I watched part of BBC1 'Crime and Punishment' this morning.
It featured the activity of the police at a football match between (I think) West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton. Lots of policemen involved from an inspector downwards. Some policemen were either driving round the town or going into pubs looking for known trouble makers.
I shudder to think what it must all have cost - not to mention what seemed to be many dozens of stewards involved.
Is there any charge back to the club, or the FA, for policing costs?
|
"Football clubs currently pay for police officers who operate in the "footprint" of the ground – the stadium and other land owned by the club – but nothing else. The cost of policing the areas most susceptible to crowd trouble – outside pubs and train stations – is met by the public purse.
Annually about £25m is spent policing football matches nationwide, but only about £8m is recouped from clubs. "
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-target-a-slice-of-footballs-millions-as-budget-cuts-loom-2094521.html
|
It is my guess this area will be looked at more closely in future...with the severe budget cuts.
The clubs only pay for police who operate in the ground, but nowadays most 'policing' inside is done by stewards.
The outside stuff is expensive.... and when you take a big city with more than one club, you have to patrol all the potential flashpoints e.g. city centres...not just the clubs and the roads outside.
When you think there are clubs going to the wall because they can't/won't pay their taxes ..yet their players earn hideous amounts....I think there's going to have to be a re-think on priorities.
|
Unless you are advocating giving club stewards outside the ground, some form of Police powers of stop search or detain,. its stuck with the police. And the police paying for it.
Its not as tho the club dont pay enough in rates for the ground.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 14 Mar 12 at 19:26
|
|
I don't see how you can expect football clubs to pay for anything that arises outside their own grounds, no matter if it is rival fans squaring up to each other the clubs have no control over what happens on the streets. Rather like the Notting Hill Carnival which is held on public roads, unless someone knows differently the policing costs are met from the public purse.
|
>> I don't see how you can expect football clubs to pay for anything that arises
>> outside their own grounds.
I don't see it the same way.
You don't have the same problems at rugby matches, cricket matches, hockey matches, so generally they're not a police issue.
You do have big problems at football matches...one of the, if not the, richest sport in the country. Football clubs can afford to pay truly vast amounts of money to their players...why shouldn't they pay towards some of the problems that sport causes to the rest of society. Why should a football club pocket millions...whilst the taxpayer has to pay for extra policing or suffer less policing elsewhere to cover football matches?
|
>> Why should a football club pocket millions...whilst the taxpayer has to pay
>> for extra policing or suffer less policing elsewhere to cover football matches?
Ok i am a football club and you make the fans my responsibility outside the ground. I will pay but I am not paying the police, I will pay some other force.
Is this what you want?
Anyway, why do towns town and boroughs want a big successful football club? Because it brings in revenue to the borough in direct and indirect taxes. Where does that go? to the police precept.
Your argument is petty jealousy, nothing more or nothing less. Footballers earn too much - give it to the police.
|
'Your argument is petty jealousy, nothing more or nothing less. Footballers earn too much - give it to the police.'
Give us a break Z.
Its about blowing a significant amount of the diminishing budget to Police an event which lasts 90 mins (notwithstanding half and extra time). A good majority of that is at overtime rate. The rest is depletion of normal daily resources which should be out catching burglars, rapists, muggers and speeders or simply responding to calls for service or investigating crime. In essence robbing Peter to pay Paul. You cant have it both ways.
Football is a multi-billion pound business which for some reason has attracted the idiots and professional hooligan elements(on and off the pitch). That's as it is. It must bear some financial responsibility for the burden it places on public services or is it ok that the tax/rate payer shoulders the burden?
I still cant get my head around why apparently sound minded business benefactors pump in millions to loss making clubs for the title of 'Chairman'. Can it really be due to their philanthropy or is their some overall tax benefits?
PS I hate football!
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 00:05
|
>> Football is a multi-billion pound business which for some reason has attracted the idiots and
>> professional hooligan elements(on and off the pitch). That's as it is. It must bear some
>> financial responsibility for the burden it places on public services or is it ok that
>> the tax/rate payer shoulders the burden?
