Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:38am Sun 10 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

The councillor who has generously given this money from the locality fund (our taxes, basically) must be thanked. They get £10,000 each of our money to spend each and every year on these sort of bribes.

Please remember to vote for him and/or his party in the county council elections in May! (There's no such thing as a free lunch, in fact we are all paying for it!)

A lot of these sort of funds come from council. If the council wants to fund goalposts it should have a policy on it and do it for all applicable clubs. This sort of thing just seems wrong on so many levels.
The councillor who has generously given this money from the locality fund (our taxes, basically) must be thanked. They get £10,000 each of our money to spend each and every year on these sort of bribes. Please remember to vote for him and/or his party in the county council elections in May! (There's no such thing as a free lunch, in fact we are all paying for it!) A lot of these sort of funds come from council. If the council wants to fund goalposts it should have a policy on it and do it for all applicable clubs. This sort of thing just seems wrong on so many levels. MarsLander
  • Score: 0

11:48am Sun 10 Feb 13

Hornets number 12 fan says...

Yeah he could have supplied 4 jumpers for £50!
Yeah he could have supplied 4 jumpers for £50! Hornets number 12 fan
  • Score: 0

11:54am Sun 10 Feb 13

LSC says...

I hope this included nets etc, because round metal bars are not hard or expensive to come by. Ask any plumbers merchant or guttering company.
I hope this included nets etc, because round metal bars are not hard or expensive to come by. Ask any plumbers merchant or guttering company. LSC
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sun 10 Feb 13

Hornets number 12 fan says...

I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900? Hornets number 12 fan
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Sun 10 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money?

Free money, freely spent.



(*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)
[quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?[/p][/quote]Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money? Free money, freely spent. (*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians) MarsLander
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Hornets number 12 fan says...

MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money?

Free money, freely spent.



(*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)
As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999!
[quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?[/p][/quote]Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money? Free money, freely spent. (*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)[/p][/quote]As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999! Hornets number 12 fan
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sun 10 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money?

Free money, freely spent.



(*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)
As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999!
So, let's analyse this.

1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team.

2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money.

Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know?

Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents?
[quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?[/p][/quote]Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money? Free money, freely spent. (*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)[/p][/quote]As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999![/p][/quote]So, let's analyse this. 1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team. 2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money. Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know? Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents? MarsLander
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Wacko Jacko says...

MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money?

Free money, freely spent.



(*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)
As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999!
So, let's analyse this.

1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team.

2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money.

Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know?

Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents?
If locality grants are scrapped then worthwhile small initiatives which benefit local communities (and in this case help give youngsters something worthwhile to do) will be lost as they'll be right at the bottom of Herts County Council's priority list. That would sound like an own goal to me, pun intended. I realise that just because you guys are paranoid it doesn't mean the county council's not out to waste your money, but every now and then it might be worth tempering your knee-jerk negativity, sometimes news stories are actually good news. I don't know who paid for this or from which budget, but I'm sure the football club and their community appreciate the help.
[quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?[/p][/quote]Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money? Free money, freely spent. (*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)[/p][/quote]As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999![/p][/quote]So, let's analyse this. 1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team. 2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money. Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know? Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents?[/p][/quote]If locality grants are scrapped then worthwhile small initiatives which benefit local communities (and in this case help give youngsters something worthwhile to do) will be lost as they'll be right at the bottom of Herts County Council's priority list. That would sound like an own goal to me, pun intended. I realise that just because you guys are paranoid it doesn't mean the county council's not out to waste your money, but every now and then it might be worth tempering your knee-jerk negativity, sometimes news stories are actually good news. I don't know who paid for this or from which budget, but I'm sure the football club and their community appreciate the help. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Sun 10 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
MarsLander wrote:
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?
Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money?

Free money, freely spent.



(*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)
As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999!
So, let's analyse this.

1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team.

2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money.

Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know?

Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents?
If locality grants are scrapped then worthwhile small initiatives which benefit local communities (and in this case help give youngsters something worthwhile to do) will be lost as they'll be right at the bottom of Herts County Council's priority list. That would sound like an own goal to me, pun intended. I realise that just because you guys are paranoid it doesn't mean the county council's not out to waste your money, but every now and then it might be worth tempering your knee-jerk negativity, sometimes news stories are actually good news. I don't know who paid for this or from which budget, but I'm sure the football club and their community appreciate the help.
Put simply, it's not what I or most taxpayers believe they are paying for when they pay their council taxes. A set of football nets for one team? Where was that in the Lib/Lab/Con manifesto for county councils?

In my opinion, the County Council is acting irresponsibly by having this grant system.

Giving a set budget to councillors to spend is probably the most wasteful and corrupt use of our taxes that I could possibly imagine. It's almost a million pounds every year.

If you think it's a good idea, then you are entitled to your opinion.

Of the money spent in 2012 how much went on worthwhile small initiatives and how much was simply squandered?

If anyone did a study I think this grant would be stopped as a gross waste of taxpayers money. I hope that a party will fight the election on a platform of cutting this sort of waste. They will get my vote if they are serious about it.

Wacko, you are thought in some quarters to be a local councillor who may be seeking election to county. As such you may have a vested interest in squandering our money. I would rather you reduced council tax by one million pounds than just wasted it, because that is what locality grants dished out by councillors are.

This is an own goal by the County Council.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: I've just found two Brand new Goals with nets for £1295 on Ebay delivered! So why have they got a grant for £1900?[/p][/quote]Because it's not their money* so why try to get value for money? Free money, freely spent. (*It's our money, paid for by our taxes, wasted by self-important politicians)[/p][/quote]As this club appears to be a Youth club then the Goals with nets would be £999![/p][/quote]So, let's analyse this. 1. The council shouldn't have spent the money in the first place on a football team. 2. To add insult to injury, they got overcharged while spending our money. Come the elections in May, vote for any party that offers to get rid of this stupid system. What are the party political positions on locality grants? Does anyone know? Will any party make a commitment to scrap them/not spend them? Independents?[/p][/quote]If locality grants are scrapped then worthwhile small initiatives which benefit local communities (and in this case help give youngsters something worthwhile to do) will be lost as they'll be right at the bottom of Herts County Council's priority list. That would sound like an own goal to me, pun intended. I realise that just because you guys are paranoid it doesn't mean the county council's not out to waste your money, but every now and then it might be worth tempering your knee-jerk negativity, sometimes news stories are actually good news. I don't know who paid for this or from which budget, but I'm sure the football club and their community appreciate the help.[/p][/quote]Put simply, it's not what I or most taxpayers believe they are paying for when they pay their council taxes. A set of football nets for one team? Where was that in the Lib/Lab/Con manifesto for county councils? In my opinion, the County Council is acting irresponsibly by having this grant system. Giving a set budget to councillors to spend is probably the most wasteful and corrupt use of our taxes that I could possibly imagine. It's almost a million pounds every year. If you think it's a good idea, then you are entitled to your opinion. Of the money spent in 2012 how much went on worthwhile small initiatives and how much was simply squandered? If anyone did a study I think this grant would be stopped as a gross waste of taxpayers money. I hope that a party will fight the election on a platform of cutting this sort of waste. They will get my vote if they are serious about it. Wacko, you are thought in some quarters to be a local councillor who may be seeking election to county. As such you may have a vested interest in squandering our money. I would rather you reduced council tax by one million pounds than just wasted it, because that is what locality grants dished out by councillors are. This is an own goal by the County Council. MarsLander
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Sun 10 Feb 13

The Rover says...

