Rhodri taunts MP Nia Griffith over 'Damascus-like U-turn'

South Wales Guardian: CHALLENGE: AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas. CHALLENGE: AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas.

AM RHODRI Glyn Thomas has challenged Llanelli MP Nia Griffith to convince her own Labour party colleagues to reconsider Carmarthenshire County Council's controversial proposed hikes in sports fees.

Ms Griffith attacked the proposals last week, claiming they looked like: "they have just been generated and spat out of a computer", while maintaining there had been little consultation with sports clubs.

Commenting on the Labour MP's "Damascus-like U-turn", Mr Thomas said the onus was on Labour councillors to change their minds.

“Plaid Cymru welcomes the Damascus-like U-turn from Nia Griffith who has, in the last two weeks, been a strong critic of the way in which her Labour party colleagues are running the county council," he added.

“We welcome the position she is taking on the sports fee hikes, but she is doing the Carmarthenshire electorate a disservice by intentionally ignoring the fact that it is her party which is introducing these ridiculous charges.

“Nia Griffith’s sudden conversion to supporting the common sense argument against these crippling charges looks suspiciously like a way to try and mask the fact that Labour councillors last week approved millions of pounds worth of cuts to Carmarthenshire’s public services.

“She must remember that it was not the 74 councillors who took the decision to increase sports charges – it was the 10 members of the Council’s Executive Board which her Labour party controls.

“If Nia Griffith is genuinely concerned by the way in which the council is consulting and introducing outlandish charges which will decimate grass roots sports perhaps she can tell Carmarthenshire residents where she stands on Plaid Cymru’s motions of no confidence in the council leadership.

“Rather than shouting from the sidelines, Nia Grffith would do better to convince her own Labour party colleagues to not introduce their proposed charges."

Meanwhile, Mr Thomas and fellow Plaid AM Simon Thomas have tabled a statement of opinion in the National Assembly calling on the county council's Executive Board to rethink their proposals.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk says...

my two cents worth.. without oing into too much detail, it really does cost money to maintain one pitch from pre-season to end of season, with lottle maintanence in the winter months due to grass doesn't grow but other things occur.. anyway, a pitch should take around an hour and 15 to mow, and costs the labour charge plus machinery use, fuel and oil and transportation. if a council is charging £25, that sounds about right. a pitch should be cut once a fortnight in growing season, which should make it 12 cuts. so you're looking at £300. add on the other things like fertilising £15+ a bag, topdressing, maybe some sand (£25 a ton). maybe some drainage treatment, aerating a pitch is around an hour or two a time. plus things like line marking and it all mounts up over a season. £500 a season for maintancence isn't exactly the best of things but will do as basic. divide that by the number of home games which vary because of cup competitions, and works out £26 a game plus your ground rent (and changing rooms on top). next season's £75 sounds about right. what i cannot fathom is £235 for football, but it can make sense if the deficit is spread equally over all the clubs, even if they have no maintanence.

the most i can come up with is £150, so where the exess £85 goes to is anyone's guess. but the secret of the situation is in the labour charge itself. it is quite a skilled job, a £25 an hour cut means a labour charge of £12.
if any council charges more than £25 for cutting is problematic. that is what a private contractor will charge if asset transfer goes through. and they could even charge more. there are a lot of overheads in the system, and put it bluntly, there is not a lot of money to be made on £25 an hour.. i understand another council charges £37 for half an hour which is astronomic.

the figures aren't churned out at random as such.
just the same for cricket, i haven't a clue how £590 has been achieved, but i can come up with £300. not forgetting a cricket pitch is approx one and a half times the size of a football pitch, there is work to do on the square, rolling, repairing, a closer hand mowed cut. things like the kitchen hire is on top of the changing rooms, and it all adds up. bowls is 40 yards by 40 yards, much smaller than a football pitch but with different type of cutting, time consuming, and more skilled, grass treatment etc etc

this really has caught everyone, and it is shocking and doesn't really give much time for clubs to organise. if the deficit could be spread over 6 years rather than 3 may be useful and give breathing space.

