Evaluate Manchester United's Governance, The Info Is On The Attachment

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 1 Faculty of Business and Law Assignment Brief Mode E and R Regulations Module Title: Sport Governance and Strategic Management Assignment Number Coursework 1 Deferral Module Code: 7004SMM Assignment Title Blog post Module Leader: Simon Gerard Assignment Credits 10 Release Date: Semester 2 Submission Date/Time: 03 April 2023 18:00 Submission Time and Place: Submission through Turnitin ONLY - or as specified by the module leader. Assessment Information This is an individual assignment. This assignment requires you to evaluate the governance of a chosen sport organisation and – building on past and current examples and appropriate literature - propose how it could better deal with the governance issues that you will have identified. Your work should be presented under the form of a blog post (2,500 words) that your classmates can access and include the following: - Presentation of the governance issues and discussion of their (potential) impact on the organisation (15%); - Development of a theoretical framework built upon appropriate literature (15%) - Evaluation of the governance of the organisation (20%); - Assessment of possible responses to the governance issues (scenario planning) (25%); - Recommendations and conclusion (20%); - Creation of a blog post (5%) You should discuss your idea for this assignment (organisation and governance issues) with the module leader before you begin in order to assess whether it will be an appropriate choice. More details regarding the creation of the blog post will be given in class. Only those posts qualifying for a pass or above will be made public. This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 2 Criteria for Assessment 80%+ 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 0-29% Background, governance issues and their impact 15% - Outstanding, faultless introduction and background. - Outstanding, faultless identification and description of relevant governance issues. - Outstanding, faultless discussion of their (potential) impact, supported by a range of contextualised specific examples and relevant literature - Extremely clear introduction and background. -Excellent identification and description of relevant governance issues. -Excellent discussion of their (potential) impact, supported by a range of contextualised specific examples and relevant literature -Very good introduction and background. -Very good identification and description of relevant governance issues. -Very good discussion of their (potential) impact, supported by a number of specific examples and relevant literature. -Good introduction and background. -Good identification and description of relevant governance issues. -Good discussion of their (potential) impact, supported by a few, relatively specific examples and some literature. -Limited introduction and background -Some governance issues are identified and briefly described, their relevance is not clearly explained. -A limited discussion of their (potential) impact, supported by mostly generic examples and limited literature. -Poor introduction and background -Governance issues are poorly identified and described, with very limited justification of their relevance -Poor discussion of their (potential) impact, with only generic examples and no academic references. -A very poor or missing introduction and background -Governance issues are not described, their relevance is not discussed -Very poor or missing discussion of their (potential) impact Theoretical Background 15% - Outstanding, faultless theoretical framework developed, built upon diverse and relevant literature - Strong evidence of extra readings, great command of relevant literature - the theoretical framework is very precisely linked to the governance issues analyses. Its appropriateness is outstandingly justified - Excellent theoretical framework developed, built upon diverse and relevant literature - Strong evidence of extra readings - the theoretical framework is very precisely linked to the governance issues analyses. Its appropriateness is very clearly justified - Very good theoretical framework developed, built upon diverse and relevant literature - Evidence of extra readings - the theoretical framework is precisely linked to the governance issues analyses. Its appropriateness is clearly justified - Good theoretical framework developed, built upon relevant literature - Evidence of a few extra readings - the theoretical framework is very precisely linked to the governance issues analyses. Its appropriateness is justified - Adequate theoretical framework developed using relevant literature to some extent - No or few evidence of extra readings - the theoretical framework is very precisely linked to the governance issues analyses. Its appropriateness is justified - Poor theoretical framework developed. Relevant literature is poorly mobilised - No evidence of extra readings - The appropriateness of the theoretical framework is not clearly justified - No theoretical framework developed, - No evidence of extra readings - The appropriateness of the theoretical framework is poorly justified Evaluation of the governance of the organisation 20% - Outstanding, faultless evaluation, extremely well supported by academic references. -Specific dimensions are critically discussed and identified, with supported data when available. - Outstanding, faultless application of the literature and discussion of levers of action / areas of improvement. -Excellent evaluation, extremely well supported by academic references. -Specific dimensions are critically discussed and identified, with supported data when available. -Excellent application of the literature and discussion of levers of action / areas of improvement. -Very good evaluation with very appropriate supporting academic references. -Some specific dimensions are identified and discussed, with some supporting data and a very good application of academic literature. -Very good discussion of potential areas of improvement and levers of action. -Good evaluation going beyond description but with some academic references. -Some specific dimensions are presented but their discussion remains a bit superficial. -Good discussion of potential areas of improvement. -Correct evaluation, but can be confused and remains mostly descriptive and superficial. Limited academic references. -Evaluation remains a bit superficial, with mostly generic considerations. -Limited identification of potential areas of improvement. -Evaluation is confused and contains some minor misinterpretation. -Remains descriptive