It seems I am in a minority judging by the above comments, but I think kids football clubs a great. They keep kids off the street, the go to training once or twice a week, get to socialise in a controlled environment, and keep fit. All of this is provided by unpaid volunteers, who rely on donations and subs from the ids to keep the club running. Compared with the millions being wasted putting a bridge over the pond etc. this is a very small amount of money, and will bring more benefits than the ridiculous amounts being wasted on the mayors pet projects.
It seems I am in a minority judging by the above comments, but I think kids football clubs a great. They keep kids off the street, the go to training once or twice a week, get to socialise in a controlled environment, and keep fit. All of this is provided by unpaid volunteers, who rely on donations and subs from the ids to keep the club running. Compared with the millions being wasted putting a bridge over the pond etc. this is a very small amount of money, and will bring more benefits than the ridiculous amounts being wasted on the mayors pet projects. The Rover
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Sun 10 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Rover,

I'm in your minority in that case. I can't disagree with anything you have said, not a single word.

Spending money on kids football is eminently more sensible than spending it on some poncy bridge over the pond, because that would be a complete and utter waste of money with virtually no value whatsoever to the people of Watford.

So we come to this point, "Should the council support kids football?".

I don't know the answer, but I know it should be decided by the taxpayers, the electorate of Hertfordshire.

Maybe in some way the county council should subsidise kids football. As you say, it's a good cause.

But then again maybe there are better causes.

Or maybe taxes should be reduced instead.

Where do you draw the line?

My point is this then.

IF the council is to support kids football, then they should share the money around fairly. Don't give it to team A because your kid plays there, or your friends kid, or your party chairmans kid plays there or it's in the locality you want people to vote for you. Give it to all clubs equally in Hertfordshire,whatev
er you do, don't favour one club over others.

Alternatively, and equally fairly, don't give any money to kids football, let the teams raise the money they need themselves, as most clubs already successfully do. What's so special about Everett Rovers compared to all the other clubs in Hertfordshire? Why are they so deserving of free nets (at an inflated price?) while all other clubs buy their own?

It doesn't matter that the money is spent on nets or anything else, it's whether taxpayers like myself feel it is right or wrong to subsidise kids football from our taxes.

Politicians are generous people, they love giving our money away. As a matter of principle I am just against this as I consider it unnecessary and therefore wasteful of my taxes.

County-wide grants are one thing, but giving every councillors £10,000 of our money, every year, to spend on whatever they want just seems very very wrong and unfair.

On a personal note, having been involved with childrens football, I would say let the clubs raise their own funds. I thought they all did anyway!
Rover, I'm in your minority in that case. I can't disagree with anything you have said, not a single word. Spending money on kids football is eminently more sensible than spending it on some poncy bridge over the pond, because that would be a complete and utter waste of money with virtually no value whatsoever to the people of Watford. So we come to this point, "Should the council support kids football?". I don't know the answer, but I know it should be decided by the taxpayers, the electorate of Hertfordshire. Maybe in some way the county council should subsidise kids football. As you say, it's a good cause. But then again maybe there are better causes. Or maybe taxes should be reduced instead. Where do you draw the line? My point is this then. IF the council is to support kids football, then they should share the money around fairly. Don't give it to team A because your kid plays there, or your friends kid, or your party chairmans kid plays there or it's in the locality you want people to vote for you. Give it to all clubs equally in Hertfordshire,whatev er you do, don't favour one club over others. Alternatively, and equally fairly, don't give any money to kids football, let the teams raise the money they need themselves, as most clubs already successfully do. What's so special about Everett Rovers compared to all the other clubs in Hertfordshire? Why are they so deserving of free nets (at an inflated price?) while all other clubs buy their own? It doesn't matter that the money is spent on nets or anything else, it's whether taxpayers like myself feel it is right or wrong to subsidise kids football from our taxes. Politicians are generous people, they love giving our money away. As a matter of principle I am just against this as I consider it unnecessary and therefore wasteful of my taxes. County-wide grants are one thing, but giving every councillors £10,000 of our money, every year, to spend on whatever they want just seems very very wrong and unfair. On a personal note, having been involved with childrens football, I would say let the clubs raise their own funds. I thought they all did anyway! MarsLander
  • Score: 0

7:15am Mon 11 Feb 13

Roy Stockdill says...

