www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 982278.ece The Higher Education Funding Council for England is now examining spending at Leeds Met to determine whether the university has fulfilled its duties to use public money responsibly.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 982278.ece The Higher Education Funding Council for England is now examining spending at Leeds Met to determine whether the university has fulfilled its duties to use public money responsibly.

. . . . . [i"[u£14m[/u on a new green and purple pavilion at the historic Headingley cricket ground."[/i

. . . . "[inext biggest item is Leeds Met’s sponsorship of Leeds Carnegie rugby union club. . . .. the university has negotiated a deal to pay [u£8m[/u as an exit from the club.[/i" . . . .

WTF!!!!

Indeed.

This is public money we are talking about. Good to see the highly effective controls in place to ensure it is properly and appropriately spent.

Looks like this unfolding scandal has legs. Seems Leeds Rugby wins whatever happens.

Im suprised it took so long.

I knew this was coming & the figures quoted were exactly what I was told. Leeds Met are in a doubly precarious position in that they do not own hardly any of their buildings, having sold them off to raise revenue. Despite what he has said it was very much down to Lee & was very much his style. Another case of an overpaid senior manager walking away & leaving the lower paid minions to suffer.
Having said all that this is all a result of the stupid liberation of the HE market where virtually any college can too easily adopt uinversity status. In a market where it is all about bums on seats universities adopt innovative & sometimes crazy policies to do that. The older universities are the last bastions of democratic debate at a senior level, & are often tortious as a result, but they are accountable. The newer ones, instigated in a Thatcher style of CEO management, are plainly not. Ironic then that the Murdoch rag doesn't like the culture of excess.

I'd agree with most of that, although my perception is that its only in this last decade or so that we've really seen all this nonsense exploding. Seems to me that we have had yet another example of public money being pumped into something without (as you say) the accountability. And the more responsible institutions (and their staff) will no doubt pay the price, same way as we all are for the similarly-unaccountable activities of the scumbag vermin investment bankers. This guy Lee should be made personally accountable, same as the bankers, IMO.

I had similar suspicions myself, however, after speaking to an accountant friend who knows a lot more about the situation myself, apparently the money used to invest in sport came from a special fund which had been ring-fenced for this sort of thing. In theory they couldn't have spent it on much else. Although obviously someone could have been exploiting this as a loophole somehow. I'm sure this would have been put better coming from the horse's mouth but I hope I've conveyed the gist of what was said to me!

Agree entirely with tigertot. The mass expansion of the sector to include post-92 'universities' now means that even the top universities are having their unit of resource cut by the government in their desperate attempts to save money. I notice Brown was on the telly last night going on about education and providing laptops to kids (a waste of taxpayers money IMO although I don't know the full details of the scheme) whilst his sweeping and extensive cuts to the HE sector have been nicely buried by the festive winter weather.

Unfortunately even the top universities are increasingly being run by 'banking sector-style' management which is only concerned about the bottom line and league tables - partly driven by stupid performance targets set by the government that encourage universities to compete against each other rather than our international competitors. Not sure a change of government will make any difference to the situation as none of them have the balls (or ideas) to conduct a radical overhaul of the HE sector, let alone making no-brainer (but unpopular) decisions like taking the cap off tuition fees.

Universities have done pretty well out of Labour, in spite of what I have said, that has come to an end with a frightening jolt. Even my director, who sits very high within here, is clear things will be much worse from a funding perspective under the Tories. We reckon we can charge £7k/year tuition fees without it affecting numbers, however my understanding is that revised tuition fees can not be in place until 2012, whereas the next capital grant is 2011, so uni's are having to plan on an expected Tory government & slashed funding announced later this year. FWIW, even though I support free education, I reckon the liberation of tuition fees will lead to a number of HEI's going under & reverting to local control, as pre-92, which in the long run is a good thing, as long as equal access is guaranteed.

Which is, of course, exactly the same scenario with much of Leeds Carnegie's involvment with Leeds Rugby. You do know what the Carnegie stand is used as during weekdays don't you?

I agree universities have done well out of Labour, but the golden age is well and truly coming to an end. Our VC (once very friendly with New Labour) has turned against Mandelson and is now apparently getting closer to the Tories.

I agree on the free education issue - but if the government aren't going to pay then someone has to. Higher fees shouldn't necessarily mean reduced social mobility. It is likely that there will be no profits made from introducing fees due to the pressure to provide bursaries for students from 'widening participation' backgrounds anyway (I suspect there aren't many of them in Ilkley

).

Was not taking issue with the stand - or any investment in bricks and mortar that is used for wider sporting and educational purposes. That fits in with the remit of a university or college to promote sports education and related fields, especially one like Leeds Met with the former Carnegie PE college history and specialisation in sports (I used to attempt to play volleyball, very very badly, with the then-Carnegie team years ago). My issue is over team sponsorship (and, to be honest, sponsorship of competitions etc). I do not believe that to be an appropriate use of public money. I was particularly concerned with the attributed comment referring to an alleged £8m settlement with Leeds Rugby union:



Nothing to do directly with the Rhinos? Its the union club seemed to be the beneficiary? And, prima facie, a serious serious misuse of public money, would you not agree?