end of the day, if asset transfer is taken, all they will be doing is what the council already do. as for grants available what the council cannot access, this seems strange, if anyone takes time to look what is available from sportswales lotto, amd maybe nobody can get any assistance at all.

the council will still cut the grass after transfer for a fee. or the council can tender it out, or the club can find their own contractor.. or do it themselves, whih is easier said than done. machinery is needed. and they still will have to pay someone to operate the tractor and the mower, and maintain the machinery on top. council has an advantage in bulk buying and storage, a collective of clubs won't have the same privilege.

sourcing the materials such as sand and fertiliser is the easy part, storing materials and equipment is the harder part. and even if they do it themselves, they could pay out more for machinery hire.

all is well when two clubs could share machinery, and would mean other clubs some distance away won't be able to access. but there is nothing stopping a club from cutting someone elses grass for a fee, as long as the logistics and equipment are there.

to make an ok living out of groundsman, £40 an hour seems to be the norm by the time they factor in all the costs, logistics, storage, vat, tax, machinery, trailer, van, materials, machinery maintanence, and after all that, the labour cost still will be around £10 - £12 an hour. the shorter they travel, the cheaper it gets. the faster the contractor works, the more money they make, and that could mean cutting a corner or two, little tricks like driving mower at 8mph rather than 6mph for a better cut.

pitch sharing isn't really an option as a pitch needs to recover after a game, the more games played on it in a week (reserves and firsts, the more wear and maintanence needed) especially in the winter months.
in the armer months it won't be so bad, and could save on a few cuts on the unplayed pitch. BUT, when an unplayed pitch isn't cut for a while, it would be harder to get it right later when needed, so may as well keep cutting the unplayed pitch and don't play on it and save on the rent. when a first pitch is used, 1sts and reserves could share on that in the warmer months as the cutting period allows two games to be played, but the reserves will pay rent on this instead of the other unplayed, and down to the mercy of the fixture list.

"if " there is an answer, it's in the council's labour charges and the executive to see if something can be done on their side. but this is happening all over the uk when grant funding is being cut from central gov.

controversially, a club could find a way however unlikely. the players subs will have to go up from tthe current £4 up to £12, entrance fees go up, advertising and sponsorship to go up.. these are the things the council wants them to do. all is well in theory, in practice it is a different scenario, some clubs don't have a club or a pub base so they can raise funds such as concert, live bands, dances.

how would a council expect a very small club too finance things when they want them to do their own maintanence? it costs anything over £4,000 for a small decent mower, or £10,000 for a brand new trople mower which is really needed for cricket and fottball pitches.

