Preston manager Graham Westley refunds fans after Bury clash postponed

Preston boss Westley covers petrol costs of fans after Bury clash called off

|

UPDATED:

22:41 GMT, 4 December 2012

Preston North End manager Graham Westley helped soften the blow some of the club's fans suffered on Tuesday night, dipping into his pocket to refund their travel costs after their Johnstone's Paint Trophy clash against Bury was postponed.

The match at Gigg Lane was called off an hour before kick-off due to a waterlogged pitch, despite referee Gary Sutton giving the all clear at 6.30pm.

Westley came across a minibus full of fans making the 30-odd mile journey home, and offered to cover their petrol costs, as well as a round of soft drinks.

Scroll down for video of the Preston boss paying back the fans

Making friends: Graham Westley has covered the petrol costs of some fans

Making friends: Graham Westley has covered the petrol costs of some fans

Video footage of the kind gesture quickly circulated on Twitter, while a number of Lilywhites fans were full of praise for the boss.

@Weyer95 wrote: 'Home and dry (like bury's pitch according to GW). Very disappointed with the game being called off but Graham Westley is magic.'

@ecossesteve added: 'Hearing some great stories from #PNE fans being refunded travel expenses by Graham Westley personally. Fantastic stuff.'

And ‏@ingolwhite claimed his son had been one of the benficeries. He wrote: 'top man graham westley bought my son and his mates a drink and gave them 40 petrol money.'

Preston are 11th in League One after an indifferent run of results, and sit six points adrift of the playoff places.

**WARNING, USE OF STRONG LANGUAGE

Martin Whitmarsh dismisses Bernie Ecclestone"s plans for F1 budget cap

Back off, Bernie! McLaren dismiss Ecclestone's plans for 155m F1 budget cap

|

UPDATED:

12:02 GMT, 30 October 2012

Bernie Ecclestone’s latest budget cap idea for the Formula One teams has been described as 'unrealistic' by McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh.

Ecclestone confirmed over the weekend in India he had proposed to the 12 teams the possibility of a cap of 250million US dollars (155m) which would include all costs, including driver salaries.

The notion of reducing exorbitant costs in F1 has long been mooted, notably since the end of 2009 after three major manufacturers in BMW, Toyota and Honda had pulled out of the sport in the space of a year.

The long and the short of it: Ecclestone has plans to shake-up F1

The long and the short of it: Ecclestone has plans to shake-up F1

Bernie's proposals
155million budgetFigure applies across all 12 teamsMust cover all costsINCLUDES driver salaries

The resource restriction agreement (RRA) has since been on the table, but has faced strong opposition from Red Bull, in particular, and Toro Rosso.

Frustrated at the lack of progress, Ecclestone has now proposed the kind of budget cap figure under which every team could comfortably operate.
It is understood, for instance, Red Bull’s total spend last year en route to winning both championships was 168m.

But Whitmarsh believes it is flawed as he said: 'It sounds like quite a lot of money, so I don't know how much it is going to help many teams.

'The philosophy on controlling costs in Formula One is important to our sport and we all agree on that, although there are different opinions as to how that is best achieved.

'Bernie wants one that controls driver salaries and all those kind of things.

'What we should be trying to do is ensuring we are spending money in the appropriate places and controlling excessive spend in development.

'Personally, I think it’s a little unrealistic to have a global budget cap because it becomes even more difficult to pin down and to know everyone is comfortably operating within it.'

Making a stand: Whitmarsh has talked down Ecclestone's plans

Making a stand: Whitmarsh has talked down Ecclestone's plans

For Whitmarsh, the RRA pioneered by McLaren, he feels is a more workable solution.

'The budget cap from Bernie has the elegance that you can describe it quickly, but it is very difficult to find out where the money is and control it,' said Whitmarsh.

'The resource restriction agreement asks: How much money do you spend externally and how many people do you have It’s difficult to hide either of those.

'They’re also the core elements of a budget cap, but then it goes on to wind tunnel hours, CFD (computational fluid dynamics) etcetera, and we should be free to pay drivers whatever we want to pay them.

'What we should be doing is finding the easy, clear, measurable, definable elements of spend and control those.

Top boy: Vettel leads the F1 drivers' championship

Top boy: Vettel leads the F1 drivers' championship

'They (the RRA and budget cap) are both trying to do the same thing. They're not against each other. They’re just a different philosophy.'

Lotus team principal Eric Boullier, however, can see the benefits of Ecclestone's idea, but believes further discussion is required.

'Bernie is very serious,' said Boullier. 'The budget cap is one of the best ways to have control over useless expenditure and to end the competitive war.

'Clearly, this is a good start, that Formula One starts to understand and to put in place a budget cap, and I can back up Bernie’s idea.

'You need to do it in a clever way and build it up over the years, and it’s something that could happen because it’s coming from the right authority.'

Asked whether it was a better idea than the RRA, Boullier added: 'I don’t know yet.

'We have been working for years on the RRA, and we have a better understanding of what we could achieve with that. It’s a complex system.

'The idea of a budget cap from Bernie is quite new and we just need to look at it a bit more.'

