Richard J, I still don't see why this makes it an issue for government.
Certain aspects of life go beyond what it is fair and adequate for "the market" to run without government controls and safeguards. The national sport is just one of them.
Richard J, I still don't see why this makes it an issue for government.
Certain aspects of life go beyond what it is fair and adequate for "the market" to run without government controls and safeguards. The national sport is just one of them.
Yes, health care, safety standards, housing......but football?!
I'm enjoying this nonsense about how anyone right of centre wants the country run with no government interference, or that there is currently no government intervention in football. Are there rigorous safety standards? Is alcohol allowed in the stands? Is match-fixing allowed?
I will admit I'm interested in how the different parties will handle football and sport in general but I cannot pretend that on polling day it will bear any weight on my decision. Being able to feed my family or have a roof over my head are just slightly larger priorities.
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Spot on. If a football club does something that the fans don't like, the fans should stop going. That will hit the owners in the pockets and they'll reverse their decision.
For example, imagine if a football club's owners decided to move their ground. Or, worse than that, they decided to share someone else's ground. All the fans would have to do is to stop going. Dwindling attendances would absolutely guarantee that the club returned, without any long-term harm coming to the club. That's the best way to deal with it: stop going.
How could politics help in any way? Formatting a "politcal party"? Ridiculous! Fighting a democratic election to bring attention to the matter of the club being moved? Absurd! Using a well-managed, brilliantly inventive and creative campaign to bring together different people, from different, "traditional" political backgrounds, to demonstrate that the club should listen to its fans? Nonsense. That would never work.
Chizz is absolutely spot-on. We of all fans should not dismiss the importance of political pressure in reversing decisions that damage the club in the long-term. I am following the developments over in Stratford with keen interest and there are clear indications that a failure to protect clubs like ours is taking place. Orient are probably at the greatest risk and are currently leading the charge on the political front but as this develops it might be in our best interests of our fans lent their support to Orient.
I can't see how any political party at a national level would help our situation though. I also doubt that had Red Ken been handling the situation that things would be any different.
Central government dictating how a professional sport is run is a completely different issue to how local authorities support or work with the football clubs in their community.
I guess like everything it depends on your view of the world and as I said a few pages ago the policy on football will not be the biggest issue that I will vote on.
It has brought out some interesting perspectives . I suspect everyone who posts on this Forum would see Charlton as more than just a business and after family / friends / work etc it is an important part of our lives .
As @ShootersHillGuru says many industries are subject to some regulation . Personally I find the way the Premier League is dominating the football 'industry' quite damaging to something that I see as an important part of our national heritage . Requesting that Supporters Trusts have a position of influence in the running of a club is I think sensible .
Would Fryer have been able to take Charlton away from the Valley in 1985 had there been genuine representation from our fans in the running of our club ?
I have never heard anyone on here claim that Premier League ticket prices were reasonable and quite often people bemoan statistics like the average age of fans is now in their mid 40's .Unless we can encourage some involvement this will not change as supply and demand dictates that the Nigels will sell out every week much in the way that we did 10 years ago . The consequence of failure almost led to the bankrupting of our club .
The case for government to take an interest in football is multiple:
1. Millions of citizens spend millions on it, and care passionately about it. 2. Because of the money and passion, all kinds of dodgy people seek to control and influence football clubs. Businessmen and politicians alike. (and that is true across the world) 3. Because the FA abdicated responsibility in 1991, there is no way to manage the money so that the broad public interest is taken into account. Specifically to ensure financial support at grass roots, which has implications for the health of the nation. Only national government can reform the bloated monster that is the FAPL, controlled largely by unaccountable foreigners.
We need a football regulator, just as we belatedly discovered we need one- with teeth - for the private oligopolies we created in the 80s and 90s in the ill-thought out privatizations of utilities. Admittedly the regulators did not stop our electricity and nuclear power utilities falling back into State hands - the French state - but that's a separate discussion.
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Do you not think that it is in the national interest that certain sporting events like The Grand National, Wimbledon, the FA Cup Final are protected in law and must be shown on free to view channels and not siphoned up by The likes of Sky ?
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Do you not think that it is in the national interest that certain sporting events like The Grand National, Wimbledon, the FA Cup Final are protected in law and must be shown on free to view channels and not siphoned up by The likes of Sky ?
Yes.
If that is all you mean by central government involving itself in the running of professional football then I am all for it.
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Do you not think that it is in the national interest that certain sporting events like The Grand National, Wimbledon, the FA Cup Final are protected in law and must be shown on free to view channels and not siphoned up by The likes of Sky ?
Yes.
If that is all you mean by central government involving itself in the running of professional football then I am all for it.
