Who Should Pay For Policing At The Reebok?

Leeds United have today won their legal battle against West Yorkshire Police over who pays for policing on the streets and car parks around Elland Road on matchday.

Previously the police had been biling LUFC for this policing, threatening to pull matches if bills weren't paid by the football club.

A judge has this morning ordered the police to pay back this money to LUFC and decided the football club is not responsible for policing outside the ground in the future. The police have responded by saying this will have a major impact on the taxpayer.

Is this the right decision? Shouldn't clubs be responsible for policing near football grounds? After all, they're happy to take any profits made from ticket sales but without the police they couldn't go ahead with these matches.

I always thought clubs had to pay for all policing at football grounds, inside and out.

I thought we piad it too, just like we do with other security such as stewards.

On non match days I can understand but we should pay for it on a match day.

I have no idea who pays for policing at the Reebok, but if the club has been doing, you can guarantee they won't be for much longer. Ditto all the other clubs.

It should come out of police budgets -why isolate football and say that that the participating clubs should foot the bill. It's a public activity,a public recreation and anyone can go along and participate if they want to. By extension- if the clubs have to foot the bill for this,where does it stop? Should the Olympic committee have paid the police for attendance when the Olympic torch passed through Bolton? Should the Tatton Park committee have paid for traffic police at last weeks flower show? Should Notting Hill carnival organisers pay for police on the streets of London for the carnival. How about the Royal family when they turn up somewhere.
Football is a mass public recreation and they should foot the bill for policing it outside the ground- on public property. As taxpayers we already pay for policing and security in public places- why should a mass public recreation for one sport or activity be any different.

Leeds were paying for policing for all the area around the ground I.e the streets and council car parks around the City. Ken Bates argument was they should only pay for policing that actually takes place on the clubs property. So they still pay for policing in the stadium, official car parks and the land owned by the club.

It's like Greater Manchester police charging Bolton for the policing that they do at Bolton and Horwich Train Station.

Inside yes, outside no.

Clubs and bars don't have to pay for security for the whole inner city at weekends, just their own bouncers, same sort of rule should apply to football.

A difficult one this. Rammy says that a professional football match is a 'public recreation', no it isn't, if it were it would be free to attend.

The police have a duty to keep law and order and have a force corresponding to the size of the population. I would imagine ( I don't know) that match days are policed by paying officers overtime. Who should pay for that? Well the police clearly have some responsibility, but so does the club, so I guess a compromise of some sort. I'm sitting on the fence and just glad it's not in the hands of a private security company.

I'm on the side of the police on this issue. I think clubs should pay for policing caused by football related crowds, be it preventing or breaking up trouble or managing traffic.

Now that he has won his court case, Ken Bates won't be passing on that rebate to the Leeds supporters who ultimately paid it out in the first place through ticket prices. I can't stand Ken Bates, he has always been a trouble causer.

This precedent could potentially make going to games more dangerous for those same fans. You can't expect the police to provide exactly the same as they were before but for no money. He's backed them into a corner he shouldn't back them into; he has picked a stupid battle to win.

If your going to make clubs pay for all the police in the area then surely you would have to enforce clubs/bars to hire their own police force for the town streets etc. The police force is there for public saftey, if there is going to be 25,000 people collating in one place every weekend then no matter why the people are there the police should still be in the area and it shouldn't be the responsibility of the club.

If some chav gets drunk and starts a fight outside the Beehive how would that be the fault of the club for holding a football game? Its not, its a public problem and should be dealt with by the public police force.

By saying its a public recreation does not equate with it being free. I meant that football is a popular and attractive proposition that all members of the public can attend should they so wish, presuming they have the ability to enter the ground- either by possessing a ticket or the money to spend on a ticket. I can go as a member of the public to watch Bury play- but I'll have to pay to enter their stadium - I don't expect it to be free.

Football is a mass public attraction and part of the police responsibility is to maintain law and order in any place where the public gather. The fact that some headcases go to football isn't the fault of the clubs- the rest of us have a right to be protected from the nutters- that's why I pay a lot of tax ,part of which is used to pay for a policing service at events like football matches- just as I would expect protection walking down Bradshawgate on as Friday night. You can't pick and choose where the police should operate in the public domain.

At Old Trafford, United pay for all the police inside the ground but are not responsible for paying for police outside the ground. I am surprised that West Yorkshire police have got away with it for so long. Football rules dictate that the host club is responsible for paying for police within the ground but outside the ground it is classed as a public place and not the responsibility of the club.

You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much.

GMP only bill BWFC for the policing inside the Reebok itself. The forecourt and Horwich train station are the responsibility of the police and do not incur any charges from BWFC.

Football clubs should pay.
Bars and and nightclubs should not.

How can that be justified? - easy.

Football clubs are attracting large numbers of customers to a large event - and in such cases with large numbers of attendees for a single event more police numbers are required. It seems reasonable to me that if you intend to put on an event which you charge people to attend, you should also have to cover the costs it takes to run the event - the police being one of those costs.

Perhaps the Leeds judgement can be overruled by a new law which means that any organised event intending to exceed a certain number of visitors (eg 10,000 people) should be responsible for the costs of policing the event itself and the wider reach affected directly by the event (or perhaps a proportion of the costs).

If I break down on the motorway and have to be towed by the police for my own safety - they will charge me for it. If my car gets stolen and recovered I will have to pay to go and collect it. And so on. If I put on an event which requires large numbers of police officers to attend - then I pay for it (or should do).

Bars etc would not come under this rule as they are individual businesses trading in a town centre bla bla bla - I am sure you can see the difference...

When Sullivan and Gold took over West Ham they told the police that they were not prepared to pay for the police presence outside Upton Park. As a result, when we played West Ham two seasons ago, there were no police outside the ground and the Hammers fans stoned one of the Wanderers coaches.

largehat wrote:I'm on the side of the police on this issue. I think clubs should pay for policing caused by football related crowds, be it preventing or breaking up trouble or managing traffic.

In that case, to make if a fair and equal system the football clubs, for the likes of Bolton, Rovers, who are close to Constabulalry boundaries, they should be able to choose and go for the most cost-effective constabularly for the policing of football matches. (in case of Bolton they could have a choice of Lancashire, Greater Manchester or even Merseyside)

bwfc71 wrote:

In that case, to make if a fair and equal system the football clubs, for the likes of Bolton, Rovers, who are close to Constabulalry boundaries, they should be able to choose and go for the most cost-effective constabularly for the policing of football matches. (in case of Bolton they could have a choice of Lancashire, Greater Manchester or even Merseyside)

It sounds good in theory but it just would not work. Chief Constables are responsible to individual police authorities and they simply would not authorise officers from their constituency working in another other than for mutual aide like riots.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:

In that case, to make if a fair and equal system the football clubs, for the likes of Bolton, Rovers, who are close to Constabulalry boundaries, they should be able to choose and go for the most cost-effective constabularly for the policing of football matches. (in case of Bolton they could have a choice of Lancashire, Greater Manchester or even Merseyside)

It sounds good in theory but it just would not work. Chief Constables are responsible to individual police authorities and they simply would not authorise officers from their constituency working in another other than for mutual aide like riots.

Which then creates a monopoly and as such the "Chief Constables" can effectively charge whatever they want without any comeback knowing that the clubs "have" to pay! What would happen if the clubs didn't pay?

If the clubs refused to pay the wage bill to the police then the FA have the power to suspend the club. When I have a bit more time I will relate an incident that took place at United the year that Blackburn won the title.