and superficial, and very generic. No or very limited academic references. -No discussion of the implications No evaluation or some major misinterpretation. Assessment of potential responses 25% -Excellent justified choice of specific past and current examples. -Very appropriate and well justified choice of specific past and current examples. -Appropriate choice of past and current examples with good justification. -Some appropriate examples but with limited justification. -A limited number of examples. -Very limited number of examples, only superficially described. -No or extremely limited examples, poorly presented. This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 3 -Outstanding critical and nuanced mobilisation of these examples to the context of the studied organisation. -They are well interpreted with outstanding discussion of their implications. Presents strong and critical analysis and discussion well-grounded in literature. -Excellent critical and nuanced mobilisation of these examples to the context of the studied organisation. -They are well interpreted with outstanding discussion of their implications. Presents strong and critical analysis and discussion well-grounded in literature. -Very good mobilisation of these examples to the context of the studied organisation. -Very good interpretation with some discussion of their implications. Very good analysis and discussion based on literature. -Good mobilisation of these examples to the context of the studied organisation. -Good interpretation, but remains largely descriptive. Good analysis and discussion with some connections with the literature. -No explicit application of these examples to the context of the studied organisation. -Any interpretation remains mostly descriptive and superficial. Limited analysis and discussion, not drawing on the literature. -Very limited interpretation. -Very limited analysis and discussion with no reference to the literature. -No or extremely limited interpretation. Recommendations & conclusion 20% Outstanding recommendations, with clear rationale coming from the previous analysis and identification of levers of action Extremely relevant and specific recommendations, with clear rationale coming from the previous analysis and identification of levers of action Very good recommendations, mostly specific and relevant. Overall rooted Some specific recommendations, linked to identified issues but with limited explicit rationale Some recommendations but remain mostly generic and with limited link to the analysis Very generic recommendations, with no link to the analysis No recommendations Creation of a blog post (5%) Outstanding blog post, with additional pictures and web links. The blog is user friendly and enjoyable to read Extremely well-designed blog post, with additional pictures and web links. The blog is user friendly and enjoyable to read Very well-designed blog post, with a few additional pictures and web links. The blog is enjoyable to read Good blog post, with a couple of extra pictures and/or web- links. Some efforts in the presentation Adequate blog post, that is mainly a copy-paste of the submitted report. Minimal efforts for the presentation and to make the blog user- friendly The blog post is simply a copy-paste of the submitted report with no efforts to make it user-friendly No blog post created This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 4 This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes: 1-Demonstrate an understanding of the organisation of sport, its evolution over time and variety across nations and sports. 2-Critically analyse governance issues and their implications for the management of sport. 3-Critically discuss past and contemporary research on sport organisation and governance and the implications of this research for the management of sport. Word Count The word count is 2500 words. There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the limit by 10% or more. The limit includes quotations and citations but excludes the references list, Appendices, Ethics paperwork, and other parts as detailed. In other words, everything after the Table of Contents and before the References is included in the word count. In a written report any tables or other words within the main body (even if included as a picture) will count toward the word count. How to submit your assessment The assessment must be submitted by 18:00 on 03 April 2023. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.  Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you fail to submit your work as directed by the module leader. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.  Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. The Faculty accepts Microsoft Office documents unless otherwise advised by the module leader.  All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.  The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline. You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://livecoventryac.sharepoint.com/sites/students-registry-extensions-deferrals.  Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.  Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites. GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT Plagiarism As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw. You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz. This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 5 Self-plagiarism or reuse of work previously submitted You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this and any other university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is unacceptable because you cannot gain credit for the same work twice. The University VLE includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. If you are a business student and joined Coventry University in September 2020 or later please use APA 7th edition referencing, if you joined prior to this date you may use APA or the existing Harvard Reference Style (Coventry version) that you are familiar with. Law students should use OSCOLA. Please be consistent in the referencing style that you use and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. If you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Progress Coach or a member of the course team. Return of Marked Work You can expect to have marked work returned to you 10 working days after submission. If for any reason there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in comple ng their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third par es or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to acreg. l@coventry.ac.uk 7002SMM Deferral Assignment Brief Page 6