A couple of quick questions.....

1) How many amateur and youth football clubs are there in the Borough of Watford? I haven't the faintest idea but my guess would be scores, if not in three figures.

2) Why has only one club been singled out to receive a not insubstantial grant of almost £2,000? Possibly there is a good reason for it, perhaps the club put up a better presentation than the rest, but this is not explained.

I get the impression from looking at the club website that it is a fairly large organisation, running many teams from age 6 up to 18. Presumably the club must have considerable funds available if it can afford to run such an extensive operation. Why can't it pay for new goalposts from its own resources?

I entirely agree with those posters who say youth football must be encouraged. But can't the club, not to mention the parents whose kids are actually using the facilities and benefiting, pay for it? Why should all taxpayers foot the bill?

But, then, I am against virtually all council grants to all such bodies anyway. If people want to participate in a particular activity, then they should be prepared to pay for it and not expect others to subsidise them.
A couple of quick questions..... 1) How many amateur and youth football clubs are there in the Borough of Watford? I haven't the faintest idea but my guess would be scores, if not in three figures. 2) Why has only one club been singled out to receive a not insubstantial grant of almost £2,000? Possibly there is a good reason for it, perhaps the club put up a better presentation than the rest, but this is not explained. I get the impression from looking at the club website that it is a fairly large organisation, running many teams from age 6 up to 18. Presumably the club must have considerable funds available if it can afford to run such an extensive operation. Why can't it pay for new goalposts from its own resources? I entirely agree with those posters who say youth football must be encouraged. But can't the club, not to mention the parents whose kids are actually using the facilities and benefiting, pay for it? Why should all taxpayers foot the bill? But, then, I am against virtually all council grants to all such bodies anyway. If people want to participate in a particular activity, then they should be prepared to pay for it and not expect others to subsidise them. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:58am Mon 11 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
A couple of quick questions.....

1) How many amateur and youth football clubs are there in the Borough of Watford? I haven't the faintest idea but my guess would be scores, if not in three figures.

2) Why has only one club been singled out to receive a not insubstantial grant of almost £2,000? Possibly there is a good reason for it, perhaps the club put up a better presentation than the rest, but this is not explained.

I get the impression from looking at the club website that it is a fairly large organisation, running many teams from age 6 up to 18. Presumably the club must have considerable funds available if it can afford to run such an extensive operation. Why can't it pay for new goalposts from its own resources?

I entirely agree with those posters who say youth football must be encouraged. But can't the club, not to mention the parents whose kids are actually using the facilities and benefiting, pay for it? Why should all taxpayers foot the bill?

But, then, I am against virtually all council grants to all such bodies anyway. If people want to participate in a particular activity, then they should be prepared to pay for it and not expect others to subsidise them.
I can't disagree with a word of that either. Well said Roy.

A little calculation I just did.

£1900 needed by Everett Rovers.

According to web site 15 teams (of typically 15) up to age 16.

1900/15=126.67 per team.

126.67/15=£8.44 per player.

If a successful team can't raise an extra £8.44 per player on a one-off basis or find the funds from club reserves when typically the fees for a year are £170+, then there is something wrong.

I believe it's merely a case of favouritism for this team and a surplus of "free money" looking for a home "in a good cause".

This is, in my opinion, a clear waste of taxpayers money that simply did not need to be spent. The money required could easily have been found through this large club.

There are many similar examples in the pages of the WO and it needs to stop!

BTW, the club website says they have teams running up to age 18 so the contribution required is likely to be even lower per player. Also the club has sponsorship deals with local businesses. Even more reasons the council should not pay towards boys football clubs.