where is the level playing field? i can't see one, it's an illusion
my two cents worth.. without oing into too much detail, it really does cost money to maintain one pitch from pre-season to end of season, with lottle maintanence in the winter months due to grass doesn't grow but other things occur.. anyway, a pitch should take around an hour and 15 to mow, and costs the labour charge plus machinery use, fuel and oil and transportation. if a council is charging £25, that sounds about right. a pitch should be cut once a fortnight in growing season, which should make it 12 cuts. so you're looking at £300. add on the other things like fertilising £15+ a bag, topdressing, maybe some sand (£25 a ton). maybe some drainage treatment, aerating a pitch is around an hour or two a time. plus things like line marking and it all mounts up over a season. £500 a season for maintancence isn't exactly the best of things but will do as basic. divide that by the number of home games which vary because of cup competitions, and works out £26 a game plus your ground rent (and changing rooms on top). next season's £75 sounds about right. what i cannot fathom is £235 for football, but it can make sense if the deficit is spread equally over all the clubs, even if they have no maintanence. the most i can come up with is £150, so where the exess £85 goes to is anyone's guess. but the secret of the situation is in the labour charge itself. it is quite a skilled job, a £25 an hour cut means a labour charge of £12. if any council charges more than £25 for cutting is problematic. that is what a private contractor will charge if asset transfer goes through. and they could even charge more. there are a lot of overheads in the system, and put it bluntly, there is not a lot of money to be made on £25 an hour.. i understand another council charges £37 for half an hour which is astronomic. the figures aren't churned out at random as such. just the same for cricket, i haven't a clue how £590 has been achieved, but i can come up with £300. not forgetting a cricket pitch is approx one and a half times the size of a football pitch, there is work to do on the square, rolling, repairing, a closer hand mowed cut. things like the kitchen hire is on top of the changing rooms, and it all adds up. bowls is 40 yards by 40 yards, much smaller than a football pitch but with different type of cutting, time consuming, and more skilled, grass treatment etc etc this really has caught everyone, and it is shocking and doesn't really give much time for clubs to organise. if the deficit could be spread over 6 years rather than 3 may be useful and give breathing space. end of the day, if asset transfer is taken, all they will be doing is what the council already do. as for grants available what the council cannot access, this seems strange, if anyone takes time to look what is available from sportswales lotto, amd maybe nobody can get any assistance at all. the council will still cut the grass after transfer for a fee. or the council can tender it out, or the club can find their own contractor.. or do it themselves, whih is easier said than done. machinery is needed. and they still will have to pay someone to operate the tractor and the mower, and maintain the machinery on top. council has an advantage in bulk buying and storage, a collective of clubs won't have the same privilege. sourcing the materials such as sand and fertiliser is the easy part, storing materials and equipment is the harder part. and even if they do it themselves, they could pay out more for machinery hire. all is well when two clubs could share machinery, and would mean other clubs some distance away won't be able to access. but there is nothing stopping a club from cutting someone elses grass for a fee, as long as the logistics and equipment are there. to make an ok living out of groundsman, £40 an hour seems to be the norm by the time they factor in all the costs, logistics, storage, vat, tax, machinery, trailer, van, materials, machinery maintanence, and after all that, the labour cost still will be around £10 - £12 an hour. the shorter they travel, the cheaper it gets. the faster the contractor works, the more money they make, and that could mean cutting a corner or two, little tricks like driving mower at 8mph rather than 6mph for a better cut. pitch sharing isn't really an option as a pitch needs to recover after a game, the more games played on it in a week (reserves and firsts, the more wear and maintanence needed) especially in the winter months. in the armer months it won't be so bad, and could save on a few cuts on the unplayed pitch. BUT, when an unplayed pitch isn't cut for a while, it would be harder to get it right later when needed, so may as well keep cutting the unplayed pitch and don't play on it and save on the rent. when a first pitch is used, 1sts and reserves could share on that in the warmer months as the cutting period allows two games to be played, but the reserves will pay rent on this instead of the other unplayed, and down to the mercy of the fixture list. "if " there is an answer, it's in the council's labour charges and the executive to see if something can be done on their side. but this is happening all over the uk when grant funding is being cut from central gov. controversially, a club could find a way however unlikely. the players subs will have to go up from tthe current £4 up to £12, entrance fees go up, advertising and sponsorship to go up.. these are the things the council wants them to do. all is well in theory, in practice it is a different scenario, some clubs don't have a club or a pub base so they can raise funds such as concert, live bands, dances. how would a council expect a very small club too finance things when they want them to do their own maintanence? it costs anything over £4,000 for a small decent mower, or £10,000 for a brand new trople mower which is really needed for cricket and fottball pitches. where is the level playing field? i can't see one, it's an illusion someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
  • Score: 1

2:51pm Mon 24 Feb 14

someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk says...

the £235 is approx, and as i mentioned eariler, that cost can be lower.. if all the clubs stick to this pricing band, the deficit will be neutralised, but by that time comes, some changing rooms etc would have worn down more by then, and the cycle starts all over again. so the clubs still have to do their own maintaining after 2017. but a future uk government could reinstate the grant status.

people in carmarthenshire asking why is the llanelli scarlets being 'subsidised', why is garnat golf club being subsidised. or why is the ski slope in pembrey park being subsidised. which seems to be to the tune of over £250,000 a year, and even they maybe having their's cut in 2017.
it seems like a bit of both worlds, municipal and private but costly at £60 a time. comparing that to ten pin bowling in carmarthen which is private hands. it could well be in the case of football, rugby, bowls and cricket is privatising the municipality function up to a point. or offloading the council maintanence onto someone else.