US Open 2012: Andy Murray – Player boycott over prize money "a long way away"

Player boycott over grand slam prize money 'a long way away', insists Murray

|

UPDATED:

15:42 GMT, 28 August 2012


Winning start: Andy Murray beat Alex Bogomolov Jr in the first round of this year's US Open

Winning start: Andy Murray beat Alex Bogomolov Jr in the first round of this year's US Open

An Australian Open boycott is still a long way away, according to Andy Murray.

The leading male players have long been unhappy with the percentage of revenue that is paid out in prize money at the grand slams and have increasingly begun to flex their collective muscle, with the prospect of a boycott emerging over the weekend.

Less than 20 per cent of the revenue from the sport's biggest tournaments currently goes to the players, which is substantially less than in other major sports.

The main issue is not the money paid out to those who reach the latter stages – the winner of the US Open will take home $1.9million – but the rewards for players who lose in the early rounds.

Travel costs and other expenses incurred by players means even those around the top 100 often struggle to do little more than break even, with the trip to Australia in January particularly costly.

The French Open, Wimbledon and US Open all increased their prize money for first-round losers considerably this year, with the Australian Open the lowest at 13,640.

Asked how likely a boycott was, Murray said: 'There's so many things that go into something like that, with lawyers, forming unions, all sorts of different scenarios that need to be thought through first.

'I think right now it's a long way away, but I don't know how serious everybody is about it. If in the next month or two months they get everything sorted and ready to go, then I'll have a better answer at that time.'

Pay fair: There is unrest among the players over the prize money awarded to early-round losers in grand slams, such as Bogomolov Jr in New York

Pay fair: There is unrest among the players over the prize money awarded to early-round losers in grand slams, such as Bogomolov Jr in New York

The issue of a potential strike by players first surfaced after the US Open last year, where the leading men were unhappy not just with the prize money situation but also the packed yearly schedule, which has been shortened by two weeks this year.

Although the subject has emerged again now after the ATP held a mandatory players' meeting on Friday, Murray revealed the most heated discussions were at this year's Australian Open.

He added: 'This player meeting wasn't, I don't know the word, but when we went through the player meeting at the Aussie Open, it was pretty brutal. Everyone was speaking up. The whole tour was kind of together – they still are.

Latest attempt: Murray is still chasing his first major championship victory

Latest attempt: Murray is still chasing his first major championship victory

'There have been some changes made with regard to the grand slam prize money. But the majority of the players want to see a change in the grand slams.

'Who knows what's going to happen I hope it doesn't come down to that (a boycott). I think that's bad for everybody really.'

The ATP have already said they will not organise a boycott, although they do support the players over the prize money issue, while Australian Open organisers are confident the tournament will not be affected.

Murray reached the second round of the US Open with a patchy but ultimately comprehensive 6-2 6-4 6-1 victory over Alex Bogomolov and next faces Croatia's world No 18 Ivan Dodig.

Olympics 2012: BBC can create "minor sports" legacy – BRIAN BARWICK

Brian Barwick: Brilliant Beeb can use Olympics to create 'minor sports' legacy

|

UPDATED:

21:30 GMT, 12 August 2012

And so the Olympic Games are over. The most talked-about televised sporting event in my lifetime.

Team GB have delivered day in, day out, producing medal-winning performances by the bucketload. It has been exhilarating stuff captured by Olympic Broadcast Services.

And that other British team – BBC Sport -
have been with the GB heroes for every step, jump, stroke, throw,
punch, paddle and pedal.

Going for gold: The BBC have been nothing short of brilliant throughout the Olympic Games

Going for gold: The BBC have been nothing short of brilliant throughout the Olympic Games

Their comprehensive service has combined an on-screen and off-screen professionalism with a technological expertise that has long been the watchword of the BBC when they raise their sporting game.

This has been a high-watermark performance by the BBC across their range of services and perhaps the ultimate reminder to the Corporation’s top brass that sport really matters.

And, just as every opportunistic politician will now champion a new era of sporting participation, so viewers may welcome a new outlook on sport from its licence-funded national broadcaster.

Not every TV sports contract costs ‘squillions’ and as the BBC struggle to keep their share of the expensive ones, why not build on the unparalleled interest they have now created in less familiar sports.

All the right people: The likes of Ian Thorpe and Mark Foster provided swimming expertise, while other former professionals proved more than capable of giving the public excellent insight

All the right people: The likes of Ian Thorpe and Mark Foster provided swimming expertise, while other former professionals proved more than capable of giving the public excellent insight

All the right people: The likes of Ian Thorpe and Mark Foster provided swimming expertise, while other former professionals proved more than capable of giving the public excellent insight

All the right people: The likes of Ian Thorpe and Mark Foster provided swimming expertise, while other former professionals proved more than capable of giving the public excellent insight

Of course, the BBC love big ratings like every other broadcaster, and, boy, has the Olympics delivered those, but now they have a chance to park that run-chase and really put their power behind creating their own ‘broadcast’ legacy.

Suddenly we have a whole new set of small-screen stars – and without an audition in sight. New heroes people can actually relate to and strive to emulate – and television can help with this.

Sure, the heady Olympic mix will fade as autumn and winter advance but there is now a genuine alternative source of inspiration.

