It's got nothing to do with who is best, just that whoever is holding court, you, TOM, OLM, DMD, me, etc. should try and stick to some facts. Two things: 1. Did you ask a Trust member about what they have or will do to advise the club? 2. I'll be right about what? I haven't seen the OSC say that are advising anything, all I have seen is your assumptions - or did I miss something? 3. (Maths never was a strong point) How the hell do you manage to put any improvement down to the OSC, whether they advise them or not. I would think quite a few folk will have been pissing in their ears.
Some people are too delicate to be football supporters. Maybe croquet or indoor bowls would be more the sort of atmosphere they would prefer. Flares are set off in great numbers all over Europe with no problems. Maybe a lot of English people have got soft. Unfortunately our fans seem to have some of the most wimpish attitudes, frightened of smoke, kids who are traumatised by having to stand up and too much noise, and loads of people not capable of standing up. I always wonder how clubs with more season pass holders than us seem to end up with a 3,000 away following all of who manage to stand up for 90 minutes, but we get arguments and people complaining with a half and a third of those numbers. Maybe only the really fit ones apply at other clubs and those with kids who are not easily traumatised.
Im ****ed castro....i still stand up with my before game medication and half time pain relief...i can always sit on back of seat anyway...i hate sitting down ...those little orange smoke bombs wont hurt you tickles. The stupid stewards slung the wrong people out at boro..
Anyway When are we going to know about this membership scheme.. I hope they have dropped the stupid ****ing idea.
You posted this today - "I am not and was not trying to do anything other than point out that the OSC expressed a view that was valid at the time with the information available." You, I'm guessing it was you, as Communications Director posted this "One of the major advantages to the scheme is that it should make the cost of a match day more affordable to families." when this information was valid & available at the time which showed your claim to be false. Why did you post it knowing it to be false? Who broke the NDA? Who spoke to Burns? Who resigned? Why is OLM a ****? What is OLM doing by blowing smoke up our arses? You made some serious, albeit indirect, accusations yesterday, making it appear that you were speaking on behalf of the OSC. You need to substantiate them or retract them & apologise to those concerned.
"We look forward to understanding more about the other benefits yet to be detailed, when they are released next week by the Club." I think this indicated where we were at.
You've shown what you understand a benefit to be. You see a 700% increase in the cost of a child attending games as "more affordable".
Other benefits suggest that there were already benefits to the scheme. Something not many others seem to concur with.
I don't know, I haven't said I do, I'm simply referring to your assumption that any improvement will be down to OSC advice. I expect little change, too. You seem intent on posting bollocks.
A bit like your assumption that I think there'll be improvements and them being down to the OSC. I expect the OSC to have talked to the club about the scheme. I expect them to have made suggestions as to what could be improved. I expect all that to be private. It may lead to improvements, it may not. Personally I don't think it'll make much difference, but I'm an optimist.
A ruler to the hand, two hours stood in the corner followed by 100 lines of "I must respect the NDA".
Go back, I said any improvement , which leaves the possibility that there might be improvement or there might not be any improvement. Go back and read my post properly: no wrong assumption from me, just sloppy reading from you. You said: "When the club make their announcement we'll see how much influence the OSC has" I am curious about your assumption that any or all of what improvement that might happen (I would rather say change, as improvement isn't guaranteed) could be attributed to the OSC; is the club going to detail what the OSC private advice was and how it stood out from all of the other reasoned advice? Are they (OSC) going to make a statement claiming they swung the deal? I think not. You are splitting hairs over a stupid point you have constructed from nonsense. To save you the trouble of accepting it, your answer should be Yes
I've shared my own view A membership scheme should be sacked off completely and they should just put everyone's direct debit on a rolling thing until you tell them to stop They can then just price it suitably, with children and older people paying less ...I am prepared to accept only 50% of whatever Strawberry were paid, thanks
None, in this case (and many others). The reward for trying to impose it is public scorn and humiliation. Which is well deserved.