Football did not create the idiots and professional hooligan elements, society did. Therefore society pays to keep it under check.
Football does bear some of the financial responsibility, as I said (and you carefully ignored) the fans pay rates, the club pays rates, the footballers pay rates, the chairmen and staff pay rates, VAT on ticket sales, Vat on club memorabilia, all of which goes into the Police precept. You want football fans to pay twice?
Public order is the responsibility of the government of the day, who enforce it by a policing force. We already pay the government to do that, don't throw the burden of that onto football clubs, blame the source of the problem, Government financial management.
|
' Football does bear some of the financial responsibility, as I said (and you carefully ignored) '
No I didn't because the ammount is negligable. Just for Police presence within the stadium and that can be less than single figures depending on the category of the game.
|
Its not "negligible" A football club pumps a considerable amount of money into the local economy, which goes to the police force.
To cross over the threshold in privately paid for *public* policing is somewhere you, or we don't want to go.
You want the clubs to pay for it? Fine - Why pay high police rates to do it. Turn over police powers to private security companies - much cheaper. That is the natural, and inevitable next step.
** You know what I mean by public, I am not talking inside the ground.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 09:08
|
In addition, there are considerably less police numbers on duty for a large football games these days than there ever used to be 30 years ago. The clubs have taken on a large part of the burden with improved fan vetting, banning from games, and paid for stewards inside the grounds.
So they are paying their share. Far more so than any other public event.
|
>> Ok i am a football club and you make the fans my responsibility outside the
>> ground. I will pay but I am not paying the police, I will pay some
>> other force.
>>
>> Is this what you want?
What do you think? Why would you think they'd have a choice?
>> Your argument is petty jealousy, nothing more or nothing less. Footballers earn too much -
>> give it to the police.
>>
I think you knew that was rubbish as you were typing it. Just in case you didn't, what I think is that there's a lot of money in football generally, but the clubs choose to channel a lot of it at footballer's salaries...sometimes to the detriment of other areas e.g. tax.
Furthermore football is the only sport whereby there has to be a lot of police present, for the obvious problems of hooliganism.
I see no reason why everyone else should pay for that...and.... for example, the cricket club/hockey club/tennis club has to pay all its' taxes to subsidy the hooligan football supporter... so to answer your question elsewhere, about football fans paying twice...then 'yes' they should, there's is the only sport that needs that level of policing.
|
The argument for football paying more for policing does at first site seem attractive but there are other areas where an even greater argument could be made for a contribution towards costs. Norwich had a major problem with anti social behaviour and violence in the "clubbing" area centred around Pirnce of Wales Road and the Riverside development. Every Friday and Saturday night sees the area swamped with police who keep a lid on the trouble at huge cost to the taxpayers.
The football ground by contrast has seen little in the way of serious disturbance this year.
It seems to be that it would be more useful to demand that the clubs and bars that are profiting enormously from the "night time economy" should pay for the policing that allows them to continue to operate. I suspect that most cities have similar problems.
|
>> The argument for football paying more for policing does at first site seem attractive but
>> there are other areas where an even greater argument could be made for a contribution
>> towards costs. Norwich had a major problem with anti social behaviour and violence in the
>> "clubbing" area centred around Pirnce of Wales Road and the Riverside development. Every Friday and Saturday night sees the area swamped with police who keep a lid on the trouble at huge cost to the taxpayers.
Major problem? I always thought it was no worse than any other town and not really that bad.
>>
>> The football ground by contrast has seen little in the way of serious disturbance this
>> year.
Then wouldn't they pay less?
>>
>> It seems to be that it would be more useful to demand that the clubs
>> and bars that are profiting enormously from the "night time economy" should pay for the
>> policing that allows them to continue to operate. I suspect that most cities have similar
>> problems.