has the council accidentally contributed to the problem with high charges? or just one of those things.
of they charge £25 an hour for grass cutting and the labour rate is £15, it could be done for £12, saving £3.

another way of looking at it is, if £25 an hour is charged, and the groundsman is there for say two hours, the scale of the hourly rate comes down because in the initial £25 it includes the travel time, fuel etc, there is no travel time for the other one. and a private contractor will have to price it the same way.

all the clubs will be at the mercy of the council or the contractor.
which means that if a club takes on asset transfer, the guy at the council hasn't got a job to do.

this is why it costs money to cut the grass at a golf club, the machinery and the labour cost. all is fine cutting the fairway at £8 an hour, most of a week is taken up doing this and the greens, but the green is more intricate. by the time they finiished 18 holes in the growing season, it starts all over again. maintaining the grass is one thing, maintaining the greens is another. cutting fairways for minimum wage and a higher rate for greens works out around £10 combined. a greenkeeper cannot operate on £6.30 an hour. then again, there is a national body for greenkeepers which recommends £16 an hour labour. down to politics again.

even a premier league groundsman isn't on high wages. junior groundsman around £7 an hour and groundsman on £12 which suprised me, as they were on low wages even back in the 80's. it's all to do with labour costs end of the day, and even though the league clubs can afford the equipment, they are operating on a tight budget themselves and haven't got a bottomless money pit. other non league clubs operate on a voluntary basis, some just have the single one groundsman and his job is never ending.

most clubs, prem league or non league cut their pitch, or should i say trim every two to three days with a handmower or a wide cylinder mower, what do we get? council once every two weeks.

besides the obvious, clubs who do theirs every three days, that money is taken out from a budget made up of attendance fees etc/sponsor.
how is a level playing field achieved when there is a crowd of 5 or 6 for a home reserves match on a wet november afternoon.
there is absolutely no chance at all for a reserve team or a thirds team to generate an income that will pay the " £235 ".

a ground rent is around £23, grass cuttting maintanence around £26 and changing room hire on top. players subs pay for two things, the ground rent and/or the use if changing rooms even if the club 'owns' it. the water has to be paid for, someone has to clean up, open and close the changing rooms, boler maintanence. and maybe a shower needs fixing now and then. it all adds up.

there was a time when you were rewarded or a privilege for playing for your town or village, now it's all pay as you play.

roughly it costs around £4.25 per household per year to subsidise. not too bad in the grand scheme of things, even if this was added nto the council tax bill. the council's arguement is that £77,000 is generated in clubs incomes and leaves a shortfall if just over £250,000 in the budget, and they want the black hole filled.

it could be argued why is cricket cheaper per match when there is more grass cutting compared to football. it's an unfortunate side effect whatever sport is played, something needs maintaining now and then, and the nature of sport is to provide a playable surface.

it could be argued that 3g pitches are the answer. all seems fine when looking at figures and proections, but very expensive. for a 3g pitch itself is around £200,000+ plus £200,000 instaltion and with a lifespan of 10 - 14 years, and based on grant match funding (60/40 ratio). and who's going to pay for a new pitch when it wears out? if they can't get a new grant in 10 years or whenever, they would be stuffed. and they will need to rent it out to the community £60 an hour twice a day for ten years to generate income. their choice would be either get a new one, dig up the 3g and move it to a location where it can be used as a training pitch. and cost £100,000 to go back to grass. plus it costs a lot of money to maintain it every fortnight but that could be absorbed by sharing it with reserves etc, so one team can be looking at £100+ a time or £33+ per match if shared with 3 teams, and a 3g is only useful when it rains and saves when a match gets cancelled due to a waterlogged grass pitch.

everyone is caught by suprise because this hasn't been faced before, not on this scale. everyone has had some sort of a hiccup in the past regarding funding of some sort, but this is a precident.