Whoever authorised this county council locality grant should be ashamed of wasting taxpayers money in this way. They won't be, but they should be! Instead of making people more likely to vote for the councillor who so generously gave away our money, I hope it has the opposite effect and that taxpayers cast their votes for a different party, one who believes in value for money from spending our taxes and returning the money to hard-pressed taxpayers if the money is not spent.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: A couple of quick questions..... 1) How many amateur and youth football clubs are there in the Borough of Watford? I haven't the faintest idea but my guess would be scores, if not in three figures. 2) Why has only one club been singled out to receive a not insubstantial grant of almost £2,000? Possibly there is a good reason for it, perhaps the club put up a better presentation than the rest, but this is not explained. I get the impression from looking at the club website that it is a fairly large organisation, running many teams from age 6 up to 18. Presumably the club must have considerable funds available if it can afford to run such an extensive operation. Why can't it pay for new goalposts from its own resources? I entirely agree with those posters who say youth football must be encouraged. But can't the club, not to mention the parents whose kids are actually using the facilities and benefiting, pay for it? Why should all taxpayers foot the bill? But, then, I am against virtually all council grants to all such bodies anyway. If people want to participate in a particular activity, then they should be prepared to pay for it and not expect others to subsidise them.[/p][/quote]I can't disagree with a word of that either. Well said Roy. A little calculation I just did. £1900 needed by Everett Rovers. According to web site 15 teams (of typically 15) up to age 16. 1900/15=126.67 per team. 126.67/15=£8.44 per player. If a successful team can't raise an extra £8.44 per player on a one-off basis or find the funds from club reserves when typically the fees for a year are £170+, then there is something wrong. I believe it's merely a case of favouritism for this team and a surplus of "free money" looking for a home "in a good cause". This is, in my opinion, a clear waste of taxpayers money that simply did not need to be spent. The money required could easily have been found through this large club. There are many similar examples in the pages of the WO and it needs to stop! BTW, the club website says they have teams running up to age 18 so the contribution required is likely to be even lower per player. Also the club has sponsorship deals with local businesses. Even more reasons the council should not pay towards boys football clubs. Whoever authorised this county council locality grant should be ashamed of wasting taxpayers money in this way. They won't be, but they should be! Instead of making people more likely to vote for the councillor who so generously gave away our money, I hope it has the opposite effect and that taxpayers cast their votes for a different party, one who believes in value for money from spending our taxes and returning the money to hard-pressed taxpayers if the money is not spent. MarsLander
  • Score: 0

11:52am Mon 11 Feb 13

garston tony says...

Why shouldn’t a football club be given a grant from a cllr? You could look at it this way, £1900 spent (which may or may not actually be more than needed to get goals) to get x amount of youngsters off the street doing something active and healthy.

What potential cost to us all if even one of those that participates turns to the dark side. Say they start getting into burglary, how much does it cost the police to tackle that type of crime? What price to vulnerable people to not have youths hanging around outside their homes? If they get into drink and drugs what cost to the NHS? I'd say that £1900 could potentially save tens of thousands not being spent elsewhere.

Of course some of you have every right to think short sightledly, but I'd rather spend to save than not spend and incurr costs some where else. This type of thing is called being pro active not reactive
Why shouldn’t a football club be given a grant from a cllr? You could look at it this way, £1900 spent (which may or may not actually be more than needed to get goals) to get x amount of youngsters off the street doing something active and healthy. What potential cost to us all if even one of those that participates turns to the dark side. Say they start getting into burglary, how much does it cost the police to tackle that type of crime? What price to vulnerable people to not have youths hanging around outside their homes? If they get into drink and drugs what cost to the NHS? I'd say that £1900 could potentially save tens of thousands not being spent elsewhere. Of course some of you have every right to think short sightledly, but I'd rather spend to save than not spend and incurr costs some where else. This type of thing is called being pro active not reactive garston tony
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Mon 11 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

garston tony wrote:
Why shouldn’t a football club be given a grant from a cllr? You could look at it this way, £1900 spent (which may or may not actually be more than needed to get goals) to get x amount of youngsters off the street doing something active and healthy.

