Manager changes cost clubs £99m

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Ian Dennis
BBC senior football reporter Five managers have lost their job this season, with pressure mounting on more Premier League and Football League clubs spent almost ￡100m changing their manager last season.

According to figures released to the BBC by the League Managers Association (LMA), the cost of compensation, legal fees and 'double contracts' amounted to ￡99m.

A 'double contract' is when a sacked manager's contract is honoured until a certain point in time but his replacement also requires a salary.

October is traditionally the month when clubs begin sacking their managers. Between October 2010 and February 2011, 25 clubs opted for that course of action.

Continue reading the main story In 2010-11, managers sacked in the Championship had an average tenure of less than a year.It was 1.33 years in League 2, 1.67 years in League 1 & 2.07 years in the Premier League.

Several managers have already lost their job this season, including Peter Reid, who was sacked by League Two Plymouth Argyle last week.

Keith Millen left Bristol City on Monday with the club bottom of the Championship, while Steve McClaren departed Nottingham Forest on Sunday, resigning after only 112 days in charge.

The figure of ￡99m would have been higher had agents fees and the cost of sacking and replacing a manager's backroom team been taken into account.

According to the LMA, which represents managers in the Premier League and Football League, more than 100 coaches also lost their jobs last season.

Reid, who was in charge of Plymouth at a time when the club were battling to avoid administration, was on BBC Radio 5 live to discuss the issue.

He said: "Chairman and owners need to be more realistic about their expectations.

"Certainly in the Championship where they're all trying to get to the Holy Grail and that's the Premiership. There needs to be a bit of realism."

Reid was joined by LMA chief executive Richard Bevan, who believes managers are not being given enough time to prove themselves.

"We want to move away from managers being judged on their last three results," Bevan said.

Continue reading the main story The average length of time it takes a sacked manager to get another job is currently 1.63 years.Almost half of first-time managers are never appointed to a second management position.

"In fact, when results take a downturn that is when the club should support its manager even more, not jump for the quick fix."

Sir Alex Ferguson, who has been in charge of Manchester United for almost 25 years, agrees.

"It's always a problem in modern-day management," said the 69-year-old Scot. "You see time and time again that these guys are only in a position a year before the clubs are sacking them."

According to the LMA, Championship managers who were sacked in 2010-11 had an average tenure of less than a year.

The average was 1.33 years in League 2, 1.67 years in League 1 and 2.07 years in the Premier League.

The average length of time it takes a sacked manager to get another job is currently 1.63 years. Almost half of first-time managers are never appointed to a second management position.

View the original article here

Planning for changes in the law: what is essential is the definition of 'sustainable development' | Damian Carrington

Property developers have warmly welcomed the proposed changes in the Government planning laws. Photography: David Goddard/Getty Images

Planning Act rare time accelerates the blood of the media. But every day, above and below the Earth, planning decisions are giving way to the country, bringing joy to some and they despair for others.

Publication on Monday of the Government's plans for a radical reform of planning of the United Kingdom - tearing nice lawyer up to 1000 pages and putting in place - only 52 pages was received with coverage of minimum immediate press (including Guardian, Telegraph, BBC excluded).

What of it? Simplification and less work for the lawyers, is a good thing. And as Julian Glover in the guardian (an acute observer of planning laws), Great Britain will have to build if our population growing, aging will have a roof over his head.

But consider these two ministerial takes on the new national policy planning framework (NPPF). First of all, business Secretary Vince Cable, which says that the plans are "sensitive to business" and "an important step forward in the creation of conditions for business start-up, invest, grow and create jobs".

Then Secretary of environment Caroline Spelman. She said that the plans "will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, but giving the maximum protection to our landscapes treasured national parks and areas of Natural beauty."

Can they talk about the same? The key here is a sentence which did not appear until paragraph 7, of the press release: "a presumption for sustainable development".

"Presumption in favor" means development plans - homes, supermarkets, highways, business premises and so - give green light, unless there is good reason for not doing so. It is a major shift in the balance of decision-making.

So what is essential is what the Government means by "sustainable development". NPPF (p3) project defines the term as follows.

Delivery of sustainable development means for planning system:

? planning of prosperity (an economic function): use the system of planning to build a strong, sensitive and competitive economy, to ensure that there is sufficient land for the right kind and in the right places allow growth and innovation...

? planning for individuals (social role): use the planning system to promote
strong, active and healthy communities by providing a greater supply of
housing to meet the needs of present and future generations...

? planning of places (an environmental role): use the planning system for
protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, using natural
resources with prudence and to mitigate and adapt to climate change...

This definition, combined with the presumption in favor - feel me weighted to say yes to every building and pretty light on how to avoid adverse events. The bias of the definition of "sustainable development" for short-term gains allow a kind word probe applicable to all types of construction projects.

