Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General football forum' started by urban genie, 18 Jun 2019.
What if I'm running the club into the ground to get land for building? Makes it easier, that rule.
Yes makes it faster - but current rules don't stop it they just drag it out. Nothing can really stop that.
The best way to stop that is through planning law. No ground can be used for housing without the consent of planning permission. That law needs tightening up as currenly a developer would win on appeal if a council blocked it. Needs a specific law like you get with other public space that protects it.
Hmm, we all know how that works. Ground is abandoned, gets vandalised, burnt down, knocked down, travellers move in, local community demands something done, local developer says "I can help".
I think your solution is trying to put neat boundaries around a complex problem. Not sure how you do this when there's heritage in play. I think the EFL have a duty to protect the history of the game and try to improve the way money flows from the elite clubs by giving the smaller clubs more help and assistance.
It's very difficult, particularly in a country with a mindset like the UK, to interfere with the rights of property owners. Even if the property owner in question is a right twat, they still have rights.
Say I owned a factory, or a garden centre, that loses money hand over fist for years, and I decide to close it and sell the site for development for several millions. Would that be morally wrong? Could the law stop me? How is a football club essentially different, except that there is probably more of an emotional attachment to it? Ultimately it's still property, not a sacred trust.
Labour is proposing to consult on tenants being able to buy their houses from private landlords at a "fair" price, and the mere suggestion is greeted as some sort of crazy Marxist outrage. So putting some magic legislation in to protect privately owned football grounds just because a minority are keen on football is going to be at least equally controversial.
As to other clubs helping - well, maybe, in certain circumstances. But why should well-run, successful businesses subsidise badly-run, failing businesses, especially when the latter may be run by unscrupulous conmen and asset-strippers?
The real solution for smaller clubs is to cut their coat to their cloth, ensure very good or excellent governance, and find a way to attract more fans to their niche product. It can be done, because Burnley and Bournemouth (to name but two) have not only succeeded at a lower level, but actually got into the PL.
To be fair, Bournemouth had huge backing from their Russian owner and probably still do.
Bournemouth's rise wasn't some sort of fairly tale.
bury council should have got involved and even so called bury fans the neville's could have done more, many people of bury are rich people but did nothing, the thing is bury will never be a well supported club and its a small town a ageing population and football comes about last on most people things to do
i said it before clubs like bury should be a feeder club for one of the bigger teams in manchester still keep the bury name but add city or united to it, and use it as a way of giving league football to the young players and even players coming back from a injury on a month loan even have a manager and coaches working there way up, if you add city or united players them fans of the manchester clubs in the area will go and watch the games because its city or united
i think it could add between 2 to 5 thousand if its played on a friday night, it sounds simple but small local lower league clubs can not keep getting in this mess without something changing and if they want help from the premier league clubs then the feeder club route is the way forward
There’s more to doing well than a bit of foreign investment.
They didn’t spend huge amounts even relative to their divisions.
Spending the money well, along with brilliant management doesn’t come easy.