>>
Doesn't this happen already?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 11:44
|
"Major problem? I always thought it was no worse than any other town and not really that bad. "
Regular fights, knifings and the odd murder with a constant background of anti social behaviour and drunkeness and drunks falling the river Wensum and drowning and that's with a heavy police presence and a free bus to tranport home those incapable of making it themselves. I'm sure other cities have similar problems. Increased police presence over the past year has curtailed the problem to a degree. I wouldn't walk through there at night.
"Then wouldn't they pay less?"
Less than what?
Doesn't this happen already?
No but local police are supporting a move to make a levy on all licenced premises within a quarter of a mile for Riverside to offset their costs
|
|
i thought it wasn't too bad as it was made out. I used to go out in both areas quite often at night for the amount of people there i thought it was better than a lot of other places of the same sizes. Infact i think it's one of the best cities to go out in. Less than a club that has a lot of trouble. I meant nationally i'm sure there was somewhere that there was a levy.
|
>> What do you think? Why would you think they'd have a choice?
>>
I think they will demand a choice, and why shouldn't they. Why should they pay for all the police waste and bureaucracy TWICE.
>>
>> >> Your argument is petty jealousy, nothing more or nothing less. Footballers earn too much
>> -
>> >> give it to the police.
>> >>
>>
>> I think you knew that was rubbish as you were typing it.
Nope, you phrased your argument to provide that impression, and whats more in your case I believe it to be true because of the way your phrased it.
>> Furthermore football is the only sport whereby there has to be a lot of police
>> present, for the obvious problems of hooliganism.
Again not true, hooliganism is much reduced since its heyday int he 70s. There is as much police presence required at major pop concerts
>> I see no reason why everyone else should pay for that...and.... for example, the cricket
>> club/hockey club/tennis club has to pay all its' taxes to subsidy the hooligan football supporter...
Again wrong, they do not raise a fraction of the amount of money in rates and taxes that a big football club do. They pay their share in spades. As I said, why does every city clamour to keep clubs in place.
>> so to answer your question elsewhere, about football fans paying twice...then 'yes' they should, there's
>> is the only sport that needs that level of policing.
Again wrong, a major marathon requires a high amount of police presence in road closures and crowd control
I sincerely believe you are only whinging because you don't like football or footballers. Your belief that clubs should pay for public order away from the ground is a dangerous step to the situation where those who pay get public order and those who can't get nothing.
|
>> I think they will demand a choice, and why shouldn't they. Why should they pay
>> for all the police waste and bureaucracy TWICE.
>>
Ah, really helpful in an arguement...blunt rudeness. So all elements of policing are wasteful and bureaucratic?
It would be a case of 'you cause all the extra hassle, you pay for it'...and i'd agree the same with Licensed Premises on fri/sat night as just posted.
>> Nope, you phrased your argument to provide that impression, and whats more in your case
>> I believe it to be true because of the way your phrased it.
I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could re-phrase it.
If you're suggesting i'm personally jealous of high earners (footballers) then that's at the other end of the spectrum to reality. I am exceptionally happy with my lot and do not wish for more, never have done.
If you're suggesting the excessive pay to footballers could have some of it re-assigned to policing in the circumstances where football directly causes extra problems...then that would be correct.
>> Again not true, hooliganism is much reduced since its heyday int he 70s. There is
>> as much police presence required at major pop concerts
How come there aren't tens of Police Support Units (riot squad) in city centres when the cricket/tennis/hockey/rugby/etc are playing....but there are every time for football. There might well be less hooliganism now than the 70's...but that's because the 70's was truly awful.
>> Again wrong, a major marathon requires a high amount of police presence in road closures
>> and crowd control
There are things like cycle races/marathons etc that need more policing...usually for logistics, not violence. I find that acceptable as a taxpayer, I don't however find the regular violence acceptable and the need for regular policing to keep the lid on that...so if the local footie team had an open top bus type thing for winning something...yep, bring it on, as a taxpayer yes i'll go with that....every other saturday 60 cops in the city centre, nope not acceptable.
>> I sincerely believe you are only whinging because you don't like football or footballers.
