after a football match should the football team be responsable for getting rid of them or the police?

and if any damage to public property or people occurs should the football team splash out?

or should the police deal with it then the football team pay the police?

because if you think about it when any sort of major event goes down and hords of police have to gather then its taxpayers money going going gone!!

Fletch, correct me if I'm wrong because I know nothing about football but I thought the footy clubs had to pay for policing anyway.

the clubs only pay for policing inside the grounds.

The cost of policing the surroungding areas/town centre/public transport is met by the taxpayers.

so the people who hatre footy have to pay for it anyway! disgracefull!

If that is true then I think it ought to be changed so that the club pays for all the policing required around the location of the ground.

Originally posted by Lickszz
If that is true then I think it ought to be changed so that the club pays for all the policing required around the location of the ground.

Isn't that like saying nightclub owners should pay for the policing of yobbos who have gotton themselves legless drinking there?

I'm not saying that I disagree with you but where do you draw the line?

I am not sure. Rival fans seem to have a natural dislike for each other and need to be segregated.

Isn't that like saying nightclub owners should pay for the policing of yobbos who have gotton themselves legless drinking there?

i agree on that. maybe there should be a max number! like 5000? (although wednesday dont get that many fans sometimes :P )

because it should count for gigs and that too

removed by spook

it must cost a fortune in policing, hillsborough is full of police all afternoon.

Do other major sporting events require this level of policing, I suspect not. And if not, then the clubs should have to at least contribute to the cost of keeping the peace.

Originally posted by spook
How old are you? Thought so.

And whats that supposed to mean??

removed by spook

Originally posted by spook
there's your answer :thumbsup:

which is supposed to mean what?

removed by spook

So maybe people who live in areas of higher crime should pay higher taxes to support the extra policing in their area...

We're getting dangerously into t020esque philosophies here... :loopy:

A lot of football hooliganism doen't go on near the football ground anyway... ie organised hooligans who arrange to meet up at pubs at eccleshall to fight after a match has finished. As long as a football club does all it can do to stop hooligans from attending matches, I don't see why they should be held responsible for what happens away from the ground

good point patchy i think that the police given the actions of some sop called supporters cope pretty well. bearing in mind its a job they are doing and not actually a state of war i think the majority of the time they control the hooligans pretty well . as for the costing its a simple situation , the club contribute on match day and the rest is kike any other event in sheffield ie sheff marathon ,protest marchers, outdoor concerts ete. its not so long ago before the hillsbro disaster that sheffield welcomed the semi finals who payed forthat. there was also a comment made that the areas in sheffild with a high crime rate should be made 2 pay 4 this, basicly the areas with the highest crime rates are the neglegted and already under policed as it is , ie high unemployment ,drugs muggings what a f----- comment

asking a club that makes a large pile of cash from attracting thousands of people to watch it once a fortnight to help towards the cost of policing those thousands is not analogous with expecting areas of high crime to pay for their police.
Area's with high crime don't have a fortnightly 'have a crime spree' event. They'd rather not have the crime.

You can argue that the club is not responsible for it's fans once they've left the ground, but without the club and the game those fans would not be there, and the police would not be required. So the club is responsible for this fortnightly expenditure the police have to commit too.

I'm pretty sure concerts have to contribute to the policing costs... other events which attract large numbers of people don't require the same level of policing (ice hockey for example).

Originally posted by Cyclone

You can argue that the club is not responsible for it's fans once they've left the ground, but without the club and the game those fans would not be there, and the police would not be required. So the club is responsible for this fortnightly expenditure the police have to commit too.


I guess the same arguement could be used to suggest pubs and clubs being made to pay for policing at Hillsborough corner for example on a Friday or Saturday night... without the pubs the drinkers would not be there and the police would not be required.

IMO once you start charging certain organisations for trouble that occurs away from their premises then it can get very tricky deciding who should be charged and how much.

should watch the news more often. Town centre bars and clubs will in the near future be charged to contribute to the policing and clean up required of people leaving their premises. Area's with worse problems will have higher charges.