 | News
Comment | Cook Talks to Blue Action Following Banner Protest Against Owner
at 15:18:44
Frankly, Bluearmy_81, that's a load of libellous b0ll0cks (although I know you're just the messenger).
Met a PL first-team coach yesterday on a job, who knows one of the gents involved in the consortium from time spent coaching abroad.
The takeover is 100% on in its original format; the delay is that the final price will be dependent on ITFC's divisional status next season. |
| News
Comment | PFA: Salary Cap Unlawful and Unenforceable
at 16:34:56
How precisely is it illegal/unenforceable if existing contracts are honoured in full?
Surely it's no business of the PFA's what wages can/will be offered to its members in new contract negotiations going forward? |
| News
Comment | Ex-Blue McGoldrick Instigated Players Taking a Knee
at 13:10:55
@Peteswindon - would you care to explain precisely how football fails to support "The Poppy" (as you put it)? I seem to recall that a silence was held at the Lincoln City match on 9th November, the shirts had poppies on them, and no doubt those shirts were then auctioned off in aid of the RBL.
Or do you have a slightly different definition of 'support'? |
| News
Comment | East Anglian Derby All-Ticket
at 18:08:16
In other news this afternoon:
"Pope in 'is Catholic' shocker"
"You'll never guess what this bear did in the woods..."
"Millions amazed to discover that fire is hot" |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 15:32:44
Martin
The club will have defined budgets for various areas of its operations. Part of this set up will include a legal/administrative budget. It could even be that the club/Marcus Evans Group has a legal team retained, which would mean costs are reduced/minimal.
Likewise, if ITFC win the case they should be able to recover costs from Suffolk Constabulary.
Bottom line, regardless of whether we appeal or not, the playing budget won't have been touched in order to fund this case. |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 14:51:56
Wallingford
It was argued (and proven in the LUFC/Reading Festival cases) that the police were not entitled to charge for these services, despite them being linked to the events in question, because:
a) They were not requested by the organisers of the events
b) They fell within the police's general remit of providing protection to the general public
In the LUFC case, supporting evidence for this was given in the fact that West Yorkshire Police did not charge LUFC for their increased presence at Leeds station on matchdays, despite it being needed as a direct result of there being a football match on. |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 14:39:42
HighgateBlue
Regarding the appeal assertion - my mistake! I clearly misread the original judgment. That said, given that the judgment has been made, and then affirmed in the Court of Appeal, one could argue that it is made stronger/weightier for it, having been tested? |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 14:38:22
HighgateBlue
I wonder if part of the contention arises from the definition of 'control'. If 'carsey' is correct in their assertions about the Club being responsible for closing the roads around the stadium to vehicles, then that would definitely suggest a degree of control being exerted.
On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that the club control, or have any ability to control, who/how many enter the area on foot. I would argue, given that the club have no means/ability to stop 'risk elements' from accessing the area around the stadium, that policing on Portman Road/SAR Way should be seen in the same light as policing at the rail station, or in the town centre on match days? |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 14:21:56
Wallingford Boy - the LUFC case (and the Reading Festival case) proved that WYP were wrong to charge for unrequested policing services on land not owned by the club. What's more, WYP did not appeal the original decision.
Where is it obvious that the police are wrong? Or are you just being a massive Joey? |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 13:57:23
Further to LUFC v CCWYP, there's the earlier case of West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 524, [2006] 1 WLR 2005) which sets the precedent that Constabularies cannot charge for 'Special Policing Services' on land not owned by the organiser (Festival, Football Club etc.,) unless they are specifically requested.
For those that are interested, the full judgment from LUFC v CCWYP can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/115.html |
| News
Comment | Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
at 13:54:16
Makes no sense as a ruling. The precedent is clear from Leeds United Football Club v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police ([2013] EWCA Civ 115) that the police are not entitled to charge for such services.
I'd be intrigued to see what logic/reasoning the Judge used in distinguishing the former case. |
| News
Comment | Ticket Promotion for Preston, Pompey All-Ticket
at 21:52:21
Sibelius
I completely agree that there could have been more communication on this. I'm sure neither club would want to 'drop the other in it', but I wouldn't be surprised if Portsmouth are the main catalyst here, as the reduced proceeds would affect them more.
It would have been nice, however, to maybe see Town take a more charitable stance and offer to absorb the increased policing costs (I can't imagine that they'd eclipse the proceeds from the match) in order to increase attendance and create a better atmosphere.
From a business/pragmatic point of view, though, I imagine bending over backwards to provide more away tickets would only benefit Portsmouth in terms of increased/improved away support, so there's no real incentive (barring pure altruism) for Town to help Portsmouth out in this way. |
| | uefacup81
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 557 | | Comment Votes: | 94 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 651 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.