LABOUR PLEDGE ON CLUB OWNERSHIP

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Paul - seems to me that you are a victim of the usual double standards that apply in politics - it''s ok if your side breaks election pledges ["unforeseen circumstances"? - yeah, right] but not if it''s the others. Surely the last 20+ years has shown us that Labour and Conservative are pretty much as bad as each other. But the sad fact is that the chances are we will be saddled with one or the other for donkeys years to come.[/quote]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

They do share the sleaze factor and the misuse of public money re expenses.

[/quote]

He''s right you know ''Tangie'', you are looking at this in a completely one-sided way. They''re both as bad as one another really, no real ideological battles anymore, just a load of toffs scrambling for the middle ground in the arrempt to get their noses in the trough.   

[Evil Monkey 52]

Frankly, I''d vote for Pol Pot to run the country if it made sure Cameron got nowhere near the keys to power... plastic, smug Tory boy... This election is going to be terrible.  We have to choose between a dour Scot, a Toff and someone who would probably melt with surprise if he got elected.Where''s our Obama?!

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Frankly, I''d vote for Pol Pot to run the country if it made sure Cameron got nowhere near the keys to power... plastic, smug Tory boy... This election is going to be terrible.  We have to choose between a dour Scot, a Toff and someone who would probably melt with surprise if he got elected.

Where''s our Obama?!
[/quote]

Yeah, you''re right about Cameron; just saying that in reality they''re all self-serving t***** in bed with the banking industry. And, as much as I respect Obama as a man, I think he''s still just a more palatable figurehead for almost exactly the same kind of politics in the states. Although I will say that I respect him for standing up to the redneck mafia over the social medical program.

[Webbo118 0]

They have had 13 years to do something but, for some reason, they announce it 6 weeks before the General Election. I agree that both main parties are as bad as each other (fully demonstrated by the expenses scandal). But they do say that every country gets the Government it deserves.

 

[Nuff Said 5,140]

[quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

The result of the next General Election isn''t important.  In simple terms, we''re up shit creek whover wins.

As for the proposal about football club ownership, this is just more kite flying in a feeble attempt to distract from the real issues.  2 weeks ago it was dog owners having to have insurance, last week it was cider drinkers and next week it''ll be something else that''s completely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Just how do they think that they are going to force owners to hand over what is legally theirs anyway?  The only way that this could be forced on football clubs is through UEFA, and Platini has plans of his own which would go a long way to solving the problem. 

Who reads the Guardian anyway? 

Rant over.

[/quote]Dylan, what a load of b*llocks! [:)] Are you saying the government shouldn''t deal with any issues in the UK below a certain arbitary level of importance? If government didn''t have to concern itself with the minutiae of running the country it would be a fraction of the size it is (cue a rush of Thatcher fan-boys...).Are you happy with the ease that people can get hold of dangerous dogs without being able to control them properly? Do you think selling ridiculously strong cider at discounted prices to teens is fine? The government has to react to things as they happen. Harold Macmillan said the real problem for government was "Events, dear boy, events." Unless you think the government should stop passing legislation for say six months before an election? Actually, we could extend that to five years - that might solve a few problems.And I read the Guardian too. Please don''t tell me you read the Mail or the Express? [;)]

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

The result of the next General Election isn''t important.  In simple terms, we''re up shit creek whover wins.

As for the proposal about football club ownership, this is just more kite flying in a feeble attempt to distract from the real issues.  2 weeks ago it was dog owners having to have insurance, last week it was cider drinkers and next week it''ll be something else that''s completely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Just how do they think that they are going to force owners to hand over what is legally theirs anyway?  The only way that this could be forced on football clubs is through UEFA, and Platini has plans of his own which would go a long way to solving the problem. 

Who reads the Guardian anyway? 

Rant over.

[/quote]

Dylan, what a load of b*llocks! [:)] Are you saying the government shouldn''t deal with any issues in the UK below a certain arbitary level of importance? If government didn''t have to concern itself with the minutiae of running the country it would be a fraction of the size it is (cue a rush of Thatcher fan-boys...).