What about safe standing ? That's another issue that's covered by legislation. Drinking alcohol in the stadium within view of the pitch during play even in a box. All rules put in place by government.
Do you have a problem with any rules that stop an owner doing as he pleases in the running of his club ?
Football has several stakeholders: owners, players, TV companies, staff and fan, sponsors etc.
I have always believed that season ticket holders should have some stake but I'm not sure how this works if they are not mature nor responsible enough to use that stake properly.
The Labour proposal leaves the owner legally obliged to sell equity and allow the appointment of directors by a potentially hostile group with an agenda not in the interests of the club. And will the recognised supporters group be obliged to inject equity or loans to meet any losses?
This is all very different to the regulation of the sport, stadia and individual clubs. Smoking, drinking, standing is one side and then we have the companies act which should safeguard against poor governance.
Typical Labour interventionist nonsense - the clubs belong to the owners not the fans. If the fans don't like the way they're run they can stop attending.
Have to agree with this. Other than Health & Safety issues I don't think government has a role to play in the running of any professional sport.
Do you not think that it is in the national interest that certain sporting events like The Grand National, Wimbledon, the FA Cup Final are protected in law and must be shown on free to view channels and not siphoned up by The likes of Sky ?
Yes.
If that is all you mean by central government involving itself in the running of professional football then I am all for it.
What about safe standing ? That's another issue that's covered by legislation. Drinking alcohol in the stadium within view of the pitch during play even in a box. All rules put in place by government.
Do you have a problem with any rules that stop an owner doing as he pleases in the running of his club ?
That's not really the same thing as the govt interfering in the running of individual clubs - it's just setting the context for what it perceives to be the safe staging of football matches.
Similarly we're all in favour of say concert venues having a maximum capacity limit (set by local authorities in this instance) but would probably baulk at price caps or the stipulation that say a minimum of 20% of all events had to be alternative rock?
I have no problems with rules governing what owners do with clubs. But those rules should be set and enforced by the body that the sport has set up to run itself.
I couldn't give a shit if every rugby league and rugby union club went out of business tomorrow. But a lot of communities up and down the country would be devastated. It is a matter for the communities and the organizations running those sports to deal with the issue. Not central government.
The thing is I cannot see any feasible way Charlton fans can put any meaningful pressure on those involved in the decision making process over West Ham's tenancy of the new stadium:
- we can't pressure the owners of our club because they have no input - we can't pressure our local councillors because they have no input - we can't pressure the national government because no party seems to have this on their radar and people generally vote for a party for much more important reasons than how much West Ham are charging for season tickets
I suppose the only possible route is via the London Assembly/Mayoral office, but since I don't live in London I don't really have a clue on this front.
I have no problems with rules governing what owners do with clubs. But those rules should be set and enforced by the body that the sport has set up to run itself.
I couldn't give a shit if every rugby league and rugby union club went out of business tomorrow. But a lot of communities up and down the country would be devastated. It is a matter for the communities and the organizations running those sports to deal with the issue. Not central government.
Watching the debate on the daily politics show. There seems to be more mud thrown in Yvette Cooper & the Labour parties direction than any of the other parties. For a party that is not actually in office, I find that pretty telling.
The thing is I cannot see any feasible way Charlton fans can put any meaningful pressure on those involved in the decision making process over West Ham's tenancy of the new stadium:
- we can't pressure the owners of our club because they have no input - we can't pressure our local councillors because they have no input - we can't pressure the national government because no party seems to have this on their radar and people generally vote for a party for much more important reasons than how much West Ham are charging for season tickets
I suppose the only possible route is via the London Assembly/Mayoral office, but since I don't live in London I don't really have a clue on this front.
The pressure will come when a wider group of citizens and taxpayers see it as a problem too. Then Charlton fans become just one particularly interested group within a wider..err…coalition, if that's not a dirty word to use. As a result of those Guardian articles, that coalition became a lot more concrete and connected. On top of that, West Ham have just committed what looks to me like a big communications gaff (which I'd prefer not to elaborate on here, for now).
It is not, and was never going to be a national election issue, however after the election I believe the pressure can be ramped up quite a lot, especially if Boris Johnson's role in the whole tawdry deal becomes clearer.
It's over two years since I submitted a complaint to the EC about unfair State Aid to West Ham, which frankly I did out of curiosity, because it was quite easy to do. I've never been more confident than I am today that we can really get substantial changes made to this deal.
Comments
I will admit I'm interested in how the different parties will handle football and sport in general but I cannot pretend that on polling day it will bear any weight on my decision. Being able to feed my family or have a roof over my head are just slightly larger priorities.