maybe, the clubs who didn't ask for a subsidy are biting their lip, who are the clubs in carmarthenshire? maybe they do their own cutting but the changing room is old and can't get a grant, so that gets thrown into the official figures, and maybe in 3 years time their changing rooms need upgrading. some clubs have a pitch close by to someone who happens to have a sitdown mower and doesn't have far to go, and saves the council that way. some do it for nothing, but when that machine wears out, i don't imagine him being very happy. then again, a decent sitdown costs around £4,000 and lasts twenty years+ when used on the odd occasion.. using a sitdown mower day in day out 30 hours a week for ten months has around a two year lifespan but could last longer when well maintained by a mechanic, and quite a few things can go wrong with a sitdown or a triple mower.
the £235 is approx, and as i mentioned eariler, that cost can be lower.. if all the clubs stick to this pricing band, the deficit will be neutralised, but by that time comes, some changing rooms etc would have worn down more by then, and the cycle starts all over again. so the clubs still have to do their own maintaining after 2017. but a future uk government could reinstate the grant status. people in carmarthenshire asking why is the llanelli scarlets being 'subsidised', why is garnat golf club being subsidised. or why is the ski slope in pembrey park being subsidised. which seems to be to the tune of over £250,000 a year, and even they maybe having their's cut in 2017. it seems like a bit of both worlds, municipal and private but costly at £60 a time. comparing that to ten pin bowling in carmarthen which is private hands. it could well be in the case of football, rugby, bowls and cricket is privatising the municipality function up to a point. or offloading the council maintanence onto someone else. has the council accidentally contributed to the problem with high charges? or just one of those things. of they charge £25 an hour for grass cutting and the labour rate is £15, it could be done for £12, saving £3. another way of looking at it is, if £25 an hour is charged, and the groundsman is there for say two hours, the scale of the hourly rate comes down because in the initial £25 it includes the travel time, fuel etc, there is no travel time for the other one. and a private contractor will have to price it the same way. all the clubs will be at the mercy of the council or the contractor. which means that if a club takes on asset transfer, the guy at the council hasn't got a job to do. this is why it costs money to cut the grass at a golf club, the machinery and the labour cost. all is fine cutting the fairway at £8 an hour, most of a week is taken up doing this and the greens, but the green is more intricate. by the time they finiished 18 holes in the growing season, it starts all over again. maintaining the grass is one thing, maintaining the greens is another. cutting fairways for minimum wage and a higher rate for greens works out around £10 combined. a greenkeeper cannot operate on £6.30 an hour. then again, there is a national body for greenkeepers which recommends £16 an hour labour. down to politics again. even a premier league groundsman isn't on high wages. junior groundsman around £7 an hour and groundsman on £12 which suprised me, as they were on low wages even back in the 80's. it's all to do with labour costs end of the day, and even though the league clubs can afford the equipment, they are operating on a tight budget themselves and haven't got a bottomless money pit. other non league clubs operate on a voluntary basis, some just have the single one groundsman and his job is never ending. most clubs, prem league or non league cut their pitch, or should i say trim every two to three days with a handmower or a wide cylinder mower, what do we get? council once every two weeks. besides the obvious, clubs who do theirs every three days, that money is taken out from a budget made up of attendance fees etc/sponsor. how is a level playing field achieved when there is a crowd of 5 or 6 for a home reserves match on a wet november afternoon. there is absolutely no chance at all for a reserve team or a thirds team to generate an income that will pay the " £235 ". a ground rent is around £23, grass cuttting maintanence around £26 and changing room hire on top. players subs pay for two things, the ground rent and/or the use if changing rooms even if the club 'owns' it. the water has to be paid for, someone has to clean up, open and close the changing rooms, boler maintanence. and maybe a shower needs fixing now and then. it all adds up. there was a time when you were rewarded or a privilege for playing for your town or village, now it's all pay as you play. roughly it costs around £4.25 per household per year to subsidise. not too bad in the grand scheme of things, even if this was added nto the council tax bill. the council's arguement is that £77,000 is generated in clubs incomes and leaves a shortfall if just over £250,000 in the budget, and they want the black hole filled. it could be argued why is cricket cheaper per match when there is more grass cutting compared to football. it's an unfortunate side effect whatever sport is played, something needs maintaining now and then, and the nature of sport is to provide a playable surface. it could be argued that 3g pitches are the answer. all seems fine when looking at figures and proections, but very expensive. for a 3g pitch itself is around £200,000+ plus £200,000 instaltion and with a lifespan of 10 - 14 years, and based on grant match funding (60/40 ratio). and who's going to pay for a new pitch when it wears out? if they can't get a new grant in 10 years or whenever, they would be stuffed. and they will need to rent it out to the community £60 an hour twice a day for ten years to generate income. their choice would be either get a new one, dig up the 3g and move it to a location where it can be used as a training pitch. and cost £100,000 to go back to grass. plus it costs a lot of money to maintain it every fortnight but that could be absorbed by sharing it with reserves etc, so one team can be looking at £100+ a time or £33+ per match if shared with 3 teams, and a 3g is only useful when it rains and saves when a match gets cancelled due to a waterlogged grass pitch. everyone is caught by suprise because this hasn't been faced before, not on this scale. everyone has had some sort of a hiccup in the past regarding funding of some sort, but this is a precident. maybe, the clubs who didn't ask for a subsidy are biting their lip, who are the clubs in carmarthenshire? maybe they do their own cutting but the changing room is old and can't get a grant, so that gets thrown into the official figures, and maybe in 3 years time their changing rooms need upgrading. some clubs have a pitch close by to someone who happens to have a sitdown mower and doesn't have far to go, and saves the council that way. some do it for nothing, but when that machine wears out, i don't imagine him being very happy. then again, a decent sitdown costs around £4,000 and lasts twenty years+ when used on the odd occasion.. using a sitdown mower day in day out 30 hours a week for ten months has around a two year lifespan but could last longer when well maintained by a mechanic, and quite a few things can go wrong with a sitdown or a triple mower. someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Mon 24 Feb 14

someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk says...

what would plaid do? what would labour do? what can anyone do when this has been thrust upon everyone.
playing politics on this issue is causing confusion at a difficult time and an impossible time.

if anything, the bowls and cricket 2014-15 season isn't that far away, the first new charges are being brought in for the 2014-5 tax year and they have less time to play with.

it's a pity the land transfer doesn't take place during asset transfer, as that would save all teams from paying rent, and that figure can be passed on in maintanence savings... the clubs still will be paying for leasing the pitches that amounts to around £23 a game per pitch. some boroughs charge more.

end of the day, to avoid the £235 per match, a club has to do transfer the asset. if a club only has the grass cut and nothing else, then the most they should pay is £75, and that runs the risk of deterioration of the pitch by not having it aerated. but because some clubs have had a subsidy, if they stay with the council, then they are paying it back.

But what if a club stays with the council and agrees not to have anything else done except cutting? they should really be paying the £75 and no more, even in 2017. or £49 if they do it themselves. then again, a council could up the rent to balance their books that way.

as things look, they have to pay back the deficit if they stay whatever they do. it works out around £4,200 per club on avergae, but that does not mean all received the same amout. one club may have had £1,000 and the other £7,400

and as things stand, if the £235 still exists in 2016-17, a club who is presently making a £100 profit now (which is an achievement) will become 'bankrupt' in 2016 anyway whether with the council or not.

a club with a charitable status cannot keep a profit anyway so whatever they generate will be spent on maintanence and equipment.
the lower end teams will suffer no doubt who basically survive on wits and spare cash, who are struggling to pay £50 never mind £100.

which leaves the question of maintanence. how much are the pitches actually getting. with cricket, a general rule if thumb for a maintanence budget is £2000 a year, anything less and asking for trouble.
football is variable, i cannot leave a pitch untreated for one season as weeds start to form, and the following season it'll be infested, especially if dandelions take hold, and spend more time and effort correcting than i saved by not doing it.