Are you happy with the ease that people can get hold of dangerous dogs without being able to control them properly? Do you think selling ridiculously strong cider at discounted prices to teens is fine? The government has to react to things as they happen. Harold Macmillan said the real problem for government was "Events, dear boy, events." Unless you think the government should stop passing legislation for say six months before an election? Actually, we could extend that to five years - that might solve a few problems.

And I read the Guardian too. Please don''t tell me you read the Mail or the Express? [;)]
[/quote]

Dylan is right IMO. HMG should stop passing endless legislation and start enforcing that which is already there. That means better policing of the law as it stands. We already have laws against underage drinking and dangerous dogs, but to cover up the ineffectiveness of this government they just propose even more laws which won''t be policed.

 

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

I was rather alarmed to read the same story over breakfast at 7 this morning in the Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/matt_dickinson/article7080765.ece

The last thing we need is for the government to intervene in football. Look at how they''ve cocked up other things.

They are just trying to get a certain group of people to vote for them by jumping on the proverbial band wagon and reaching out to a concern that touchesw many people.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

I think I''ll vote for a hung parliament.

That''s probably the best type.

Concentrates minds splendidly.

[:D]

OTBC  

 

[Mike Reynolds Trust Secretary 0]

No comment on the politics of the situation but a couple of years ago Andy Burnham, the then Culture Secretary, wrote to the Premier League, Football League and the FA with seven questions the Government wanted answers to which included the role of football clubs in the community so it has been part of this Governments thinking.

I suspect the increasing influence of supporters trusts at some ailing clubs has brought the issue to the for (as well as an upcoming General Election.

Those of us who believe in the supporters trust concept eagerly await the views and actions of whoever wins on May 6th.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?

[7rew 0]

It was her.

Surely we all have to vote either yellow or green anyway?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]

Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?
[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[Crafty Canary 495]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]I think you''ll find it was UEFA that banned English clubs following the Heysel Stadium disaster. I don''t think the magnificnt Maggie''s power stretched to telling UEFA what to do.

[Crafty Canary 495]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[/quote]UEFA banned ALL English clubs fro European competition that they had jurisdinction over for a period of 4 years if I remember rightly. This meant that clubs who had yet to qualify for Europe in futre seasons were banned when they did qualify. maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]

Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?
[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[/quote]

UEFA banned ALL English clubs fro European competition that they had jurisdinction over for a period of 4 years if I remember rightly. This meant that clubs who had yet to qualify for Europe in futre seasons were banned when they did qualify. maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.
[/quote]

Now then Crafty - It would be better if you had a good memory if you want to rewrite history because your Magnificent Maggie didn''t even consult with the FA of EUFA, she just decreed that she was withdrawing our clubs from Europe and demanded that the FA should do it. The EUFA ban came later and Thatchers earlier actions made it impossible for innocent clubs like Norwich to be treated fairly. Did the WC not teach you to check out your facts, especially as the memory plays tricks as you get older.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4400953.stm

 

[Simon Lappin, King Of Spain 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

The result of the next General Election isn''t important.  In simple terms, we''re up shit creek whover wins.

As for the proposal about football club ownership, this is just more kite flying in a feeble attempt to distract from the real issues.  2 weeks ago it was dog owners having to have insurance, last week it was cider drinkers and next week it''ll be something else that''s completely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Just how do they think that they are going to force owners to hand over what is legally theirs anyway?  The only way that this could be forced on football clubs is through UEFA, and Platini has plans of his own which would go a long way to solving the problem. 

Who reads the Guardian anyway? 

Rant over.

[/quote]

Dylan, what a load of b*llocks! [:)] Are you saying the government shouldn''t deal with any issues in the UK below a certain arbitary level of importance? If government didn''t have to concern itself with the minutiae of running the country it would be a fraction of the size it is (cue a rush of Thatcher fan-boys...).

Are you happy with the ease that people can get hold of dangerous dogs without being able to control them properly? Do you think selling ridiculously strong cider at discounted prices to teens is fine? The government has to react to things as they happen. Harold Macmillan said the real problem for government was "Events, dear boy, events." Unless you think the government should stop passing legislation for say six months before an election? Actually, we could extend that to five years - that might solve a few problems.

