Meet The Real Life Ted Lasso Team

[KewBeaver]

The Times have done a piece on Ted Lasso and Richmond.
The article is here (behind the pay wall):

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/arts/articl ... -9vdl2tfgl

Gareth Roberts, the leader of Richmond council, said: “Everybody loves Ted Lasso and so many people, me included, will be delighted if these rumours are true.

“And of course it portrays Richmond and other parts of our borough in such a wonderful light — so much so that people now come from all over the world to visit the home of AFC Richmond. If producers decide to go ahead with more seasons of the show, of course we’d be delighted to welcome them back. Ted Lasso belongs in Richmond; it’s time to ‘Believe’ again!”

[TW2-Beaver]

Gareth Roberts, the leader of Richmond council, said: “Everybody loves Ted Lasso"

Sure, Gareth, everybody loves it

[Jamie]

AFC Wimbledon fans part of the production, far too many clear micky takes about Hampton.
I couldn't watch past 2 episodes of the first series, because it was clear Hampton were the butt of the joke.
Makes it even worse Hampton tried to then tag onto it.

[Big Rich]

Never watched it. Never will.

[JimS]

I heard it was an American comedy so obviously avoided it. Seems I haven't missed much.

[EastTerracer]

The Football Governance Bill and the establishment of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) was reintroduced in the King's Speech but I believe does not apply at Step 6.

However, the principles should be valid and the views of Fair Game on the limitations of the owners & directors test are interesting.

Key to these concerns are the transparency and sustainability of funding. A few points from the Fair Game report that might relate to our own situation are:

-The Bill should clarify that the practice of making a comprehensive review of an applicant’s business interests and sources of wealth should continue and will apply to all clubs that will fall under the IFR’s remit as clubs at the lower end of the football pyramid are often at the greatest risk of unsuitable owners.
- The IFR should require all owners to provide a forward-looking financial business plan for how the football club will be run that is robust and shows how downside scenarios would be managed. This business plan should cover a minimum three-year period.
- The IFR should require all owners to make it clear which individuals, corporate entities or other organisations have a legal obligation to support the finances of the football club.
- The IFR should require prospective owners to provide proof of sources of funds, which correlates directly with both the initial purchase price and the required future funding / investment as set out in the accompanying business plan.

While such questions could be problematic for many clubs they might be considered rather basic requirements for a sustainable business. In that light, I think they are fair questions for fans of a club to ask irrespective of whether required by regulation.

[Tony]

As supportive as I am to the principles of Fair Game, I don't think that our current ownership situation would be any different had they applied at the takeover. I understand our issue is a dispute amongst the investor group whereby no additional funding will be forthcoming until resolved by either new investors or new owners. Under previous ownerships we had very similar issues when shareholders decided they didn't want to invest any further - that's why the sale to Ramayana happened in the first place. People change their minds about their long term commitment or their financial circumstance take an unexpected turn for the worse. When investment dries up the club has to cut its cloth as best it can and that is clearly what has happened with the reduction in the playing budget since last season. And to be fair to our owners they put in a record level of investment all by way of equity (not repayable loans). Their budgets would've been signed off by the NL. Their shareholders and source of funds would have been vetted by their bank's Anti-Money Laundering procedures. You might want to argue that these procedures are not rigorous enough to weed out the "wrong uns" who buy into football clubs but in many ways the vetting is much greater in the NL than if I set up a business tomorrow and went bust six months down the line. I have heard many say that the NL vetting of business plans is too much of a tick box exercise but the authorities can't also be micro managing every decision that ultimately ends up with an unwanted financial consequence. And you only have to look at the rings that Man City and Leicester City are running around the Premier League PSR rules to see that the best laid rules can be avoided with a bit of creative thinking and an expensive lawyer. I don't think you can legislate for poor management decisions or over ambitious business plans particularly if management are spending their own money. How well this money is spent is largely down to shareholders who always have the right to invest no further if they don't like what they see.

[Shepperton Supporter]

Would tend to agree with the points Tony has raised. Ultimately it is the owners/investors who decided how much to invest. Hopefully there might be some investment coming, however it needs to be made in a way that the club , their supporters and the NL are happy with. Too many clubs gain rich owners/ investors who raise profile and get prompted only to see them lose interest, unable to further invest which causes the club, in several instances to be wound up . Sometimes to reappear some way further down the football pyramid under new ownership.

[EastTerracer]

Good points from Tony. However, did our Ted Lasso inspired investors have a plan beyond an 18 month period ? Or perhaps the money was supposed to last longer but spending was not well controlled. Perhaps more money was supposed to be forthcoming. The Fair Game argument would be that at least a 3 year plan should be in place with funding secured to back it up.

[Tony]

I don't know what the final business plan involved but no club is going to submit a three year plan that doesn't show how it's going to be funded, even if the assumptions are clearly subject to change. In our case, it would have been perfectly legitimate to say that the shareholders intended to fund any shortfall and that they were committed to doing so. Pretty much every club in the NL is reliant on shareholder funding to a greater or lesser extent. What evidence the NL would expect to back this up I don't know but it is never going to be a cast iron guarantee. If the funding didn't materialise then the club could say that they would cut costs to live within the funding available - which is what we have done. I can't see anything here that Fair Game would have prevented. The real problem for clubs is when they are funded by debt which cannot be repaid ( See Torquay with £5M shareholder loans). The key question for us is how long we can continue to fund at the present level before funding starts to run out and another round of budget reductions is required. The longer that goes on the less value the club has unless we can magic a windfall such as a transfer fee or major cup run. It seems to me the investors and/or Ramayana are doing the right thing to unlock the current impasse but as we know these things take time.

[Tony]

Would tend to agree with the points Tony has raised. Ultimately it is the owners/investors who decided how much to invest. Hopefully there might be some investment coming, however it needs to be made in a way that the club , their supporters and the NL are happy with. Too many clubs gain rich owners/ investors who raise profile and get prompted only to see them lose interest, unable to further invest which causes the club, in several instances to be wound up . Sometimes to reappear some way further down the football pyramid under new ownership.

I'm afraid the supporters don't get a say unless they are shareholders and even then they can be dragged along whether they like the deal or not. The most that can be done is objecting through the usual methods, social media, match boycotts, writing to their MP, etc.

[Tony]

Interesting news that Ashford Town (Mx) are installing a new 3G pitch at a cost of just under £1.1M fully funded by grants.