There have been numerous debates on Charlton Life bemoaning that.
Those eager for more government intervention should perhaps be careful what they wish for.
Honestly there cant be a more left wing football site this side of mackemslife and forevertyke...
For example, imagine if a football club's owners decided to move their ground. Or, worse than that, they decided to share someone else's ground. All the fans would have to do is to stop going. Dwindling attendances would absolutely guarantee that the club returned, without any long-term harm coming to the club. That's the best way to deal with it: stop going.
How could politics help in any way? Formatting a "politcal party"? Ridiculous! Fighting a democratic election to bring attention to the matter of the club being moved? Absurd! Using a well-managed, brilliantly inventive and creative campaign to bring together different people, from different, "traditional" political backgrounds, to demonstrate that the club should listen to its fans? Nonsense. That would never work.
Wait! What..?
I can't see how any political party at a national level would help our situation though. I also doubt that had Red Ken been handling the situation that things would be any different.
Ctrl + C
*print*
It has brought out some interesting perspectives . I suspect everyone who posts on this Forum would see Charlton as more than just a business and after family / friends / work etc it is an important part of our lives .
As @ShootersHillGuru says many industries are subject to some regulation . Personally I find the way the Premier League is dominating the football 'industry' quite damaging to something that I see as an important part of our national heritage . Requesting that Supporters Trusts have a position of influence in the running of a club is I think sensible .
Would Fryer have been able to take Charlton away from the Valley in 1985 had there been genuine representation from our fans in the running of our club ?
I have never heard anyone on here claim that Premier League ticket prices were reasonable and quite often people bemoan statistics like the average age of fans is now in their mid 40's .Unless we can encourage some involvement this will not change as supply and demand dictates that the Nigels will sell out every week much in the way that we did 10 years ago . The consequence of failure almost led to the bankrupting of our club .
1. Millions of citizens spend millions on it, and care passionately about it.
2. Because of the money and passion, all kinds of dodgy people seek to control and influence football clubs. Businessmen and politicians alike. (and that is true across the world)
3. Because the FA abdicated responsibility in 1991, there is no way to manage the money so that the broad public interest is taken into account. Specifically to ensure financial support at grass roots, which has implications for the health of the nation. Only national government can reform the bloated monster that is the FAPL, controlled largely by unaccountable foreigners.
We need a football regulator, just as we belatedly discovered we need one- with teeth - for the private oligopolies we created in the 80s and 90s in the ill-thought out privatizations of utilities. Admittedly the regulators did not stop our electricity and nuclear power utilities falling back into State hands - the French state - but that's a separate discussion.
If that is all you mean by central government involving itself in the running of professional football then I am all for it.
BUT it is MILIBAND not MILLIBAND and FARAGE not FARRAGE!!
Do you have a problem with any rules that stop an owner doing as he pleases in the running of his club ?
I have always believed that season ticket holders should have some stake but I'm not sure how this works if they are not mature nor responsible enough to use that stake properly.
The Labour proposal leaves the owner legally obliged to sell equity and allow the appointment of directors by a potentially hostile group with an agenda not in the interests of the club. And will the recognised supporters group be obliged to inject equity or loans to meet any losses?
This is all very different to the regulation of the sport, stadia and individual clubs. Smoking, drinking, standing is one side and then we have the companies act which should safeguard against poor governance.
Similarly we're all in favour of say concert venues having a maximum capacity limit (set by local authorities in this instance) but would probably baulk at price caps or the stipulation that say a minimum of 20% of all events had to be alternative rock?
I have no problems with rules governing what owners do with clubs. But those rules should be set and enforced by the body that the sport has set up to run itself.
I couldn't give a shit if every rugby league and rugby union club went out of business tomorrow. But a lot of communities up and down the country would be devastated. It is a matter for the communities and the organizations running those sports to deal with the issue. Not central government.
- we can't pressure the owners of our club because they have no input
- we can't pressure our local councillors because they have no input
- we can't pressure the national government because no party seems to have this on their radar and people generally vote for a party for much more important reasons than how much West Ham are charging for season tickets
I suppose the only possible route is via the London Assembly/Mayoral office, but since I don't live in London I don't really have a clue on this front.
For a party that is not actually in office, I find that pretty telling.
It is not, and was never going to be a national election issue, however after the election I believe the pressure can be ramped up quite a lot, especially if Boris Johnson's role in the whole tawdry deal becomes clearer.
It's over two years since I submitted a complaint to the EC about unfair State Aid to West Ham, which frankly I did out of curiosity, because it was quite easy to do. I've never been more confident than I am today that we can really get substantial changes made to this deal.