could weeds be combated by doing it by hand? how long is a piece of string? could spend more time in paying someone doing it by hand than it costs in weedkiller. then again,m small amounts of weed can escape a liquid but would be benficial to do extremely low amounts by hand. moss and thatch is a different story and could spend £1200 with sand, and £83 when distributed amongst the number of matches. reality is, the sand has a purpose off season as well but that's the most obvious point of payment source. na dby the time they factor that in, it'll cost £158 a match. but when the pitch is improving and established, the cost comes down for the next season as it wouldn't have to be done again. in theory the £1200 cost could be spread over 3 years, so the price of a match can come down to £102. other jobs such as dragmatting adds on, bringing up the cost to £127 or £183

maybe this is the price being paid now that pitches haven't been worked on as much during the past. if i was being charged £235 for a pitch, i would expect that to be absolutely top quality. £150 would be a very good pitch. £100 good, £75 anyones guess from not bad to awful

paying money for a pitch that deserves better isn't fair on the team playing and paying. as that is happening now up and down the nation, one club with a bad pitch is paying the same price as someone who has a better one. why is that? does that mean they have had more maintanence than another?

and it could be worse if some clubs drop out, and the deficit has to be redistributed again, but if asset transfer takes place, the deficit hasn;t got to be paod back. but would a council raise it's rent to recover it?
what would plaid do? what would labour do? what can anyone do when this has been thrust upon everyone. playing politics on this issue is causing confusion at a difficult time and an impossible time. if anything, the bowls and cricket 2014-15 season isn't that far away, the first new charges are being brought in for the 2014-5 tax year and they have less time to play with. it's a pity the land transfer doesn't take place during asset transfer, as that would save all teams from paying rent, and that figure can be passed on in maintanence savings... the clubs still will be paying for leasing the pitches that amounts to around £23 a game per pitch. some boroughs charge more. end of the day, to avoid the £235 per match, a club has to do transfer the asset. if a club only has the grass cut and nothing else, then the most they should pay is £75, and that runs the risk of deterioration of the pitch by not having it aerated. but because some clubs have had a subsidy, if they stay with the council, then they are paying it back. But what if a club stays with the council and agrees not to have anything else done except cutting? they should really be paying the £75 and no more, even in 2017. or £49 if they do it themselves. then again, a council could up the rent to balance their books that way. as things look, they have to pay back the deficit if they stay whatever they do. it works out around £4,200 per club on avergae, but that does not mean all received the same amout. one club may have had £1,000 and the other £7,400 and as things stand, if the £235 still exists in 2016-17, a club who is presently making a £100 profit now (which is an achievement) will become 'bankrupt' in 2016 anyway whether with the council or not. a club with a charitable status cannot keep a profit anyway so whatever they generate will be spent on maintanence and equipment. the lower end teams will suffer no doubt who basically survive on wits and spare cash, who are struggling to pay £50 never mind £100. which leaves the question of maintanence. how much are the pitches actually getting. with cricket, a general rule if thumb for a maintanence budget is £2000 a year, anything less and asking for trouble. football is variable, i cannot leave a pitch untreated for one season as weeds start to form, and the following season it'll be infested, especially if dandelions take hold, and spend more time and effort correcting than i saved by not doing it. could weeds be combated by doing it by hand? how long is a piece of string? could spend more time in paying someone doing it by hand than it costs in weedkiller. then again,m small amounts of weed can escape a liquid but would be benficial to do extremely low amounts by hand. moss and thatch is a different story and could spend £1200 with sand, and £83 when distributed amongst the number of matches. reality is, the sand has a purpose off season as well but that's the most obvious point of payment source. na dby the time they factor that in, it'll cost £158 a match. but when the pitch is improving and established, the cost comes down for the next season as it wouldn't have to be done again. in theory the £1200 cost could be spread over 3 years, so the price of a match can come down to £102. other jobs such as dragmatting adds on, bringing up the cost to £127 or £183 maybe this is the price being paid now that pitches haven't been worked on as much during the past. if i was being charged £235 for a pitch, i would expect that to be absolutely top quality. £150 would be a very good pitch. £100 good, £75 anyones guess from not bad to awful paying money for a pitch that deserves better isn't fair on the team playing and paying. as that is happening now up and down the nation, one club with a bad pitch is paying the same price as someone who has a better one. why is that? does that mean they have had more maintanence than another? and it could be worse if some clubs drop out, and the deficit has to be redistributed again, but if asset transfer takes place, the deficit hasn;t got to be paod back. but would a council raise it's rent to recover it? someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree