[spireitematt]

I have no problem with seeing Britain doing well in the Summer/Winter Olympics, I think it's great. Shame the Premier League can't put more money into grassroots to help produce the players of tomorrow. The amount of money they are getting from Sky/BT etc they could put that back into grassroots to help facilities and it would create more Amateur and semi-pro teams too.

I would think most professional clubs will argue that they are putting money into grassroots football through their academies.  Not sure its the PL responsibility to do anything more than this, that responsibility falls to the FA.  If the PL did spread their money about a bit more I would suggest they focus on the 92 professional teams in England, that is where their money could be used better anyway.

More to grassroots football than academies though. Problem with grassroots football in Britain is facilities and not enough coaches. In Spain and Germany they invest in pitches and facilities which are free to use and coaching courses are cheaper too. If they invest in better facilities, pitches and even coaches then those players which are good enough will be called up to academies and then gradually into the first team and possibly the England team.

[St Charles Owl]

I have no problem with seeing Britain doing well in the Summer/Winter Olympics, I think it's great. Shame the Premier League can't put more money into grassroots to help produce the players of tomorrow. The amount of money they are getting from Sky/BT etc they could put that back into grassroots to help facilities and it would create more Amateur and semi-pro teams too.

I would think most professional clubs will argue that they are putting money into grassroots football through their academies.  Not sure its the PL responsibility to do anything more than this, that responsibility falls to the FA.  If the PL did spread their money about a bit more I would suggest they focus on the 92 professional teams in England, that is where their money could be used better anyway.

More to grassroots football than academies though. Problem with grassroots football in Britain is facilities and not enough coaches. In Spain and Germany they invest in pitches and facilities which are free to use and coaching courses are cheaper too. If they invest in better facilities, pitches and even coaches then those players which are good enough will be called up to academies and then gradually into the first team and possibly the England team.

I agree with you, just think that is the FAs responsibility to look after the well being of the game as a whole from grassroots all the way up. I am sure when you look at who is investing in the pitches in Germany or Spain it will be the respective FA's or maybe even the Government rather that the Bundesliga or La Liga themselves.

[spireitematt]

I have no problem with seeing Britain doing well in the Summer/Winter Olympics, I think it's great. Shame the Premier League can't put more money into grassroots to help produce the players of tomorrow. The amount of money they are getting from Sky/BT etc they could put that back into grassroots to help facilities and it would create more Amateur and semi-pro teams too.

I would think most professional clubs will argue that they are putting money into grassroots football through their academies.  Not sure its the PL responsibility to do anything more than this, that responsibility falls to the FA.  If the PL did spread their money about a bit more I would suggest they focus on the 92 professional teams in England, that is where their money could be used better anyway.

More to grassroots football than academies though. Problem with grassroots football in Britain is facilities and not enough coaches. In Spain and Germany they invest in pitches and facilities which are free to use and coaching courses are cheaper too. If they invest in better facilities, pitches and even coaches then those players which are good enough will be called up to academies and then gradually into the first team and possibly the England team.

I agree with you, just think that is the FAs responsibility to look after the well being of the game as a whole from grassroots all the way up.  I am sure when you look at who is investing in the pitches in Germany or Spain it will be the respective FA's or maybe even the Government rather that the Bundesliga or La Liga themselves.

It is the FA's responsibility and also probably the Governments. I think in Spain the Government invest in facilities, Germany the FA and the Bundersliga and the teams all work together.

[Devongone]

My problem is that when we invest in elite sports and potential medal winners we and particularly the BBC embark on a phantasmagoric bout of xenophobia, celebrating the genius of achieving a bronze having trained on a tea tray on a dry run at Bath University, overseen by its £500,000 a year ex-Vice Chancellor. We want still to be the plucky little Brits and we want to outfund our competition too.

I like to see us compete and I like to see us win sometimes in any and every sport. But I can't support a funding system that rates a mass-participation sport like Basketball as being worth zero and equestrian sports (that don't even include its only mass-participation arm) at £12 million plus, which is shoveled into the arms of the already well-off. In an obese, diabetic nation I would be financing basketball, volleyball and handball too because we already have facilities where these can take place.

As far as long-term aims I'd find it difficult to justify pumping millions into Skeleton because Lizzie Yarnold won at it, when we lack mountains, snow and even one single run when we offer nothing to sports for which we do have some facilities and within which new recruits might also be developed all the way to Olympic achievement.

[spireitematt]

My problem is that when we invest in elite sports and potential medal winners we and particularly the BBC embark on a phantasmagoric bout of xenophobia, celebrating the genius of achieving a bronze having trained on a tea tray on a dry run at Bath University, overseen by its £500,000 a year ex-Vice Chancellor. We want still to be the plucky little Brits and we want to outfund our competition too.

I like to see us compete and I like to see us win sometimes in any and every sport. But I can't support a funding system that rates a mass-participation sport like Basketball as being worth zero and equestrian sports (that don't even include its only mass-participation arm) at £12 million plus, which is shoveled into the arms of the already well-off. In an obese, diabetic nation I would be financing basketball, volleyball and handball too because we already have facilities where these can take place.

As far as long-term aims I'd find it difficult to justify pumping millions into Skeleton because Lizzie Yarnold won at it, when we lack mountains, snow and even one single run when we offer nothing to sports for which we do have some facilities and within which new recruits might also be developed all the way to Olympic achievement.

I would love to play Handball, found out about the sport during the 2012 Olympics and apparently its how Peter Schmeichel became a good goalkeeper.

