Guardian article re name change
- Thread starter Jimmy Graham's bald head
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Because that's your standpoint and, according to you, that of a majority of fans?
Then you'd be proved right?
As I've said I'm ok with the name change but it is seriously disappointing that some of our forum members have talked big and done nowt except slag off others on here.
I thought TWF may actually do something, get off his arse and organise. I tried goading Erik also. There was no malice intended i just wanted to fire him up, I mean how many posts on here how much of a young lads life wasted with boring old farts like me. But nothing.
There is so much they could do, as Craig alluded to. Pubs are crying out for business organise a meeting in a pub with a function room one night, you'll probably get free food thrown in and discuss what and how to get what you want. Get a committee, use the forums to promote things.
OLM knows were he lives, get a 3 man committe to doorstep him or go through the proper channels and get a meeting.
But FFS DO something.
What would we be demonstrating against?
I was proved right by the lack of support for the Anti Demo, so not sure what I have to prove there.
I don't think for one minute my standpoint is shared by the majority. I think the majority are apathetic and don't care one way or the other.
And to prove that you'd have a demo where the apathetic majority don't turn up?
Didn't you notice the demo by the apathetic majority?
Over 18,000 who marched into the stadium totally ignoring the small group of people walking behind a banner.
Don't be silly John
Only a small minority of our crowd approach the stadium from that direction.
The vast majority in all serious polls are against the change.
The vast majority however don't pass through West Park at 2.30 or are not prepared to alter their routines accordingly.
That was the excuse used after the Norwich match, now the majority are routinely walking passed and ignoring your march.
See my previous answer
Not joining the march does not equate to not agreeing with it.
There is so much they could do, as Craig alluded to. Pubs are crying out for business organise a meeting in a pub with a function room one night, you'll probably get free food thrown in and discuss what and how to get what you want. Get a committee, use the forums to promote things.
OLM knows were he lives, get a 3 man committe to doorstep him or go through the proper channels and get a meeting.
But FFS DO something.[/QUOTE]
This was suggested in the run up to the Udders debacle but is the last thing that a "united front of city supporters" would have wanted. People were banned from this forum for having an opposite view to theirs. We all know who these fxxkwits are and most have come to realise that they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
If only they realised themselves.
OLM knows were he lives, get a 3 man committe to doorstep him or go through the proper channels and get a meeting.
But FFS DO something.[/QUOTE]
This was suggested in the run up to the Udders debacle but is the last thing that a "united front of city supporters" would have wanted. People were banned from this forum for having an opposite view to theirs. We all know who these fxxkwits are and most have come to realise that they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
If only they realised themselves.
We all need to be working on several fronts to block this ludicrous and embarrassing proposal, and many people are.
The march is only one initiative.
We owe it future supporters of our club to resist this threat.
Think on.
The march is only one initiative.
We owe it future supporters of our club to resist this threat.
Think on.
This was suggested in the run up to the Udders debacle but is the last thing that a "united front of city supporters" would have wanted. People were banned from this forum for having an opposite view to theirs. We all know who these fxxkwits are and most have come to realise that they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
If only they realised themselves.[/QUOTE]
Can you shed more light on this I'm not sure what you mean B2W
This was suggested in the run up to the Udders debacle but is the last thing that a "united front of city supporters" would have wanted. People were banned from this forum for having an opposite view to theirs. We all know who these fxxkwits are and most have come to realise that they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
If only they realised themselves.[/QUOTE]
Really? Like who?
It sounds lie absolute bollocks to me, but I'll stand corrected if you post some proof.
Can you shed more light on this I'm not sure what you mean B2W[/QUOTE]
When the question was asked (by DMD, iirc) what can we do to oppose this?
Call a public meeting was suggested and ignored. A lot of useful input was lost as was momentum for the "campaign". They ended up making such monumental fools of themselves that it is now difficult to take them seriously. This was clearly demonstrated by yesterdays non event. If you're agenda doesn't match theirs than they are not interested. They appointed themselves spokespeople for the entire mighty tigers fan base.
Not all City fans want to be "'ulltras". Not all City fans want a return to standing. Not all City fans want to deny the owner the right to run his business as he sees fit etc etc.
Many posters on not606, did not support the anti-police rhetoric which was spouted by some of our self elected leaders, others did not take kindly as being referred to as " Akin to being scabs" for wishing to support the team they love. Some didn't wish to be involved with the Football supporters federation. etc etc.
I am still in favour of a public meeting as it would give certain people the chance to talk down to us all in person as opposed to boring us all to death on here.
Just my thoughts, as always, take em or leave em
When the question was asked (by DMD, iirc) what can we do to oppose this?
Call a public meeting was suggested and ignored. A lot of useful input was lost as was momentum for the "campaign". They ended up making such monumental fools of themselves that it is now difficult to take them seriously. This was clearly demonstrated by yesterdays non event. If you're agenda doesn't match theirs than they are not interested. They appointed themselves spokespeople for the entire mighty tigers fan base.
Not all City fans want to be "'ulltras". Not all City fans want a return to standing. Not all City fans want to deny the owner the right to run his business as he sees fit etc etc.
Many posters on not606, did not support the anti-police rhetoric which was spouted by some of our self elected leaders, others did not take kindly as being referred to as " Akin to being scabs" for wishing to support the team they love. Some didn't wish to be involved with the Football supporters federation. etc etc.
I am still in favour of a public meeting as it would give certain people the chance to talk down to us all in person as opposed to boring us all to death on here.
Just my thoughts, as always, take em or leave em
Can you shed more light on this I'm not sure what you mean B2W[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're trying to say (if anything) but what you haven't done is answer the question on who got banned.
So, who got banned?
I have no idea what you're trying to say (if anything) but what you haven't done is answer the question on who got banned.
So, who got banned?
Really? Like who?
It sounds lie absolute bollocks to me, but I'll stand corrected if you post some proof.[/QUOTE]
Move along sunshine, nothing to see here.
Why do you keep mashing the quote boxes up?
Come on. Piss or get off the pot, you've claimed people were banned, I claim that's bollocks. Prove me wrong.
You seem to want to be a rebel without a cause, but basically you're asking me what happens to people that spam the boards.
One option is I have a quiet word, like I did and like I'm doing now. I will try a number of other things, if they don't work then the spammer will be banned.
I prefer not to ban people, but I've better things to do than piss about right now.
This is the notification you sent me. So having a view opposite to yours is spamming?
You're a joke.
Just my humble opinion.
One option is I have a quiet word, like I did and like I'm doing now. I will try a number of other things, if they don't work then the spammer will be banned.
I prefer not to ban people, but I've better things to do than piss about right now.
This is the notification you sent me. So having a view opposite to yours is spamming?
You're a joke.
Just my humble opinion.