Interesting report done by Christian Aid on who owns what clubs and by what methods.

Report is written from the angle of how the money that clubs avoid paying in taxes etc through non-transparent set-ups could impact on world poverty etc. But even if you're the kind of person who views that as someone else's problem, the report still makes for a good read.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/blow...week-report.pdf

Couldn't disagree with the report more Caley D.

Different nations have different tax laws. The link between owners of football clubs and world poverty is tenious at best but mostly a load of complete rubbish.

The source of the report is the biggest clue. It is Christian Aid. In all honesty religous orgnisations (particulartly Christianity) get some of the best tax breaks in the world. I would be happy to agree with them if they lead by example, but the don't.

They have amassed a significant amount of wealth that they choose not to spend on the poor.

In fact if they were serious they would move beyound financial secrecy and start seriously dealing with members of their clergy that have allegedly sexually molested junior members of their own organisation.

They have no right to take any moral high ground until they have seriously and comprehensively addressed their own dirty laundry.

In the final part of the document Christian Aid talk about accountability, this organisation has no right to preach on accountability.

Rant over

The main reason I posted the report was because I found the information regarding Football Club ownership interesting. Regardless of who has produced the report, the details surrounding who owns what and by what methods and the fact that the true ownership of some clubs cannot even be traced is a bit of an eye opener and an indication of just how far removed football has become from it's roots.

Unfortunately, as your response demonstrates, attention is easily deflected from the underlying issue by the amount of whataboutery that is practised every time subjects such as this are raised.

I understand your point Caley D, however the message is only as strong as the credibility of the messenger.

Unfortunately, in this day and age we have very few who can't be discredited in some way shape or form, be it religious groups, politicians...heck, even the courts are starting to ignore the real issue and make decisions on technicalities (BA Strike Injunction).

People need to start thinking for themselves and extracting the important info and facts from the hype and spin or we'll quickly reach a situation where nobody can ever be held accountable for anything.

Quote:

Report is written from the angle of how the money that clubs avoid paying in taxes etc through non-transparent set-ups could impact on world poverty etc. But even if you're the kind of person who views that as someone else's problem, the report still makes for a good read.

The Catholic Church engages is the exact same behaviour. My point was that they should perhaps heed their own advice and lead by example.

The BA strike is a good example. This is an organisation that is struggling to find its place in the market and is bleeding financially. I agree that people should have the right to withdraw their labour. If they felt that strongly about withdrawing their labour they should do it properly and seek alternative employment if they feel the situation is that bad. The problem is that no other employers in the industry are offering the same conditions as BA, hence BA's current financial position.

Why should BA be forced into a situation that precludes them from competing evenly with others in the market?

Enjoying the debate.

We're getting away from the point of my original post....and that is the fact that it's shocking that fans of so many clubs do not even know, and in some cases can't find out, who owns them. What's even worse is that football clubs talk about being at the heart of communities etc, but for so many, the reality is that the money they are making is being syphoned off abroad.

The FA talk about "Fit and Proper" person tests, but how rugged can these tests be when real owners can't be traced and/or operate in countries where they have little or no access to the real financial position of the owners.

I'm not disagreeing with your view on Christian Aid and given their own position (perceived or otherwise) when it comes to money the report could certainly be viewed as hypocritical on their part....but that doesn't mean their findings are wrong or should be cast aside and ignored.

In fact, it could be argued that Football has reached an operating level on par with religion insofar as those running the game and the clubs feel they are beyond the morals and laws which the rest of us are expected to operate by. Something which only lends even more weight to the argument that something needs done about it.

Fair point Caley D and yes we have got off the point.

Getting back to the point, football fans need to make a decision about what they prefer. The alternative is their club could go the way of Third Lanark.

I seem to remember Hearts fans rejoicing when Romnov saved them from oblivion. It has proven to be a bad move. Would the fans of Portsmouth, Gretna, Leeds for example have been willing to chose oblivion over the reputation of their new owners.

Imagine the uproar if ICT was in that position and the SPL/SFA/SFL (insert meaningless acronym here) ruled that a potential ICT saviour was deemed not to be a suitable person. Would you be happy to accept that decision?