Firstly my apologies as I am about to post a link regarding Leeds United (I feel dirty, unclean unclean) but I do so seeing that we have recently had issues over policing costs of football matches and I just wondered what peoples thoughts on this outcome are. Personally I'm caught in 2 minds. Part of me is thinking that it should or could save the club some money which is always welcome and on the other hand I'm thinking that the police are there because of the football club and the club should pay, at least some of, the costs of the extra work that is caused by the match. now I'm aware that the policing at Elland Road would be a far bigger operation than at Priestfield but I can only see that this ruling will delight Scally. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7930304/Leeds-win-ruling-over-police Thoughts?
It says on the BBC report that Leeds are entitled to claim the money back from the police for the last 3 years. Don't know if that will apply to other clubs as well. Other sporting events such as for example, race meetings, don't have to pay for policing outside the venues so you can understand football clubs objecting to paying when other events don't.
It can be easy to see the situation from both 'sides.' Vinny - I understand your 'example' about race meetings ( is that horse or F1 ? ), but policing needs - or rather the need for police at football matches and the vicinity of grounds is a peculiar situation because of the mentality of a very small minority of 'fans.' The acid test to appreciate the need for police inside and outside the area of football grounds would be NOT to have police on matchday - and watch what carnage the small number of morons would cause - THAT is why we must have police at football matches - both inside & outside the ground. Of course I am not saying that each football club should be 'blamed' for having moronic fans - but it is a sad fact of life that football seems to attract morons. The vast majority of fans ( & residents in the locality ) should be protected from the real likelihood of trouble if police were absent.(Likelihood of trouble might be easier to estimate dependant on the status of each match. ) You could argue that police costs outside the ground should come out of the Council Tax - but why should residents who live 4 or 5 miles from the ground ( & unaffected by football attendees ) pay more ? I may not like the drain on the resources of the clubs' finances - but feel that each football club has to take all matters relating to the behaviour of people ( morons and all ) attending on matchday into consideration when assessing their responsibilities - but I hope that there can be a sensible agreement regarding the amount that the Police can squeeze out of the club. wow - a 'sensible' post from alwaysright - and not a mention of Leeds Utd - oh blast - now I've got to go and wash my hands. (unclean )
Interesting ruling, and one that I find quite surprising for similar reasons to those expressed above. I'm not sure how much further up the legal ladder this could climb, i.e. whether West Yorks Police have any appeal process open to them, and so I wouldn't be counting the refund yet. Nevertheless I can't see any reason why, if WYP have been charging Leeds for the same services that Kent Police have been charging Gills, that Gills won't be able to claim a refund based on this ruling.
So lets forget horse racing, but what about:- Nottinghill carnival, Night clubs, Pop festivals, BNP marches, Like it or not the world is full of minority idiots, calling them football supporters, party revelers, political activists, they all need policing and we all have to pay.