Played Basketball at school its a sport where you have to be on your toes and its never stop moving or running.

[St Charles Owl]

My problem is that when we invest in elite sports and potential medal winners we and particularly the BBC embark on a phantasmagoric bout of xenophobia, celebrating the genius of achieving a bronze having trained on a tea tray on a dry run at Bath University, overseen by its £500,000 a year ex-Vice Chancellor. We want still to be the plucky little Brits and we want to outfund our competition too.

I like to see us compete and I like to see us win sometimes in any and every sport. But I can't support a funding system that rates a mass-participation sport like Basketball as being worth zero and equestrian sports (that don't even include its only mass-participation arm) at £12 million plus, which is shoveled into the arms of the already well-off. In an obese, diabetic nation I would be financing basketball, volleyball and handball too because we already have facilities where these can take place.

As far as long-term aims I'd find it difficult to justify pumping millions into Skeleton because Lizzie Yarnold won at it, when we lack mountains, snow and even one single run when we offer nothing to sports for which we do have some facilities and within which new recruits might also be developed all the way to Olympic achievement.

Our success in skeleton goes further back than just Lizzy Arnold!! We have now won the gold at the last 3 Olympics and prior to that took a silver and a bronze in the 2 Olympic prior to that. The funding of the individuals in that sport has shown a measurable success rate for us and has increased the interest in the sport. Lets also remember this isn't just about the Olympic Games, Arnold has won gold at the World Championships, the World Cup and European Championships. This funding has led to consistent success. As regards facilities, this funding allows these athletes to be able to train at proper venues like other countries can. They have also developed a training center in Bath for summer training and go to Europe for winter training. The success and interest in skeleton has also led to the development of the sleds by an English company and the suits they wear were developed and produced by another English company. This funding goes far wider than just paying for her hotels!!

As regards Basketball, that is a professional sport with a professional league generating its own revenue, thats probably why it doesn't get support from UK Sport funding. Other sports like football, rugby etc also don't get anything for the same reason. The funding is designed to help those that predominantly compete in individual sports and generally in sports where we have a tradition in competing in. There has to be a line drawn somewhere and not all sports will get something. Also the fact that the sports are measured by the progress they make means they have to have some measurable success to continue to receive the funding, the money is not just blindly given away.

[Devongone]

Basketball lost its funding, not due to the struggling and mostly non-British professional game here, but for its failure to demonstrate medal potential. That's the sole criteria of UK Sport. It is dough for show and the show is podium potential. It's the financial equivalent of the East German doping programme ....... that should make you splutter into your Americano.

I'm not against Lizzie Yarnold at all, or Amy Williams or anyone else keen on tobogganing ..... but it is hard to overcome the perception that without mountain ranges and winter resorts, tracks or a programme to involve both participants and spectators within this country, we're styling a Meet-me-at-MacDonalds on top of a metaphorical skeleton. We're supposedly a competitive athletics nation but we've only produced one woman javelin thrower in thirty years since Sanderson and Whitbread, who could even get the damned thing beyond 60 metres and that's just one example of the many events we might choose to popularise and also uncover medal potential.

The sliders might give us spin-off skin-tight suits, that'll soon be banned like our swim suits and bit of world-class engineering, but any developing sport that caught the nation's attention and took place within the country could surely be more financially productive? There seems to be a huge difference between advantaging our athletes with warm weather training and financing people to participate in sports we will never hear about, or be involved in.

(Yes Peter Schmeichel did play handball and maybe young Cameron Dawson needs to start too. I was impressed with him up to the second goal last night. And then after all those years of professional coaching his position was off, how he went down was off and the ball went both under him and through his legs ........ How come goalies in this country have forgotten the fundamentals? The aim is to make it harder for the forward not easier.)

[bluepooch]

I'm with Dev,we should invest proportionate amounts into the sports with the most prestige ,for crying out loud we have cyclist and rowers who are Knights of the Realm after winning ten a penny events .Is that right ?.I think whoever decides where the money is going saw it was an easy way to get the medal count up .
Myself I'd sooner have a 100m athletic or middle distance world champion than 6 cyclist or rowing world champions because that has higher world status .Surely us older ones can remember the Coe /Ovett Olympic races ,our teacher let us have break from lesson to watch it .I just couldnt drum up that sort of enthusiasm when SIR Chris Hoy or SIR Steven Redgrave won their 100th gold or however many it was .Table tennis should have as much investment as cycling (although I'm biased there being a ping pong enthusiast ).Having said all that,winning the Tour de France is an achievement as it has great prestige and involves many more countries and competitors .

[Devongone]

Sebastian Coe must be my greatest gripe against Sheffield Wednesday. Oh it was so lovely when Steve Ovett managed to wait and wait and wait and sweep past him waving and blowing kisses.

Did it surprise anyone when Coe turned out to be a Tory?

Table Tennis gets a thumbs up from me - Geoff Miller, Derbyshire and England cricketer was very good you know, County level. Badminton, we cut funding there despite heroic and unexpected medal-winning efforts and that's a game anyone can play to any level, almost round the corner ....... and good players, like their table tennis counterparts, are exciting to watch.

[spireitematt]

Sebastian Coe must be my greatest gripe against Sheffield Wednesday. Oh it was so lovely when Steve Ovett managed to wait and wait and wait and sweep past him waving and blowing kisses.

Did it surprise anyone when Coe turned out to be a Tory?

With a name like Sebastian from Sheffield, it's not surprising he learnt how to run.