At London 2012, the BBC’s cutting-edge 24-channel streaming service has been not just a Games-maker but a game changer – and it could be a life changer too for viewers whose channel grazing has helped them discover a new sporting passion.

Brilliant work: Claire Balding

Brilliant work: Claire Balding

On screen, Clare Balding was outstanding. She’s a broadcast journalist with good words, good knowledge and a good sense of what and where a story is. Balding fronts Channel 4’s Paralympic Games coverage later this month.

Other notable performances include Gabby Logan’s energetic hosting of the Olympics Tonight show, which did a lot more than re-hash the day’s action.

Plaudits should also go to Jake Humphrey, who seamlessly turned his presentation talents from four wheels to two legs, and Shirley Robertson, who delivered cogent live reports while afloat off a windy Weymouth coast.

There was a lot expected of Gary Lineker, one of over 15 presenters I counted across the BBC Sport schedules.

I thought he did well, especially putting young medallists at their ease. At times, though, he was swallowed up by the BBC’s cavernous studio and the inevitable concentration on live athletics in the second week. That became John Inverdale’s patch.

Best commentary, Brendan Foster and Steve Cram’s double-hander on Mo Farah’s 10,000 metres win.

Hugh Porter and Chris Boardman recovered from a dodgy start on the men’s road race to accurately and emotionally call home medal after medal. Ian Thorpe and Michael Johnson took the honours for punditry, while athletics’ trackside interviewer, Phil Jones, hands on or hands off, did a tricky job well. I’ve seen others struggle in that role.

In the end, it was the sheer weight and volume of coverage from the BBC that puts them top of the broadcasting medal table.

This was the Olympics where the choice of what, when and how you watched the day’s action was left to you.

BBC head honchos Roger Mosey and Dave Gordon should be congratulated and director of sport Barbara Slater should now be encouraged to build a new and imaginative future for BBC Sport.

Liverpool accounts revealed with 50m wasted on new stadium plans

Liverpool's losses reveal 50m blown on botched new stadium plans

|

UPDATED:

20:44 GMT, 3 May 2012

Liverpool's failure to relocate from Anfield to a new stadium on Stanley Park has cost the club a startling 49.6million.

The club's accounts have unveiled the
mess that was created by the doomed reign of former owners Tom Hicks
and George Gillett.

The figures, which were released yesterday, revealed
a loss before tax of 49.4m for the financial year ending July 31,
2011, a rise from the previous year's 19.9m.

Ditched: The futuristic stadium plan submitted by the former owners has been scrapped by the current Liverpool board

Ditched: The futuristic stadium plan submitted by the former owners has been scrapped by the current Liverpool board

Defeat: The Reds lost to Fulham on Tuesday

Defeat: The Reds lost to Fulham on Tuesday

'NEW ANFIELD'

In 2000 Liverpool announced plans to
build a new 60,000 seat stadium on Stanley Park. Estimated costs were
150m with the possibility to expand to 70,000.

In 2006 the club secured a 999-year, 300,000 a-year lease on part of the park for their ground.

Hicks
and Gillett bought Liverpool in 2007 and promised 'a spade in the
ground within 60 days', pledging 210m to build the 'new' Anfield.

Their
plans, which they commissioned out to American architects HKS, would
have cost 300m to follow through on, resulting in a 71,000 seater
stadium.

Hicks and Gillett, who said they
would have a 'spade in the ground' within 60 days following their
arrival in February 2007 – wanted to build a futuristic 70,000- capacity
glass and steel stadium on Stanley Park and commissioned Dallasbased
architects HKS.

The plan was scrapped, though,
following Fenway Sports Group's takeover in October 2010 and, as a
result, the costs have been called a major 'exceptional item' in the
accounts.

That term has also been used to
describe the termination costs that former manager Roy Hodgson received
along with other key backroom figures.

Even still, the fact that almost 50m
was wasted without Liverpool being any closer to making a decision
about what to do next – either staying at Anfield or moving to Stanley
Park – will alarm fans.

Out and in: England wanted the man ditched for 8.4m by Liverpool

Out and in: England wanted the man ditched for 8.4m by Liverpool

Abandoned: Liverpool spent 35m for nothing

Abandoned: Liverpool spent 35m for nothing

'We have written off a huge amount on
the stadium project,' said managing director Ian Ayre. 'A big chunk
relates to the HKS project – which is now defunct.

'We come under daily pressure from people for a decision on what we are doing.

'One thing we have consistently said
is that we will make the right decision in the long-term interests of
Liverpool Football Club.

'We have to be very mindful of the
cost of doing anything. The cost of building a new stadium is
significant. Equally if we refurbish Anfield, the cost is significant.
It is about finding a solution that works.'

Should Liverpool proceed with a new
build – the club still have designs in place with Manchester architects
AFL – obtaining naming rights is crucial.

Ayre, who insisted that Liverpool not
being in the Champions League wasn't 'the end of the world', added: 'In
terms of a new stadium, we have a design, we have planning permission
and we have a site. But the economic model for a new stadium has to be
underpinned by significant investment by a naming rights partner. That
just takes time.