What potential cost to us all if even one of those that participates turns to the dark side. Say they start getting into burglary, how much does it cost the police to tackle that type of crime? What price to vulnerable people to not have youths hanging around outside their homes? If they get into drink and drugs what cost to the NHS? I'd say that £1900 could potentially save tens of thousands not being spent elsewhere.

Of course some of you have every right to think short sightledly, but I'd rather spend to save than not spend and incurr costs some where else. This type of thing is called being pro active not reactive
Tony,

you should apply for council, you are being very generous with my money and would fit "right in". However, I would rather councillors thought a bit more responsibly about the taxes we pay and what they are rightly spent on.

I see the logic in what you are saying, however I do believe that logic to be flawed for the following reasons - You are arguing about the value of kids football clubs - I think we all agree they are very valuable. You are then arguing that a council grant to a single football club for some new nets will somehow stop some kids turning to the "dark side", i.e. crime, anti-social behaviour, drink and drugs. There I think you are mistaken. This grant will make no difference at all to who joins the club or whether the club continues in business, none at all. Many clubs are looking for new players so it's not even a case of kids not having the chance to join a club. If they want to play, and can afford the fees, then there's a club somewhere that would take them.

Two questions.

1. Why can't the club just raise the money themselves? Under £10 per family doesn't seem too much of a stretch - it's not as if it happens every year.

2. Are you proposing the council now gives £1900 to every boys football club in Hertfordshire?

Giving equal money to all clubs in Herts would be fair, it might not be right but it would at least be fair.

As I said before, these clubs exist perfectly well without council grants and always have done, so any boys already involved in local football clubs and those joining in the future would not have turned into crazed criminals through lack of council funding for football nets.

No-one will be turning to the "dark side" as you put it just because the council didn't buy them some new nets - that really is a bit of a silly argument.

Life would have carried on exactly as before, but the county council would have saved £1900, and if you follow that to its logical conclusion, the county could save about £800,000 per year. If £800,000 can be saved each year, with no significant ill-effects on what the council is there to do, then I would prefer it did save those funds.

It's commendable how these clubs manage to run year after year without going to the taxpayer with their hands out. Many local businesses sponsor these clubs, lots of people give their time free and the clubs run on the whole pretty well. A big "Well done" to anyone involved.

So you see, there really was no need for this grant.

It was "free council money" so someone gave it away and someone else took it. The sooner we get away from the mindset of council money being "free" the sooner we will have responsible local government.

Dotty will get millions of pounds of "free council money" if she manages to declassify Farm Terrace allotments and gets them built on, and she's doing her best to get that windfall. You can see her eyes bulging as she imagines the riches the council will get by building on the already over-developed west Watford area. They don't vote Liberal round there so for her it really is free money for her, but it is the residents of West Watford that will ultimately pay the price for Dotty's "free money".

