Whats wrong with football?

[Summerof69]

Sky going on about Celtic v Rangers, like it's the biggest game of the century.

You'll see plenty of those games next season...at least 4.

[DarloSTFC84]

£10 for a heart transplant, now that is reasonable

 

[Summerof69]

Speaking as an East herts council taxpayer, it's a good result to get a tenant in that's paying anything.
The alternative was for it to be empty most of the year and get used for a couple of athletics meetings, and lose xxx millions in up keep etc.

I think you'll find that the boroughs in the Lee Valley underwrote the cost of the stadia - main park and white water - so I don't think the taxpayer outside the Lee valley has to worry about anything, and therefore has no need to winge about West Ham saving me from bankrupcy

Turns out to be £2.5m a year...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36043808

[horlock07]

Turns out to be £2.5m a year...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36043808

Don't forget the £15m (around 5%) they contributed towards the £272m which has been spent to convert the site for use as a Premier League ground. Somewhat less than we were apparently going to spend on the CG in 2010 http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8428816.Swindon_Town_fans_welcome_new___20m_stadium/

Wherever one stands when you consider that Spurs are paying c.£400m for their new ground and looking at the figures on here http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-how-cost-tottenhams-new-7029654 someone has negotiated a great deal - no idea how they have managed for it to be so incentive based?

I am surprised they haven't fallen over State Aid rules with this?

 

[Panda Paws]

They also pay zero running costs. Heating, electricity, under-soil heating, policing.... even fucking corner flags and goal posts...

Fair play to them, what a deal they've negotiated.

[Nemo]

Should be able to get some decent chants out of that though. "We pay for your flags" being a good starting point.

[RobertT]

Stadium owner gets the first £500k of catering, with tenants getting 30% of anything over that.

[horlock07]

I understand that it was a well known fact up there that he was deliberately not played until he couldn't hit the trigger and then played all the games following that date;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36044285

[Exiled Bob]

I understand that it was a well known fact up there that he was deliberately not played until he couldn't hit the trigger and then played all the games following that date;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36044285

As far as I understand it there are two issues - discrimination because of his illness and stopping him from playing, thus triggering the appearance-based clause. For the second a lot of clubs could be in trouble as I'm sure they all do it. I know Swindon have definitely done it - notably when they first went into administration with Robin Hulbert who couldn't play more than 29 games otherwise we would have had to pay an additional fee (and probably an appearance bonus to the player).

[RobertT]

Think the trigger clause is still being considered under the Discrimination Act, because they were trying to avoid extending a contract of someone with/suffered from a serious illness.

[manc_red]

Think the trigger clause is still being considered under the Discrimination Act, because they were trying to avoid extending a contract of someone with/suffered from a serious illness.

Yep. Just not extending a trigger clause on its own is not an issue. It only is here because it's linked to the fact he had a disability.

In fact an employer or anyone else can discriminate on whatever basis it likes perfectly lawfully; unless it's on the grounds of one of the 7 characteristics protected under the Equality Act (disability being one of them).

[inept and tiresome]

substitutions used to slow the game down. subs should be made as the game continues.

[Red Frog]

substitutions used to slow the game down. subs should be made as the game continues.

That suggestion is actually neither inept nor crass. Get onto it.

[Costanza]

People defending Jamie Vardy by suggesting that his sending-off wasn't a blatant attempt to con the referee into giving Leicester City a penalty.

The official won't get praised by the press, he'll be told that his decision was 'harsh' etc.

[donkey]

People defending Jamie Vardy by suggesting that his sending-off wasn't a blatant attempt to con the referee into giving Leicester City a penalty.

The official won't get praised by the press, he'll be told that his decision was 'harsh' etc.

IMO the ref got it spot on.