I'm not a big fan of football, that's true....but neither do I necessarily like tennis, hockey, or even rugby unless it is an international. I do occasionally go to watch my local Div 2 football team because A, I loosely followed them whilst away for 30 years..and B, a load of my mates follow them and I go for the camaraderie etc.
I intensely dislike the yobbo culture and the sometimes fraught atmosphere you get at football matches, unlike virtually every other sport, it isn't reaslly family friendly.
I now, sometimes, socialise with a professional footballer, who plays for my loca div 2 team, (as he lives very near by and his kid goes to mine's pre-school). I find him and his wife to be witty, intelligent and good company...I have no reason not to think many more will be the same.
Your
>> belief that clubs should pay for public order away from the ground is a dangerous
>> step to the situation where those who pay get public order and those who can't
>> get nothing.
It's nothing of the sort. It's saying that if you make good money out of something, but there's a negative by-product that causes extra cost to the public....then you should cough up towards it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 17:10
|
>> Ah, really helpful in an arguement...blunt rudeness.
You need to check up on the definition of rudeness, that statement does not quali
So all elements of policing are wasteful and
>> bureaucratic?
Hmm yes, quite a lot, and it starts right at the top. I can think of no good reason why we need 39 chief constables, 39 assistant chief constables, 39 police headquarters, 39 personnel departments, 39 buying departments...
>> It would be a case of 'you cause all the extra hassle, you pay for
>> it'..
The football club does not cause it, the football club is not responsible for violence, society is. They are even less guilty than the pubs and clubs, as the football club is not making its punters drunk!
>> I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could re-phrase it.
I don't think I can make it any clearer.
As explained below
>> If you're suggesting the excessive pay to footballers could have some of it re-assigned to
>> policing in the circumstances where football directly causes extra problems...then that would be correct.
There, explained. You are begrudge the payment of high wages to footballers. Thats is, in any term, a form of jealousy
>> How come there aren't tens of Police Support Units (riot squad) in city centres when
>> the cricket/tennis/hockey/rugby/etc are playing....but there are every time for football.
Yeah right, huge crowds those hockey and tennis games happening every weekend in every city. Lets take rugby. There is a very large police presence required for games at Twickenham, the local towns get inundated with drunks behaving like drunks do at the major rugby fixtures - ask anyone in Richmond for example.
>> It's nothing of the sort. It's saying that if you make good money out of
>> something, but there's a negative by-product that causes extra cost to the public....then you should
>> cough up towards it. Nothing more, nothing less.
No your not saying that at all you said this
> There are things like cycle races/marathons etc that need more policing...usually for logistics, >not violence. I find that acceptable as a taxpayer,
You are in fact saying that you are the moral judge of what sports you find acceptable and charge those you don't like
You, personally, have advocated who should pay for policing not based not the need or the resources required, but the event. In fact you are advocating the very state I warned about.
Its a very discriminatory and disturbing view.
>>
|
>> You, personally, have advocated who should pay for policing not based not the need or
>> the resources required, but the event.
Yes. I am. But only the ones that have a load of negativity aligned with them. So if it were a rave, or large football match, or whatever it were to be that was going to cause the locailty a load of problems...then yes they should cough up for it if they are running it as a business and making profits.
In fact you are advocating the very state I
>> warned about.
>>
>> Its a very discriminatory and disturbing view.
>>
Matter of opinion.
|
>> >> Ah, really helpful in an arguement...blunt rudeness.
>>
>> You need to check up on the definition of rudeness, that statement does not quali
>>
Oxford English dictionary: 'rude'...adj
'impolite or offensive'.
Fits perfectly in my eyes.
|
|
think you need to go to specsavers then.
|
>> think you need to go to specsavers then.
>>
Well, the original statement was:
"I think they will demand a choice, and why shouldn't they. Why should they pay for all the police waste and bureaucracy TWICE"
So either your comment was rude, because you know that every single element of policing is not wasteful and bureaucratic...or it was ignorant, because you don't realise that all actions of police are not wasteful and bureaucratic.