So, it's not really much a case of being reactive or proactive, or even being short-sighted, it's more a case of not being dopey with the money that we give (for those who actually pay council tax) to the council in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Why shouldn’t a football club be given a grant from a cllr? You could look at it this way, £1900 spent (which may or may not actually be more than needed to get goals) to get x amount of youngsters off the street doing something active and healthy. What potential cost to us all if even one of those that participates turns to the dark side. Say they start getting into burglary, how much does it cost the police to tackle that type of crime? What price to vulnerable people to not have youths hanging around outside their homes? If they get into drink and drugs what cost to the NHS? I'd say that £1900 could potentially save tens of thousands not being spent elsewhere. Of course some of you have every right to think short sightledly, but I'd rather spend to save than not spend and incurr costs some where else. This type of thing is called being pro active not reactive[/p][/quote]Tony, you should apply for council, you are being very generous with my money and would fit "right in". However, I would rather councillors thought a bit more responsibly about the taxes we pay and what they are rightly spent on. I see the logic in what you are saying, however I do believe that logic to be flawed for the following reasons - You are arguing about the value of kids football clubs - I think we all agree they are very valuable. You are then arguing that a council grant to a single football club for some new nets will somehow stop some kids turning to the "dark side", i.e. crime, anti-social behaviour, drink and drugs. There I think you are mistaken. This grant will make no difference at all to who joins the club or whether the club continues in business, none at all. Many clubs are looking for new players so it's not even a case of kids not having the chance to join a club. If they want to play, and can afford the fees, then there's a club somewhere that would take them. Two questions. 1. Why can't the club just raise the money themselves? Under £10 per family doesn't seem too much of a stretch - it's not as if it happens every year. 2. Are you proposing the council now gives £1900 to every boys football club in Hertfordshire? Giving equal money to all clubs in Herts would be fair, it might not be right but it would at least be fair. As I said before, these clubs exist perfectly well without council grants and always have done, so any boys already involved in local football clubs and those joining in the future would not have turned into crazed criminals through lack of council funding for football nets. No-one will be turning to the "dark side" as you put it just because the council didn't buy them some new nets - that really is a bit of a silly argument. Life would have carried on exactly as before, but the county council would have saved £1900, and if you follow that to its logical conclusion, the county could save about £800,000 per year. If £800,000 can be saved each year, with no significant ill-effects on what the council is there to do, then I would prefer it did save those funds. It's commendable how these clubs manage to run year after year without going to the taxpayer with their hands out. Many local businesses sponsor these clubs, lots of people give their time free and the clubs run on the whole pretty well. A big "Well done" to anyone involved. So you see, there really was no need for this grant. It was "free council money" so someone gave it away and someone else took it. The sooner we get away from the mindset of council money being "free" the sooner we will have responsible local government. Dotty will get millions of pounds of "free council money" if she manages to declassify Farm Terrace allotments and gets them built on, and she's doing her best to get that windfall. You can see her eyes bulging as she imagines the riches the council will get by building on the already over-developed west Watford area. They don't vote Liberal round there so for her it really is free money for her, but it is the residents of West Watford that will ultimately pay the price for Dotty's "free money". So, it's not really much a case of being reactive or proactive, or even being short-sighted, it's more a case of not being dopey with the money that we give (for those who actually pay council tax) to the council in the first place. MarsLander
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Nick Lincoln says...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I wrote to the WO on this subject on the 17th January, in my capacity as Chairman of UKIP Watford.
The letter went unpublished. This is what I wrote:

"Dear Sir,

In a local free periodical this week I noticed two articles informing me that LibDem county councillors Derek Scudder and Kareen Hastrick have made donations to local causes. Initially I thought this was very generous of them. On reading the articles it became clear that in each case the headline was misleading.

In both examples the councillors were actually donating my money (and yours). Each county councillor is given an annual "locality budget" of £10,000, to dispense, it would appear, as they see fit. All 77 county councillors are given this funding. By my maths that's the best part of £800,000 a year going to what can only be thought of as a form of patronage system.

I don't recall being asked if my taxes could be given to local clubs and charities and so forth on the whim of a county councillor. However I do remember being told that - to save money - street lights were being turned off at night across the county. It's nice to see priorities are being addressed at County Hall. Hopefully I can read about "locality budgets" in the next issue of the county council magazine, seemingly distributed to every household in the county, wanted or not, at Lord knows what cost.

What rankles is that these stories of councillors "donating" my money come just a few months before the county council elections in May. Whatever else one thinks of the LibDems one cannot but admire their ruthless appetite for self-publicity. As we approach the May elections we can no doubt look forward to seeing many more stories of generous councillors (Tory and Labour included) dispensing favours to their electorate.