And I read the Guardian too. Please don''t tell me you read the Mail or the Express? [;)]
[/quote]

The Government is dammned if they do dammned if they don''t act in situations such as you describe, if they do act then the right wing rags will castigate them for destroying the civil liberties which they claim to care about so much and if they don''t then they''ll be accused of being bleeding heart liberals unable to enforce law and order. It''s the typical hypocrisy of the right when criticising the left.

What is more worrying are laws such as those contained in the Serious Organised Crime act etc which give the police alarming powers to act in ways which prevent protest and freedom of speech, but does anyone truly believe that given the events of the past 10 years the Tories would have acted in a more moderate sensible manner??? Of course not, you are delusional in the extreme if you think they would''ve. I''m not for a second suggesting that this government has acted in the appropriate manner in passing these and many other laws, it''s just that i can only see that things would have been 100 times worse with the tories at the helm. At least Labour has a vocal back bench which at least purports to stand up for the traditional egalitarian values of the party and attmepts to keep the excesses of the Blairite/Brownite wings of the party in check to a certain extent.

Another liberal Guardian reader here; ready to sell this country to those horrible illegal muslimist terrorist peadophiles, they want our jobs, our benefits, our women, our children and our free health care, disgusting isn''t it???

Surely nobody below the age of 70 reads the Express???

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="crafty canary"]maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.[/quote]I''d argue "maggie was magnificent" is inventing history.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]

Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?
[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[/quote]

UEFA banned ALL English clubs fro European competition that they had jurisdinction over for a period of 4 years if I remember rightly. This meant that clubs who had yet to qualify for Europe in futre seasons were banned when they did qualify. maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.
[/quote]

Now then Crafty - It would be better if you had a good memory if you want to rewrite history because your Magnificent Maggie didn''t even consult with the FA of EUFA, she just decreed that she was withdrawing our clubs from Europe and demanded that the FA should do it. The EUFA ban came later and Thatchers earlier actions made it impossible for innocent clubs like Norwich to be treated fairly. Did the WC not teach you to check out your facts, especially as the memory plays tricks as you get older.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4400953.stm

[/quote]

Except for yours of course.

[:S]

OTBC

 

 

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="dylanisabaddog"]

The result of the next General Election isn''t important.  In simple terms, we''re up shit creek whover wins.

As for the proposal about football club ownership, this is just more kite flying in a feeble attempt to distract from the real issues.  2 weeks ago it was dog owners having to have insurance, last week it was cider drinkers and next week it''ll be something else that''s completely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Just how do they think that they are going to force owners to hand over what is legally theirs anyway?  The only way that this could be forced on football clubs is through UEFA, and Platini has plans of his own which would go a long way to solving the problem. 

Who reads the Guardian anyway? 

Rant over.

[/quote]Dylan, what a load of b*llocks! [:)] Are you saying the government shouldn''t deal with any issues in the UK below a certain arbitary level of importance? If government didn''t have to concern itself with the minutiae of running the country it would be a fraction of the size it is (cue a rush of Thatcher fan-boys...).Are you happy with the ease that people can get hold of dangerous dogs without being able to control them properly? Do you think selling ridiculously strong cider at discounted prices to teens is fine? The government has to react to things as they happen. Harold Macmillan said the real problem for government was "Events, dear boy, events." Unless you think the government should stop passing legislation for say six months before an election? Actually, we could extend that to five years - that might solve a few problems.And I read the Guardian too. Please don''t tell me you read the Mail or the Express? [;)][/quote]I read The Times.Do you seriously believe that people who own dangerous dogs will rush to Aviva for insurance?  Of course not - they won''t take any notice whatsoever.  Selling strong cider to teenagers isn''t a good thing, but putting 10p on the price will make no difference.Of course governments have to react to events but dangerous dogs and strong cider have been a problem for years but we only see any action when an election is looming.The current Government is just doing what failing Governments have always done - look for cheap populist issues in the lead up to an election in the hope that it diverts attention from important issues like the economy, the NHS, education etc etcDo any of you really think that this or any other Government gives a damn about football?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]

Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?
[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[/quote]

UEFA banned ALL English clubs fro European competition that they had jurisdinction over for a period of 4 years if I remember rightly. This meant that clubs who had yet to qualify for Europe in futre seasons were banned when they did qualify. maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.
[/quote]

Now then Crafty - It would be better if you had a good memory if you want to rewrite history because your Magnificent Maggie didn''t even consult with the FA of EUFA, she just decreed that she was withdrawing our clubs from Europe and demanded that the FA should do it. The EUFA ban came later and Thatchers earlier actions made it impossible for innocent clubs like Norwich to be treated fairly. Did the WC not teach you to check out your facts, especially as the memory plays tricks as you get older.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4400953.stm

[/quote]

Except for yours of course.

[:S]

OTBC

[/quote]

I dare say mine does too but I''m sure you can correct me if I make a slip[:S]

What are your memories of 25 years ago? Did you enjoy the Milk Cup win when they reported it on The World Service[:^)]

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

But can you remember a Conservative government wanting to meddle in peoples lives as this labour government is doing?

[/quote]

I can remember a Conservative Prime Minister who meddled in my life and banned my club from Europe without consulting anyone.[:|]

But she did buy her knickers in Marks & Spencers...

allegedly[:O]

 

[/quote]

Was that her ?  Or UEFA ?
[/quote]

It was her[:@] As far as I remember she didn''t consult with anyone!

What possible reason would UEFA have for banning Norwich from Europe?

 

[/quote]

UEFA banned ALL English clubs fro European competition that they had jurisdinction over for a period of 4 years if I remember rightly. This meant that clubs who had yet to qualify for Europe in futre seasons were banned when they did qualify. maggie was magnificent but even she didn''t pretend to see into the future to pick on clubs. You really shouldn''t invent history just because byou don''t like someone. It''s a trick beloved of Binners.
[/quote]

Now then Crafty - It would be better if you had a good memory if you want to rewrite history because your Magnificent Maggie didn''t even consult with the FA of EUFA, she just decreed that she was withdrawing our clubs from Europe and demanded that the FA should do it. The EUFA ban came later and Thatchers earlier actions made it impossible for innocent clubs like Norwich to be treated fairly. Did the WC not teach you to check out your facts, especially as the memory plays tricks as you get older.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4400953.stm

[/quote]

Except for yours of course.

[:S]

OTBC

[/quote]

I dare say mine does too but I''m sure you can correct me if I make a slip[:S]

What are your memories of 25 years ago? Did you enjoy the Milk Cup win when they reported it on The World Service[:^)]

[/quote]

I saw it in live and living colour via satellite dish right here where I live for most of the year.

Next.

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Must''ve been rivetting old boy[|-)]

Next?

What about the ''73 & ''75 versions?

Oh and how''s your memory on why Norwich were withdrawn from our first European Campaign after deservedly qualifying by winning the Friendly Final?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Must''ve been rivetting old boy[|-)]

Next?

What about the ''73 & ''75 versions?

Oh and how''s your memory on why Norwich were withdrawn from our first European Campaign after deservedly qualifying by winning the Friendly Final?

[/quote]

[|-)]

My turn.

In your experience who do you think was our most effective winger in the 1958-60 era? Errol Crossan or Bobby Brennan? Justify your choice.

OTBC 

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Must''ve been rivetting old boy[|-)]

Next?

What about the ''73 & ''75 versions?

Oh and how''s your memory on why Norwich were withdrawn from our first European Campaign after deservedly qualifying by winning the Friendly Final?

[/quote]

[|-)]

My turn.

In your experience who do you think was our most effective winger in the 1958-60 era? Errol Crossan or Bobby Brennan? Justify your choice.

OTBC 

 

[/quote]

People tell me Bobby Brennan. As one of those people was someone I trusted that''s my justification. If you said Crossan it would nail it though.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Oh and how''s your memory on why Norwich were withdrawn from our first European Campaign after deservedly qualifying by winning the Friendly Final?

 

[/quote]Mines pretty  good on this actually and as I remember Maggie''s intent was to bring forward an FA meeting scheduled for 21st June 1985 and force them to agree to a unilateral withdrawal of British Clubs from European competition BEFORE we were banned. Sadly UEFA thwarted Maggies plans by banning British clubs with effect from the 2nd June 1985 ie before the re-arranged FA meeting. The UEFA ban ran to five years for all clubs except Liverpool who endured an extra years ban.Maggie did not withdraw us she tried it to ensure we wouldn''t get banned but could instead (ourselves) choose an arbitary length of time in which to keep out of European competition, UEFA and then FIFA beat her to it. TBH they had been waiting since that night a decade earlier when newly appointed or was it self appointed "Champions of Europe" Leeds''s fans ripped Paris apart.Still had Nu Labor been around then we wouldn''t have seen such drastic and immediate action as that attempted by Maggie but instead  some time in the  early 1990''s the specially appointed committe would have revealed their findings which at a cost of several billions to the public purse would have found that Heysel didn''t happen at all and we were not guilty of anything and thus we shouldn''t withdraw from European football.[:S]

As to the OP''s post: At least while Nu Labor were dreaming up this load of electioneering tosh they were keeping their noses out the trough for a few minutes and not passing any more crass, poorly debated, poorly drafted civilian control statutes and for that brief break I for one am grateful. 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Interesting Buckethead. Because as I remember it Thatcher came out almost immediately after Heysel and ordered the FA to withdraw our clubs from Europe. Whether the FA had met or not was irrelevant. There was only going to be one outcome after Thatcher''s "ordered them". And this was before the Eufa ban happened in June. Now party politics doesn''t really come into this. Thatcher''s knee jerk reaction meant that there was no room for manoeuvre. Don''t get me wrong, I''m not condoning what happened but for her to react so quickly against all English Clubs was unfair. The only way that knee jerk action could have been fair would be if she had ordered the FA to withdraw Liverpool from Europe.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Interesting Buckethead. Because as I remember it Thatcher came out almost immediately after Heysel and ordered the FA to withdraw our clubs from Europe. Whether the FA had met or not was irrelevant. There was only going to be one outcome after Thatcher''s "ordered them". And this was before the Eufa ban happened in June. Now party politics doesn''t really come into this. Thatcher''s knee jerk reaction meant that there was no room for manoeuvre. Don''t get me wrong, I''m not condoning what happened but for her to react so quickly against all English Clubs was unfair. The only way that knee jerk action could have been fair would be if she had ordered the FA to withdraw Liverpool from Europe.

[/quote]

As far as I understand it the PM/Government has/have no power to order the FA to do any such thing outside of a declared state of war or national emergency.

And if the FA did obey an illegal order issued formally by the British government they would in all likelihood have been suspended from UEFA or FIFA until the matter was resolved to the latters satisfaction. One practical result of this would have been that all England representative teams would also have been banned from international competition for the duration of the dispute.

World sporting bodies as a whole do not take kindly at all to national govrnments interfering (or attempting to interfere) in their business - and very rightly so.

Of course, I could be wrong.

OTBC

 

 

 

 

[Crafty Canary 495]

Maggie the Magnificent had no power to force the FA to act. Indeed under FIFA regulations, Governments that try to force action on national FAs will result in those FAs being suspended from FIFA and thus become ineligible for all FIFA regulated competitions such as the World Cup. Never mind, Nutty - better luck next time as us WC old boys would say!

[nutty nigel 7,534]

I doubt any National Association in any field would act against the PM''s wishes after a public statement like that. Whether she had the power to do it or not she compromised their position. If you don''t believe this then maybe you could explain to me how Norwich were banned from Europe. Because with any backing from the FA Eufa''s ban on us would have been overturned.

Crafty - if the guy 5 doors down the road from you is banned from his local pub for fighting would the landlord be justified in banning the whole street? You''d go right into one[:@] if the Lord Mayor then decreed that the whole street should be banned even though he didn''t have the power to do so[B]