Gritt23
New member
... under Premier League rules anyway.
I heard Barry Hearn refer to this the other day, and couldn't quite believe it, so I've checked it out myself.
Sure enough, under Premier League rules regarding "Ground Criteria", you have section:
6. In considering whether to give any such consent (to change registered ground), the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
6.1 would be consistent with the objects of the Company as set out in the Memorandum;
6.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
6.3 would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
6.4 would not have an adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
6.5 would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
6.6 would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association football generally.
Now I'm not seriously suggesting that Spurs and West Ham have their applications rejected by the Premier League, regardless of what the government and the Olympic committee say, but it does make me wonder, why on EARTH the EPL go to such lengths to produce all of these rules, when they are simply not going to adhere to half of them.
No wonder they are being looked into as being a complete sham of a governing body.
I heard Barry Hearn refer to this the other day, and couldn't quite believe it, so I've checked it out myself.
Sure enough, under Premier League rules regarding "Ground Criteria", you have section:
6. In considering whether to give any such consent (to change registered ground), the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
6.1 would be consistent with the objects of the Company as set out in the Memorandum;
6.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
6.3 would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
6.4 would not have an adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
6.5 would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
6.6 would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association football generally.
Now I'm not seriously suggesting that Spurs and West Ham have their applications rejected by the Premier League, regardless of what the government and the Olympic committee say, but it does make me wonder, why on EARTH the EPL go to such lengths to produce all of these rules, when they are simply not going to adhere to half of them.
No wonder they are being looked into as being a complete sham of a governing body.