Leeds Utd Decision - Cost of Policing

[ianb1547 3,767]

Following the decision (by the Appeal Court) that a football club is not responsible for the policing costs outside and around a football ground, I wonder if the Club will look to make savings here.

I dont know how much we pay for policing match-days, but Im sure its in the accounts somewhere.

Although the decision is based in England, the rationale behind the decision also applies in Scotland, i.e. the primary role of the police is to uphold the Queens Peace, and the protection of life and property.

No charge is made if IKEA or Tesco open huge stores, or a night-club opens where everyone spills out at 4am - the surrounding area still has to be policed as part of a Forces primary function.

Will be interesting to see if this is picked up on this side of the border.

[Falcoholic 1,348]

So our club actually pay for us to be filmed, searched, accused, and get yer door kicked in at 5 in the morning cos you were singing folk songs on the way to the game?

I think I could come up with better ways to spend the money.

And get G4S to f**k while we're at it.

[broxi74 127]

Following the decision (by the Appeal Court) that a football club is not responsible for the policing costs outside and around a football ground, I wonder if the Club will look to make savings here.

I dont know how much we pay for policing match-days, but Im sure its in the accounts somewhere.

Although the decision is based in England, the rationale behind the decision also applies in Scotland, i.e. the primary role of the police is to uphold the Queens Peace, and the protection of life and property.

No charge is made if IKEA or Tesco open huge stores, or a night-club opens where everyone spills out at 4am - the surrounding area still has to be policed as part of a Forces primary function.

Will be interesting to see if this is picked up on this side of the border.

a hope so, we the people pay our taxes and that should apply to football grounds!

[.Williamson. 83,302]

I didn't know the club paid for policing costs outside of the ground itself. Seems fucking daft.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

So our club actually pay for us to be filmed, searched, accused, and get yer door kicked in at 5 in the morning cos you were singing folk songs on the way to the game?

I think I could come up with better ways to spend the money.

And get G4S to f**k while we're at it.

I believe this is happening. Garrion Security appear to be taking over. There was an advert on the LED hoardings at the last match. Garrion Security were formed in September 2012 as Rangers Security. Guess who one of the Directors is?........................................

Looks like its coming in-house!

[marka1979 76]

is english law not different from scottish law. but yeah we shouldnt have to pay additional costs if not needed.

[trublusince1982 768]

Garrion security are owned by the club with both green and brian stockbridge as directors, so hopefully bringing it in house will cut costs and also make going to the games a little more enjoyable.

[Alnic3856 358]

Garrion security are owned by the club with both green and brian stockbridge as directors, so hopefully bringing it in house will cut costs and also make going to the games a little more enjoyable.

Well it's more a way of Stockbridge and Green earning a little more cash for themselves, would be interested to see if it's cheaper or more expensive than the current G4S deal, if they are the only directors then all profits are split between them, nothing wrong with it, I'm all for Green and Co making some dosh thats why their here after all but to call it "In House" is deceiving ie the money isn't paid back to Rangers, if that was the case then why bother with another company at all? Just employ staff directly, Garrion will bill Rangers and Green and Co will profit.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

a hope so, we the people pay our taxes and that should apply to football grounds!

In fairness, if you're putting on an event which you intend to profit from, you can't expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Same goes for music festivals etc.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,778]

Isnt it that the police wanted paid by clubs for policing outside of a clubs land and property, iirc clubs are still liable for policing on their own land

[Big Al 55 9,296]

The club may stop paying for it, but we will still pay for it, that you can be sure of.

[Guardian 4,281]

Well it's more a way of Stockbridge and Green earning a little more cash for themselves, would be interested to see if it's cheaper or more expensive than the current G4S deal, if they are the only directors then all profits are split between them, nothing wrong with it, I'm all for Green and Co making some dosh thats why their here after all but to call it "In House" is deceiving ie the money isn't paid back to Rangers, if that was the case then why bother with another company at all? Just employ staff directly, Garrion will bill Rangers and Green and Co will profit.

There are many accounting reasons for having it as a separate company. They may not just operate at Rangers games for example.

If Green thinks he can do it cheaper, and I would expect that to be the case, then Rangers save and his company prospers along with it.

He may or may not plough some of the profits back to Rangers, but I would hardly call it deception.

For real deception, look at the dodgy deals Minty did with the catering and Edmiston house etc.

[cushynumber 25,178]

does the one on the left get paid more?

[jimgers 565]

I think we should have some of the Bears made into "club ambassadors" as a go between the support and the "Official Stewarding" Say there is a problem between the Stewards/Police and some Bear? then the "club supporter ambassador" can intervein and give help to the Bear, also they can go into the groups at home and away games to help with the compliance of the clubs policy on the "inappropriate singing"

Only an idea so don't beat me to death on it.