Tammany Hall, alive and well in 2013."
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I wrote to the WO on this subject on the 17th January, in my capacity as Chairman of UKIP Watford. The letter went unpublished. This is what I wrote: "Dear Sir, In a local free periodical this week I noticed two articles informing me that LibDem county councillors Derek Scudder and Kareen Hastrick have made donations to local causes. Initially I thought this was very generous of them. On reading the articles it became clear that in each case the headline was misleading. In both examples the councillors were actually donating my money (and yours). Each county councillor is given an annual "locality budget" of £10,000, to dispense, it would appear, as they see fit. All 77 county councillors are given this funding. By my maths that's the best part of £800,000 a year going to what can only be thought of as a form of patronage system. I don't recall being asked if my taxes could be given to local clubs and charities and so forth on the whim of a county councillor. However I do remember being told that - to save money - street lights were being turned off at night across the county. It's nice to see priorities are being addressed at County Hall. Hopefully I can read about "locality budgets" in the next issue of the county council magazine, seemingly distributed to every household in the county, wanted or not, at Lord knows what cost. What rankles is that these stories of councillors "donating" my money come just a few months before the county council elections in May. Whatever else one thinks of the LibDems one cannot but admire their ruthless appetite for self-publicity. As we approach the May elections we can no doubt look forward to seeing many more stories of generous councillors (Tory and Labour included) dispensing favours to their electorate. Tammany Hall, alive and well in 2013." Nick Lincoln
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Mon 11 Feb 13

LSC says...

@Nick Lincoln: You had me until you went politcal. This is about principal, not a party political broadcast.
@Nick Lincoln: You had me until you went politcal. This is about principal, not a party political broadcast. LSC
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Mon 11 Feb 13

garston tony says...

marslander,like I said you're being very short sighted. It costs thousands and thousands in taxpayers money to deal with an individuals crime spree or degeneration into alcohol and drug abuse. That sort of activity can be prevented by giving people an outlet, something to do. So yes actually if spending £1900 here saves tens of thousands somewhere else then it is money well spent.
marslander,like I said you're being very short sighted. It costs thousands and thousands in taxpayers money to deal with an individuals crime spree or degeneration into alcohol and drug abuse. That sort of activity can be prevented by giving people an outlet, something to do. So yes actually if spending £1900 here saves tens of thousands somewhere else then it is money well spent. garston tony
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 11 Feb 13

MarsLander says...

Tony,

what bit of "This grant will make no difference whatsoever to children playing football for local clubs" did you have a problem with?

I know it takes thousands to deal with people that go off the rails and prevention is definitely better than cure. It's just a shame (for you) this grant and therefore this story has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.

"So yes actually if spending £1900 here saves tens of thousands somewhere else then it is money well spent." - it won't! It's not related at all.
Tony, what bit of "This grant will make no difference whatsoever to children playing football for local clubs" did you have a problem with? I know it takes thousands to deal with people that go off the rails and prevention is definitely better than cure. It's just a shame (for you) this grant and therefore this story has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue. "So yes actually if spending £1900 here saves tens of thousands somewhere else then it is money well spent." - it won't! It's not related at all. MarsLander
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Nick Lincoln says...

Thanks for your comment @LSC. Unfortunately, that's one of my points: these disbursements of other people's money are just that: party political broadcasts.

And as such, as the WO states, they corrupt the democratic process, because the sitting councillor has an unfair (£10,000) advantage over his rivals. "Look, Mr and Mrs Voter, see how benevolent I've been in your Division / Ward etc..."
Thanks for your comment @LSC. Unfortunately, that's one of my points: these disbursements of other people's money are just that: party political broadcasts. And as such, as the WO states, they corrupt the democratic process, because the sitting councillor has an unfair (£10,000) advantage over his rivals. "Look, Mr and Mrs Voter, see how benevolent I've been in your Division / Ward etc..." Nick Lincoln
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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