So which is it to be?
|
I explained, when requested, why I thought the police service was wasteful and bureaucratic, and to suggest that organisations would not be happy to pay for that waste twice because they "can afford it" or are not given an option is hardly rude is it.
Nor is it fanciful to suggest that as soon as other organisations are singled out to pay for public order away from their premises, they are going to demand that the police be more commercially responsible for that service. In fact demand performance guarantees and penalties for non delivery of service.
The police really don't want to be dragged down that route.
Now honestly what is rude about that.
|
>> Its not as tho the club dont pay enough in rates for the ground.
>>
Except Portsmouth, of course...
"Pay Up Pompey, Pompey, Pay Up!"
|
I think being the owner of a football club could be a marvellous way of laundering illicit cash, due to the vast sums involved.
Allegedly. ;>)
|
How do you make a small fortune in football?
Start with a large fortune!
As others have said, clubs pay quite a bit in business rates, and most of the police would be getting paid anyway, so its not really an extra cost to them, IMO. More often than not they dictate (with sky) when flash point matches are paid, in order to minimise the possibility of disorder.
|
Whilst having a lot of sympathy for the sentiment of football clubs paying for all policing connected with a match, both inside and outside the grounds, additional costs would simply cause many clubs to go out of business.
Football finances are, by and large, in their own little la la land. Without a doubt there are large sums bandied about in the Premier League, players on £1m+ per annum, etc., figures which are ridiculous and unsustainable, Glasgow Rangers will not be the last.....
While PL clubs are playing these games with their monopoly money there is another world of football which bears no relation to their game, sorry, business, because that's what the PL is.
This other world is in the lower reaches of the Football League and higher levels of non-League football, these clubs are professional clubs employing professional players however the comparison to PL clubs largely ends there.
There is a long list of clubs in serious financial trouble, Darlington, Kidderminster, Plymouth Argyle, Port Vale and Portsmouth are just those making headlines this season. My home town club, Southend, made similar headlines a couple of years ago being unable to pay tax bills and the players wages for some months and coming within hours of going to the wall. At the time the club was losing well over £100k per month, something which could not continue. The upshot was that most of the players left the club at the end of the season and players brought in at lower wages, many jobs were cut in the admin side of the club.
The result is that we now have a club which is trundling along with average gates of just under 6000 which is being bank rolled by a deal to sell the ground to Sainsbury with a relocation to a new out of town site with shopping centre attached. The players are now on wages which, to take us back to a policing analogy, equate to the salary of a Police Constable on his maximum pay scale, £36.5k, and some may even be around a Police Sergeant's max of £41k. The club is still losing about £50k-£60k per month depending on who you speak to.
To these sorts of local, lower league clubs additional costs would be the final nail in the coffin.
Bear in mind that these clubs have also had to bear the costs of redeveloping their grounds to, in most cases, ludicrous levels; all seater stadia comes to mind, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Hockey do not have requirements for all seater stadia but RU and RL gates can easily be higher than lower league football....
The grass roots of our national game is in seriously poor shape, I believe that in ten years it will be largely gone and that football spectating, for a large number will be reduced to boozed up crowds watching PL games on large screens in tens of thousands of pubs up and down the country. Pubs and crowds which will require policing by the Police at the expense of the public purse as I cannot see Essex Police being able to bill Man Utd for the policing of a televised fixture against Liverpool, for instance.
|
>> Bear in mind that these clubs have also had to bear the costs of redeveloping
>> their grounds to, in most cases, ludicrous levels; all seater stadia comes to mind, Rugby
>> Union, Rugby League, Hockey do not have requirements for all seater stadia but RU and
>> RL gates can easily be higher than lower league football....
>>
Not so.
An excerpt from the Aviva Premiership (Rugby Union) Regulations
"Entry and ongoing criteria
Clubs wishing to play in the Premiership must fulfil a list of criteria set down by the Professional Game Board and agreed with the RFU Championship. This covers areas such as stadia, club administration and other key roles, community development programmes, ground tenure and ground moves, facilities, medical and safety, marketing, plans to increase attendances, adherence to the squad cap and playing and contractual commitments. The purpose of the minimum criteria is to set a standard for all clubs to operate by, which all will benefit from".
|
|
That's a minimum set of standards for the ground, a similar set exist for Super League, but I don't think either mean all seater stadiums.
|
|
There is no legislative process by which the police could charge football clubs for policing members of the public away from the ground, whether they are on their way to the game or not. And drafting one would be so complicated as to be virtually impossible.
|
|
Westpig and Fullchat: why, oh why do you bother ?? !!
|
|
what a surprise.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 19:54
|
...Westpig and Fullchat: why, oh why do you bother ?? !!...
Sticking together is one thing.
Patronising the rest of us is another.
|
Iffy. I don't think its patronising to express an opinion as we (that's the royal we) see it. Football week in week out during the season is a mass drain on resources end of. I don't think its unfair to expect a business which is cash rich to pay a share of the turmoil it creates.
My take is this, would you rather spend the proportion of the Police budget providing extra resources to catch pedophiles or internet scammers or to Police football matches? Something has to give.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 22:02
|
According to the Independent the police spend £17,000,000 per year on policing football matches (see link above). Currently the police budget in the UK is around £14.5 billion a year. That means around 0.1% of the police budget is spent on this problem.
Wonder where the rest of the money goes.
|
>> Wonder where the rest of the money goes. >>
overtime, sick pay, injuries compensation, early retirement lump sums, and not forgetting Amex corporate credit cards.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 15 Mar 12 at 23:04
|
|
Around 85% on wages. So that's about 7% of the remaining budget on football.
|
15% of 14.5bn = 2.2bn
17m is 0.7% of 2.2bn.
|
And the 17m I believe includes wage costs so it is correct to express is as a percentage of the total police budget including wages.
|
>> Iffy. I don't think its patronising to express an opinion >>
Iffy's reply was to Woodster.
>> My take is this, would you rather spend the proportion of the Police budget providing extra resources to catch pedophiles or internet scammers or to Police football matches? Something has to give. >>
Stop policing outside the grounds, except to protect the general public who are not taking part in the football tribalism.
Leave the football hoolies to the Clubs to deal with. Let the hoolies bash/maim/kill each other, and soon the Clubs will find that their attendances drop. The Clubs will then find a way to pay form the security if they want it. Otherwise, just get on with your high priority policing of paedos and internet-scammers, and leave the hoolies to their own devices.
|
|
Sounds like a brillant plan...
|
Police should be making the moral choices for how society is run about as much as GPs should run the Health Service.
ie. they shouldn't.
(Peel's 8th 'commandment' - Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.)
Policing cures society's ills as much as GPs cure society's ailments.
They both try to patch up the mess people make - social change comes from government policy/education/research/economics/public health/parenting.
The Police can't 'fix' football violence, or drunken loutishness, any more than I can have much impact on smoking/drinking/wife-beating/bullying at work/slobbishness/shonky Scottish diets.
Maybe that's a bit of a jaded view but I think it's correct.
|
Well, I'm very glad they do bother and I wish you would a little more too Woodster.
I also miss midlifecrisis who no longer posts, I didn't always agree with him but it is a fascinating insight into other people's jobs and the way they think.
I think we all have opinions on things we know nothing about, which on the surface look simple and straightforward but I enjoy standing in anothers shoes for a few moments while I read posts on here, and realising that there may well be another side to things I was unaware of.
Yes I know you take some flack, just as I do when I defend lorry drivers but if I get just one person to think twice about an opinion then it's worth it.
Pat
|
"I also miss midlifecrisis who no longer posts..."
I hadn't noticed, to my shame. His last post here was exactly one year ago.
What a pity.
|
>> I hadn't noticed, to my shame. His last post here was exactly one year ago.
June actually: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=6667&m=148297
>> What a pity.
Indeed.
|
"June actually..."
