happens when a club moves to a new bigger ground in another part of the city, like we have? How will the community get along without a major Premier League club on their doorstop?

Could the government regulator stop this happening? How much control does a club have over the running of its own business?

A few third world countries which operate as kleptocracies etc have had issues but this is very different.

No reason to expect sanctions etc for us.

Chat GPT will give you a summary if you prefer. It is more about financial sustainability etc.

Doesn't seem anything to give you grounds for your concerns.

If this takes the power out of masters hands, I am all for it.

How he had the cheek to turn up at our last game at Goodison. At least one of our lot noticed him and gave him some stick as he walked past.

TBH I'm not particularly fearful of a new watchdog, if OFWAT, OFCOM, the Electoral Commission etc are anything to go by, they'll be utterly toothless, symbolic and largely pointless.

Whilst I am completely on your side regarding corrupt tossers like Masters, I am of the opinion that clubs have the right to decide what way they go, not via government approval, which is what this act is set up to do.

You just spend what you earn or the owner depends on his or her own cash.

Meanwhile, the longest jury sequestration in legal history continues at nine months and counting, as the 115 charges against City are pondered in restaurants, cricket clubs and golf courses across the land.

You settle this and we'll adjust the outcome of the charges.

9 months is an insane timeframe. Is there a time span where the charges need to be agreed upon before being thrown out?

I just hope the IFR person demands that the commission who listened to this case print their findings within weeks of the person in charge of the IFR being appointed. Even the most complicated of murders don't take months to reach a verdict.

I also wonder why our top journalists are not demanding answers to this drawn-out farce hasn't been resolved.

This leaves only the Commission who looked into the matter to release their decision and reasons for reaching same and any recommended "punishment". This could see a new definition of independent which should, of course, have been appointed. Semantics, eh.

Without wishing to get into another political debate, Martin, there are many aspects of life that are far better run by Government than private companies. Indeed, many of the failures of privatisation under Thatcher and her successors are now having to be bailed out at great expense to the taxpayer - transport, water, steel etc.

Private companies are great at exploiting the masses on behalf of the few, but should not be allowed anywhere near the things that make society work, in my view. Not sure whether this applies to football, however!

A while back, a spokesman for the Premier League – it might even have been the fuhrer Masters – stated that the commission comprise of a number of persons who actually do other things outside of the Man City adjudication, ie, they are not a dedicated panel!!

They couldn't all get together during September and October, so late November would be the earliest time for them to re-, re-review — and whilst they are still mulling, no decision is likely until at least December, which probably means next year (depending where Man City are in Europe and the league, I am guessing).

Clubs whose owners want to spend above the PSR limit could be required to put the equivalent amount in an escrow account controlled by the IFR.

The IFR could hold it as securitisation against said club becoming insolvent or unable to meet daily operating costs for a set period of time, after which it is returned to the owners.

Man City would have the opportunity to revitalise a waning squad. Not sure about Marinakis. Doubt TFG would go for it (or similar corporate owners) - or at least go for it to the extent the Saudis or other state-owned clubs might. Could even make it more difficult for us.