|
Post by os on Sept 25, 2020 22:57:18 GMT
[/quote]Should Amazon support other online retailers? Should Starbucks support independent coffee shops? Should Tesco’s support small greengrocers and butchers?
I don’t see why football always gets a rough ride over what they should do. Don’t get me wrong I would love it if the PL helped out but ultimately they are a businesses run for profit.
And apologies for picking up on your post, this is not aimed at you personally. I just don’t see the PL clubs feeling the obligation to support NL.
[/quote] On the face of it what you say is 100% spot on, but life is not that straightforward and we are not computers simply making logical decisions about things. Football is just 22 people (I won't say men in this day and age) kicking a not so leather ball around trying to get it in-between to posts.
Where I disagree with the PL not having an obligation to wider football is that English football has history going back 150yrs. The product was built by hundreds of football teams from Corinthians to Manchester United, and referred to as the peoples game. When the teams in the top flight wanted to break away in 1992 is was because they didn't want to share their revenue around. They saw the opportunity to sell the crown jewels, and pocket the cash, they made promises that they have not kept, to put back 'I think about' 5% a year into grassroots football?
For me the PL play on a table top supported by 4 legs that is the rest of football, if thousands of kids didn't play in the park each week, and if Hackney Marsh teams didn't exist the allure the game would fade. If all we had to watch was plastic stars we could never meet through a LCD TV, then I don't think the money would stay in the game. Teams like ours work the oars, stoke the engines so that the dinners in 1st class don't feel a thing.
So yes I feel they have a huge obligation, they wouldn't be there without the rest of us.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Sept 26, 2020 8:09:40 GMT
What happens if London goes back into lockdown or specifically, LB of Sutton? I ask because, apparently, it is one of the boroughs on a small list causing concern with regards to rise in Covid cases.
|
|
|
Post by Nick the Greek/The Speshul One on Sept 26, 2020 8:23:22 GMT
What happens if London goes back into lockdown or specifically, LB of Sutton? I ask because, apparently, it is one of the boroughs on a small list causing concern with regards to rise in Covid cases. Not sure, but I thought we were one of the better ones.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Sept 26, 2020 8:42:43 GMT
Went up by 21 to 44 cases during the w/e 22/09. I assume that's why.
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Sept 26, 2020 13:24:25 GMT
What happens if London goes back into lockdown or specifically, LB of Sutton? I ask because, apparently, it is one of the boroughs on a small list causing concern with regards to rise in Covid cases. At the time of writing, all of London has been given an "area of concern" status due to rising cases. Sutton, however is one of the better performing boroughs and has been for the past few weeks - infact last week it was the best performing out of all London boroughs. At the moment with an incidence rate of just over 20. Only Merton, Richmond, Kingston and Bromley are doing better. Barking and Dagenham are at the other end of the spectrum with over 60 and Redbridge topping the charts at over 65. It's those boroughs that have put the whole of London in that area of concern more than Sutton, and I expect we'll lockdown if we do with the capital as a whole. If we're still playing behind closed door when that happens, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference to whether the games gets played.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Sept 26, 2020 17:15:04 GMT
I suspect the fact the Sutton figure doubled in a week is the alarm. They don't like numbers doubling.
|
|
|
Post by os on Sept 26, 2020 21:48:00 GMT
I just wanted to return to the question of PL funding for lower level football and promises made in 1992 when the PL broke away.
The PL was given the go ahead after winning a court hearing against the Football League in 1992, Richard Scudamore stated the founding principles of the new PL would be:
•It will be better for the national team.
•We will have more income from TV and we will be able to invest 5% of TV income into grassroots.
This is what the PL say about that promise :
The Premier League says it never ultimately agreed to distribute “5% of income” to grassroots, Scudamore says when it set up the foundation, it agreed to distribute 5% of only the “domestic” – UK element – of its TV deal and was not asked by the government to include the overseas rights.
The Premier League also argues that the government and FA agreed to be equal funding partners and, as they have struggled to find the money, the Premier League reduced its contribution too.
Scudamore is also quoted as saying “The Premier League is not a charity” and “To my core, I believe this is a success”
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 26, 2020 22:26:51 GMT
The Premier League has never pledged 5% of its income to grassroots football. The Labour party did however pledge to ensure "that the Premier League invests 5 per cent of income from television rights into grassroots football" [source: labour.org.uk/press/corbyn-football-clubs-important-left-hands-bad-owners/] in the run up to the 2019 general election, but evidently that failed to capture the electorate's collective imagination. In reality, less than 1% of the Premier League's income from television rights ends up going to grassroots projects via the Football Foundation: "For the financial years 2016-2019, it has paid £71.4m, which equates to 0.85% of the current £8.4bn television deal for roughly the same period." [source: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45901164]If football fans genuinely want the status quo to change, then they need to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Sept 26, 2020 22:49:38 GMT
And there ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 26, 2020 23:03:03 GMT
Not at all. I am politically neutral in all matters and ever more shall be. I simply made the point that the ongoing lack of funding for grassroots is not susceptible to legal challenge and can only be changed by political means. That's simply the way things are and it's hardly remiss of me or anyone else to point that out.
