|
||||
|
||||
emails and replies
i sent out three more or less identical emails the other week.
addressees: don foster mp, shadow culture, media and sport secretary (lib dems) <[email protected]> jeremy hunt mp, shadow culture secretary (conservatives) <[email protected]> gerry sutcliffe mp, minister for sport <[email protected]> the text of the email was as follows: Quote:
the emails were sent on the 13th, see below for replies. i've added my comments after each reply, suggesting how i think each might be best followed up. in general, all three replies are typical non-committal blather, more or less sympathetic, without specifics and without commitment of any kind. our aim should be to pressure them to produce specifics and to make commitments. that's not as hard as it sounds, but it needs pressure. |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
first to reply were the lib dems*
Quote:
credit to him for replying fairly promptly - email sent on the 13th, reply arrived on the 15th. shame his english is barely grammatical :shakehead: my comments: the first part is typical blather, nothing of interest there. the second part is more interesting, especially the comment 'If it comes apparent that their dedication is being taken advantage of - as we believe it frequently has in the past - then this is a problem that needs to be addressed'. four questions need to be put here: 1. how will it become apparent that fans are being taken advantage of? what are the criteria? are these criteria not already being met in the case of portsmouth fc and manchester united fc? 2. related to the above, at which points in the past were fans taken advantage of? how is the current situation different from these cases? 3. how specifically will the problem be addressed? in other words, what concrete steps would a lib dem government take? 4. m platini's proposals are in the public domain, having been accepted by uefa's governing committee. are the lib dems in favour of their implementation or against? * probably bored tbf, what the £#%&! else are they going to be doing? and who the £#%&! else would be sad enough to write to them? |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
the second reply was from the conservatives
Quote:
reply arrived on the 19th my comments: this is a much less promising email, seemingly more concerned with defending national regulation than actually assessing the value of uefa's ideas. looking at the tone of the email, i wonder if the author of the email is capable of distinguishing uefa from the eu, or realises that uefa's proposals represent requirements for participation in european competition, not for participation in the english leagues. all in all, this reply hardly fills me with confidence that nicola sheldon has the vaguest clue about the game, its rules or its governing body, or about much of anything apart from a vague but all-encompassing distrust of all things 'europe'. all sorts of questions present themselves. perhaps the most pertinent: 1. the proposed regulations relate to clubs participating in european competition, not the national leagues; they therefore represent an attempt to ensure a level playing field, preventing the kind of state-supported spending conducted by real madrid in recent years. the issue of ceding control does not arise - the fa will still govern the premier league, the football league will still govern the championship and lower divisions. uefa's proposals will affect only those clubs participating in the champions league and the europa league. given that, does the conservative party see the specific suggestions of m platini as worthy of support or not? 2. given that this issue is very much a current one and one of great importance to many voters, it would surely be appropriate for the conservative party to take a position before the next election and not, as you suggest, only in the case of electoral victory. 4. if the conservative party is determined that football regulation should remain purely a national matter (though, of course, it is already a matter for fifa (at a world level) and uefa (at a european level), in addition to the fa and the football league), then what changes, if any, would the party implement at the national level once in power? |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
last to reply were the labour party
Quote:
reply arrived on the 20th my comments: of the three replies, this is the most concrete and detailed. it at least gives the impression that the author is aware of the issues and has an informed opinion, however wishy-washy that opinion may be. questions: 1. a stronger fit and proper persons test will indeed be welcome, but will do little to affect debt levels, or potential debt levels. i don't think malcolm glazer, for example, would fail any such test, but the levels of debt he has placed upon manchester united are, in many ways, more dangerous to the club than the presence of an individual such as flavio briatore would be, however questionable the behaviour of the latter may have been. what concrete steps would the labour party suggest to deal with the problems of increasing debts in football? 2. the comments of the previous secretary of state for culture, andy burnham, regarding levels of debt incurred (especially but not exclusively) during takeovers were very well received amongst supporters groups; the more lukewarm response of the fa was also noted. what steps does the labour party propose to push the apparently less enthusiastic fa towards stronger regulation, and does the ministry have concrete proposals to achieve this end? as you say, 'more can be done', and surely there is no doubt now that ticket price hikes are not a hypothetical worst-case scenario but a harsh reality. 3. the statement 'it is for the football authorities to run the game' is seductively simple. however, government still has a role to play in regulating an industry which represents an important part of the nation's cultural and social fabric. further, where there are concrete proposals from the governing bodies (uefa) it is surely incumbent on the government to take a clear and loud position on these proposals and to use what pressure it can bring to bear to effect such changes as it can. 4. your comment on supporters' trusts is welcome. what concrete steps can the government take to bring this about? as i am sure you are aware, the presence of supporters trusts on the board of football clubs is, sadly, not seen as an undiluted boon by the owners of most clubs. it appears unlikely that such enlightened policies will be introduced without regulatory coercion; what, therefore, does the labour party propose to do to bring about such an outcome? |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
comments, thoughts etc please
i think it would probably be a good idea to inform in the thread if anybody writes to their mp (etc) - post the letter/email and reply, with your comments. hopefully we can set up some kind of pressure with a concerted campaign. as i said, imo the goal is 1. to get the politicos to take a concrete position (rather than just witter on and churn out the platitudes) 2. once they have taken a concrete position to pressure them to (a) change it to a better one and (b) take concrete steps to bring change about |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
the fa has the likes of david gill on its board, i think it's not the best body to deal with the issue. on the other hand, all pressure helps and i certainly wouldn't ignore it. i just think that any change will have to be forced on the fa; the fa will not, unless i'm mistaken, be a force for change.
on the subject, and as i mentioned andy burnham, this is worth reading: Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...-football-debt burnham (mp for leigh, probably represents a few on here) is one of the brighter sparks on the issue, it's a real shame he got moved on from culture imo. http://www.andyburnham.org/ |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ HTH |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
This is great work Borsuk but I am concerned with the response from the Tories. As a Tory victory looks likely in the forthcoming election would it make sense to start targetting more informed tory candidates who look likely to win their respective seats as they may have the most influence, or chance of a post in the culture and sports ministry?
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
the key is to keep the pressure up. i'm travelling atm but when i get back home and have a chance i'll reply to the replies i got with the questions i posted. keep the pressure on, and remember these people work for us (well, for you). they're not doing anybody any favours, it is their duty to represent their constituents. get a meeting, every mp has a day in the week in their constituency - probably friday - when they hold surgeries (meetings with anyone who wants to meet them). phone up, arrange a time, get some information together about the debt, about andy burnham's call for action and about uefa's proposals and go see them face to face. and press for firm commitments, not blather. personally i think the most fruitful route, which i haven't done anything with yet, is the european parliament. write to your mep and arrange a meeting. it's easy to do - one phone call is all it takes. |
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
further
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Re: emails and replies
Quote:
|
Similar Threads for: emails and replies | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emails, the human touch and more - inside Erik ten Hag's Manchester United revolution | fred tissue | Football Auto-Threads | 0 | 28-02-2023 07:20 AM |
Manchester United should have two replies to Jude Bellingham statement after England display | fred tissue | Football Auto-Threads | 0 | 05-12-2022 06:00 PM |
Firm forced to block Giggs' emails to ex - court | fred tissue | Football Auto-Threads | 0 | 15-08-2022 01:00 PM |
The smoking gun emails that could prove Manchester City did cheat Premier League FFP rules | fred tissue | Football Auto-Threads | 0 | 24-07-2021 10:40 PM |