I suspect that the Rhinos may "benefit" in so far as its' all part of the Leeds Rugby Umbrella.

By the way, I can understand what Leeds Carnegie were trying to achieve in trying to base the National Centre for Sporting Excellence in our region.

Of course, being dour Northerners I wouldn't expect Rugby League fans to get behind such forward thinking but rather moan about the pennies and pounds.

Yet, of course, we will all happily and readily bemoan the London Bias when it comes to National Stadium/media coverage etc etc.

His reasoning for sponsorship also makes sense.



I also note from the original article that the new Cricket Pavillion will have University facilities just like the Rugby Cernegie Stand.

i thnk that article is the worst case of lazy reporting I have ever seen. I also notice not many have moaned about their sponsership of the challenge cup and world club challenge

Another problem with lifting the tuition fees cap is that it would be 3 years after 2012 before graduates would start paying back if they were >£15k. My favoured idea would be similar to what the NUS are proposing; graduates pay back a fixed rate of tax (NUS are suggesting 2.5% IIRC) when they start working.

More on the Leeds Carnegie sham here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds-me ... 5270978.jp and here www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Exc ... 5906523.jp And the fans (yes it seems they do have some. Not many, but some) of what we can still call the Takes discuss the matter here: www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 5,11104791 Their funding of Leeds Carnegie is little directly to do with Leeds RLFC in theory as they simply replaced Caddick as a source of funding, and Caddick doesn't really fund Leeds RL in terms of just giving money to it in the same way. Leeds RL's relationship with the university is obviously beneficial to us, although i don't entirely buy the argument that the Carnegie Stand wouldn't have been built without them it certainly made the sums easier. But as Adeybull says it isn't particularly inappropriate use. Sponsorship of Leeds RLFC generally and the Challenge Cup and referees etc? Not sure how the deal in the latter cases worked, the RFL got to use Carnegie as a training base didn't they so it may not have involved vast amounts of cash. But owning a loss making RU club that no one can ever envisage not making ridiculous losses and forever being a drain? And tying themselves in for ten years? Madness. On Leeds Met's part. In my view it just cements Gary Hetherington as one of the world's greatest negotiators. A genius A shame it had to be put to the benefit of this particular bunch of useless pitch destroying meatheads, but still, you've got to admire his almost alchemic ability to created cash out of thin air.

More on the Leeds Carnegie sham here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds-me ... 5270978.jp and here www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Exc ... 5906523.jp And the fans (yes it seems they do have some. Not many, but some) of what we can still call the Takes discuss the matter here: www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 5,11104791 Their funding of Leeds Carnegie is little directly to do with Leeds RLFC in theory as they simply replaced Caddick as a source of funding, and Caddick doesn't really fund Leeds RL in terms of just giving money to it in the same way. Leeds RL's relationship with the university is obviously beneficial to us, although i don't entirely buy the argument that the Carnegie Stand wouldn't have been built without them it certainly made the sums easier. But as Adeybull says it isn't particularly inappropriate use. Sponsorship of Leeds RLFC generally and the Challenge Cup and referees etc? Not sure how the deal in the latter cases worked, the RFL got to use Carnegie as a training base didn't they so it may not have involved vast amounts of cash. But owning a loss making RU club that no one can ever envisage not making ridiculous losses and forever being a drain? And tying themselves in for ten years? Madness. On Leeds Met's part. In my view it just cements Gary Hetherington as one of the world's greatest negotiators. A genius A shame it had to be put to the benefit of this particular bunch of useless pitch destroying meatheads, but still, you've got to admire his almost alchemic ability to created cash out of thin air.

It's for the school of Tourism & Leisure or some such trendy course IIRC.

G1, that can't possibly be true since we all know as FACT that the RU side of the organisation is substantially resourced by the RL side.
The RU upper class clique continuing to exploit the salt of the earth RL workers as they have for the past 115 years.

Calm down it's Leeds Poly not Loughborough.

National Centre for Sporting Ecellence

This sounds a bit silly! BUT rather than spending all that money trying to get students to leeds metro uni' by sponsoring things .. why couldnt they plow more money into providing better facilities and coaches? And then build up the reputation that way?

Don't disagree with local uni's/colleges sponsoring clubs but it has to be for the benefit of the students or local community ..

You mean like the facilities at the Carengie Stand and the new Pavillion or the access to resources and coaching they get via their sponsorship of Leeds Rugby?

You're from Bradford. I wouldn't expect you to grasp the concept of aspirational thinking.

You're not acting for the former VC by any chance?

Yeah cos Bradford Uni's rubbish innit.

Uni being the operative word and not Polytechnic.

No, but I couldn't tell you if I was.

I just like a visionary, s'all.