|
|
kpinwp
1st team Player
Posts: 1,187
Member is Online
|
Post by kpinwp on Sept 27, 2020 10:34:03 GMT
Not at all. I am politically neutral in all matters and ever more shall be. I simply made the point that the ongoing lack of funding for grassroots is not susceptible to legal challenge and can only be changed by political means. That's simply the way things are and it's hardly remiss of me or anyone else to point that out. And a far more useful point to make, regarding where we all are now, than assertions that the Premier League are 'obliged' to do something financially supportive of the rest of us when they quite simply aren't obliged to do any such thing. Let's hope the Govt. will put some pressure on. They'd best do it quickly.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 27, 2020 12:03:01 GMT
Out of interest, the court case os referred to which paved the way for the creation of the Premier League is R. v. The Football Association Limited ex parte The Football League Limited (31st July 1991). In this landmark case, the High Court held that the Football Association's decisions cannot be judicially reviewed because the FA is not a public body. Although the decision is unreported which means it isn't in the public domain, it was subsequently referred to in the reported case of R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p. The Aga Khan [1992] EWCA Civ 7 (04 December 1992), which correspondingly held that the Jockey Club's decisions can't be judicially reviewed either [source: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1992/7.html]. For the legal scholars among us, this is the salient passage: "In R. v. The Football Association Limited ex parte The Football League Limited (31st July 1991) Rose J. had to consider the susceptibility of the Football Association to judicial review. Having reviewed the authorities (including some not touched on here) at some length, the learned judge gave reasons based both on principle and pragmatism for rejecting the application: "I have crossed a great deal of ground in order to reach what, on the authorities, is the clear and inescapable conclusion for me that the FA is not a body susceptible to judicial review either in general or, more particularly, at the instigation of the League with whom it is contractually bound. Despite its virtually monopolistic powers and the importance of its decisions to many members of the public who are not contractually bound to it, it is, in my judgment, a domestic body whose powers arise from and duties exist in private law only. I find no sign of underpinning directly or indirectly by any organ or agency of the State or any potential government interest, as Simon Brown J. put it in Wachmann, nor is there any evidence to suggest that if the FA did not exist the State would intervene to create a public body to perform its functions. On the contrary, the evidence of commercial interest in the professional game is such as to suggest that a far more likely intervener to run football would be a television or similar company rooted in the entertainment business or a commercial company seeking advertising benefits such as presently provides sponsorship in one form or another. I do not find this conclusion unwelcome. Although thousands play and millions watch football, although it excites passions and divides families, and although millions of pounds are spent by spectators, sponsors, television companies and also clubs on salaries, wages, transfer fees and the maintenance of grounds, much the same can also be said in relation to cricket, golf, tennis, racing and other sports. But they are all essentially forms of popular recreation and entertainment and they are all susceptible to control by the courts in a variety of ways. This does not, of itself, exempt their governing bodies from control by judicial review. Each case will turn on the particular circumstances. But, for my part, to apply to the governing body of football, on the basis that it is a public body, principles honed for the control of the abuse of power by government and its creatures would involve what, in today's fashionable parlance, would be called a quantum leap. It would also, in my view, for what it is worth, be a misapplication of increasingly scarce judicial resources. It will become impossible to provide a swift remedy, which is one of the conspicuous hallmarks of judicial review, if the courts become even more swamped with such applications than they are already. This is not, of course, a jurisprudential reason for refusing judicial review, but it will be cold comfort to the seven or eight other substantive applicants and the many more ex parte applicants who have had to be displaced from the court's lists in order to accommodate the present litigation to learn that, though they may have a remedy for their complaints about the arbitrary abuse of executive power, it cannot be granted to them yet." Accordingly, as a non-public body whose decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the FA has a great deal of autonomy to make decisions as it sees fit. In essence, this is why we are where we are.
|
|
billy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,626
|
Post by billy on Sept 27, 2020 12:51:32 GMT
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 27, 2020 13:37:25 GMT
"You can call some of this naive if you want to." Understatement of the week. Unfortunately, if you don't have a valid legal argument for changing the status quo, and if people collectively fail to support a political party which pledges to change that status quo, then all you're left with is empty polemic.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Sept 27, 2020 17:26:42 GMT
I suspect the vast majority of voters have other concerns to consider when voting in a general election.
|
|