Yes, sorry. The error arises from my inept use of the Forum search and misunderstanding the mathematical symbols < and >. Maths was never my strong point!
|
|
No - sorry FP, didn't mean to be that blunt, and didn't really matter anyway.
|
|
I have a little read now and then Pat. It's nice to read your comments and I trust you are well. This, along with a hi-fi forum I look at, can be a huge waste of time! Promotion at work and a generally Monday to Friday regime leaves little time for this. Major restructuring at work gives me enough headaches trying to cajole people in my own occupation to the right way of being. I'm worn out at days end and have simply lost the energy to 'discuss' things here. But I'm fine, as are my lovely wife and kids and life's damn good!
|
|
I did have a good read at all the comments made regarding this subject on policing football matches.A fair fight in my opinion,don't want to take any sides.>:)
|
> When you think there are clubs going to the wall because they can't/won't pay their
>> taxes ..yet their players earn hideous amounts....I think there's going to have to be a
>> re-think on priorities.
>>
Simples. RUGBY.
|
|
You're right Martin - the new beautiful game. Cracking games today nice to see blue/reds and white/greens mixed in the stands.
|
Football: A Gentleman's game played by Hooligan's.
Rugby: A Hooligan's game played by Gentlemen.
|
Oh the overpayed players who disgrace themselves in bars with hookers on tours abroad? Arrested for brawling and punching innocent bystanders?
Guys who bite ears, gouge eyes? rake studs down faces?
Cheat with fake blood?
The new Beautiful game - Don't make me laugh.
|
Seems to me the coppers have been given an unreasonably hard time over Hillsborough.
Duckenfield may have been an idiot who froze in the headlights when it started to go wrong.
But if everyone had behaved in a calm and orderly manner, no lives would have been lost.
No Liverpool fans seem prepared to take responsibility for their actions that day.
At the derby match last week there was at least one waving a "Don't buy The Sun" banner.
Bless him.
|
I can't work out why there was so much of a hoo-hah when the then Chief Constable said one of the problems was drunk fans turning up late and not being co-operative.
I don't go to many football matches (although I am tomorrow)...but my experience is just that...you meet in a pub, neck a load of beer, leave it as late as you can get, then try to get in to the ground sharpish, so as not to miss the game, moaning about the queue and the lack of proper management that we've all caused by turning up at the same time, all accompanied by a load of chanting. That scenario must fit every game up and down the country.
Then bung in to the equation a serious boo-boo of opening gates to relieve crowding outside...which then caused crowding inside...and a design of ground that didn't allow spectators access to the pitch in an emergency.
That was Hillsborough.
I think the (understandable) emotions because of what went on that day has forever clouded some people's judgement.
|
>>and a design of ground that didn't allow spectators access to the pitch in an emergency
Whatever the human issues involved this was inexcusable - fires and crushes have been a part of football for 100 years - if a game couldn't be played without caging the fans it should never have been played in the first place.
Life-banning/jailing anyone caught pitch invading should have been used rather than the fences.
Can you imagine how strong these fences must have been that they did not collapse under tonnes of human pressure.
|
|
Liverpool fans have a tendancy to hypocritical self-pitying whining. The Heysel anniversary passes by each year with hardly a murmer, probably not surprising in the event that 39 people lost their lives because of the actions of drunken Liverpool supporters, and every game against "The Munichs" is punctuated by chants glorying in the deaths that occurred when the plane carrying the Man United team crashed in 1958.
|
>> Liverpool fans have a tendancy to hypocritical self-pitying whining. The Heysel anniversary passes by each
>> year with hardly a murmer, probably not surprising in the event that 39 people lost
>> their lives because of the actions of drunken Liverpool supporters, and every game against "The
>> Munichs" is punctuated by chants glorying in the deaths that occurred when the plane carrying
>> the Man United team crashed in 1958.
Indeed. cant argue with a word of it.
|
Boris Johnson had it about right:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557548/Boris-Johnson-in-quotes.html
The reaction of the Liverpool populace bore him out.
|
Policing at Football Matches - CGNorwich