But we will see that she was satisfied with the plan and that it is not. The Government, rather helpfully, relays the views of the Chairman of the main group of developers, Sir Stuart Lipton - "we are delighted" - and the peace of Liz, Executive Director of the British Federation of property: "will have no problems to our resounding support framework of today." So the constructors are more than happy.

But, the nation, the National Trust's largest landowner. "Planning is for individuals, non-profit," says the director-general, Dame Fiona Reynolds. "This sounds like finally death sentence the principle established in the 1940s used the planning system to protect what is most special in the landscape, creating a tool to promote economic growth in its place."

The campaign to protect rural England are not happy either. Director Executive Shaun Spiers, said: "the new framework will make the field and much less safe from harmful and unnecessary development local character." And the RSPB, the largest group of voluntary membership in United Kingdom, is concerned about too much. Martin Harper, Director of conservation of the RSPB, says: "the planning system is there to represent the interests of the public to the complex decisions, and all of us will fail if one of the factors: economic growth: is higher than any other". (There are many more reaction in the history of my colleague John Vidal news.)

So that the developers are satisfied, that many others are not. That, I think, says all you need to know about the orientation of the new planning regime. Plans are now being consulted until 17 October, so make sure you give your opinion.

PostScript: I wondered what that would mean the NPPF large infrastructure projects, such as new power plants and wind farms needed to clean up our power supply. The answer is not too much, as I find out. Currently, independent infrastructure planning Commission has responsibility for deciding on projects defined by the Government as a national priority. Local communities may object to specific parts of these plans, but not to the overall desirability. Commissioners of CPI then balance these factors and make a judgement. The next changes you will probably see the abolished CPI, but still there will be a process independent of projects regarded as national priorities. The big difference is that a Secretary of State will take the final decision, not a Commissioner CPI.

View the original article here

National Trust warns planning changes could cancel field

(NPPF) national planning policy threatens the green belt, warn environmentalists. Photography: Richard Saker

London green belt could be sacrificed to urban expansion of Los Angeles-style of low economic growth gave radical planning system reforms announced by the Government this week, the National Trust has warned.

3.6 Million member organization expressed its "serious concern" Tuesday by the Government's proposals to cut 1,000 pages of policy planning to only 52 pages in a move that has won the backing of timbre of developers.

Opponents argue that the new draft policy effectively eliminates the national goal of recycling brownfield land and allows local communities to support the building in the green belt. It is set to be the biggest change in the planning system in more than 60 years and guidance notes decreases detailed planning and circulars. Instead, the Government insists that there should be a presumption for "sustainable development" to House a growing population.

(NPPF) national planning policy framework seeks to accelerate and simplify the often complex laws at the same time as encouraging economic growth. In a foreword to the new policy, Greg Clark, the Minister of decentralization, said: "we must accommodate new forms that will earn our living in a competitive world..." "Sustainable development must go forward, without delay".

Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, warned that the policy could lead to growth that is excessive in the field on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

"The Government's proposals allow financial considerations dominate and this is huge risk in our field, the historic environment and precious local places that people value", said.

"This sounds finally death sentence the principle established in the 1940s used the planning system to protect what is most special landscape."

The new policy was developed with the help of a "consultative group of professionals", whose members include a conservative Councillor, director of the firm of Taylor Wimpey housing construction, a consultant for planning representing major developers at Government level and a staff member of the Royal Society for the protection of birds.

"Through the replacement of more than a thousand pages of national policy with around 50, written clearly and simply are enabling individuals and communities in the planning," said Clark.

But the changes to planning are likely to produce a popular reaction, according to environmentalists. The National Trust is asking its members to sign a petition urging the Ministers to reconsider.

Shaun Spiers, Executive Director of the campaign to protect rural England, said the Government have declared "open season" field not designated as green belt or an area of natural beauty.

"The new framework will make the field and much less safe from harmful and unnecessary development local character," he said. "If it is not changed, there will be battles against the development throughout the country that will make the public revolt against the sale of forests as a tea party."

The campaign for better transport and friends of the Earth have also attacked the plans.

The activists said that if the proposals were not amended could be counterproductive in the Government in the same way that plans to sell the forest estate in England, this year has resulted in an embarrassing turn of 180 degrees.

Ominous for the Government, many of the same groups opposed to the sale of the forest are at the forefront of criticism of the project NPPF, published Monday by the Department for communities and local governments. Most of the groups object has strong representation in constituencies held Tory.

Britain's largest property companies welcomed the proposals, saying it would help boost economic growth and create jobs.

"It is refreshing to have a concise national planning framework which supports and promotes the growth and at the same time protect our heritage," said Francis Salway, Executive Director of land securities.

"Focus on economic growth is very welcome, recognizing also the important role which the planning has to protect the environment," said Chris Grigg, Executive Director of British land. "We welcome the presumption for sustainable development".

View the original article here