Second bottom of Premier 'Green' League

[alanlee11]

everything about Palace is pretty tinpot and retrogressive.

we fail to support disabled supporters and treat them as equals to other supporters, we fail to treat supporters in the Arthur Wait like human beings - the conditions in there are awful, absolutely awful .

the management of the block E situation was so dreadful, regardless of which side you are on, the failure to conduct proper research and consult all of the lower holmesdale ticket holders, then the flip flopping, before finally arriving at a half baked version of what should have been put in place.

It's a running joke in my family about how badly Palace is run, eg 'obviously cause it's Palace they ran out of beer, the roof leaks on my seat etc' -

My suggestion. Stop selling non-season ticket seats in the Arthur and reduce the capacity, take out one block at the back and make more space in the concourse or provide another toilet block. They cannot continue to sell all those tickets and provide such shoddy facilities in such a tiny space.

[chateauferret]

Originally Posted by Bipe

Reduce the queues for the toilets by allowing patrons to piss on the pitch. Two birds, one stone.

There's already enough toilet on the pitch, thank you very much.

[Chillo]

Originally Posted by stamford triumph

Not doing so well in this league - only our friends Watford below us. To view the link you have to Register or Login

Some of it relates to difficulty introducing new technology into a crumbling old stadium (e.g. solar on stand roofs), other is just lack of interest (e.g. waste reduction, recycling, energy management). We should at least do OK on transport as so many come to stadium by public transport.

This is a completely pointless piece of work, as it says:-

"What does the table not show?

Carbon footprints is the obvious omission.

While the study is a thorough indication of what Premier League clubs are doing to help/promote sustainability, it is not a complete picture of a club's environmental impact.

That would require three stages of assessment to analyse:

1. Emissions generated by the club directly
2. Emissions produced by others as a result of club's activities
3. Emissions from any businesses or activities linked to club's supply chains

That is complicated by the fact Bournemouth and West Ham do not own their own stadiums, and some clubs' involvement in European competition naturally requires more air travel".

In other words, there's no comparison of like-for-like.

The fact that some clubs will fly to get to other grounds in England isn't taken into account either.

The "emissions generated by the club directly" would include a wide range of activities that would blow the 'league table' that has been produced apart. But that's been put in the 'too difficult to measure' box.

[Leopald Stotch]

At least it's given the Weed an excuse for another 'runners up' pawade.

[WLYWLYAWYPWF]

Should have kept terraces and and we wouldn't have all those shitty plastic seats.

[regal_eagle]

2nd from bottom on the Green League?
It can't be true, I smell copious amounts of green every match day.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Seems like a pointless discussion (my favourite kind of discussion) and one which illustrates the magnified scrutiny we put on football clubs.

If you want to scrutinise businesses about their green credentials, football as an industry would be way down the list of priorities.

Somewhere along the line, we asked football clubs to lead solutions to many of society's problems: racism, homophobia, sustainability, diversity, homelessness, poverty in local communities.

It's right that they take on those responsibilities, but the emphasis is totally warped. We've mistaken their visibility for moral authority, and in so doing we risk letting a lot of guilty people off the leash on key issues.

When politicians breed an environment of hateful rhetoric against racial minorities, it is seen most clearly on the terraces - and suddenly it becomes the problem of football clubs. Nobody talks about the politicians who opened Pandora's Box.

When politicians systematically dismantle the social and welfare structures that local communities relied on, it was assumed that football clubs would step in. And they did. But in doing so, the conversation moved away from the root causes of deprivation in our communities.

And when we start ranking football clubs based on their 'green credentials', we conveniently forget to pin any blame on the chief contributors to climate change.

Palace's social work in the community is properly inspiring, and I'm sure Parish et al want us to be 'green' as an organisation. But in the grand scheme of things, it really does not matter how green the club is.

There are much bigger fish to fry. The more we force the issue on relatively blameless organisations like football clubs, the less we scrutinise the real causes of these issues, and the further away we are from anything resembling a real solution.

Fundamentally it is easier to hold football clubs to account than it is an oil and gas company, or the government, or the people who own our media. That's not only intellectually lazy, it's also deeply counter-productive.

[Ninjas Headband]

Excellent post, DH.

[Chillo]

Originally Posted by Ninjas Headband

Excellent post, DH.

Absolutely.

[Fatboy]

But we haven't travelled out of London for weeks...

[davech]

Originally Posted by Fatboy

But we haven't travelled out of London for weeks...

Unlike most Man Utd supporters.

[Billy Rhino]

Benteke does his bit, not getting his socks and shorts dirty plus reducing his car's carbon emissions by getting a driving ban.

[evvo111]

We should get bonus points for creating a wildlife habitat in the lake under the Holmesdale.

[CP-RJW]

Originally Posted by evvo111

We should get bonus points for creating a wildlife habitat in the lake under the Holmesdale.

We already have, it’s a crocodile sanctuary. I saw it on that documentary called a palace minute.

[MFBias]

It is a little bullshit and it shouldnt be moralistic whether you are higher in the ‘green table’ or not but ultimately as a society we should be looking everywhere to be more concerned with what all off our actions are. Football is very popular, it’s a good way to reach people.

[Ninjas Headband]

Agreed, but bullshit tables aren't the way to go.

[MFBias]

Got people talking about it though as cynical as that is.

[SeaEagle]

We would have been mid-table if they hadn't factored in the CFCs released by Parish's hair spray

[Billy Rhino]

Originally Posted by MFBias

It is a little bullshit and it shouldnt be moralistic whether you are higher in the ‘green table’ or not but ultimately as a society we should be looking everywhere to be more concerned with what all off our actions are. Football is very popular, it’s a good way to reach people.

I tend to agree. People talk about oil companies being the problem but ultimately we are still the ones putting the stuff in our cars. How many people drive when they could walk, run, cycle?

Of course the bigger picture needs to be looked at but it shouldn't stop every person or business looking at themselves and asking what more they can do.

Palace are talking about spending £100m on a new stand but I don't believe there were any plans to install solar panels. I'd estimate that say 100 panels would cost around £100k so 0.1% of that figure (less than Benteke's weekly wage).

The reason football clubs are being held up to scrutiny these days is purely the amount of money coming into the game. If players are earning £5-6m per year then why shouldn't they be expected to hold some moral responsibility, and the same with clubs stupid enough to pay that sort of money.

[Scroatey]

Originally Posted by dave_who_ru

If we stop watering the grass at half-time will that move us up the table.

Yes, because it might prevent the opposition passing the ball about so easily.