Rule R7
- Thread starter wavygravy
- 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
-
You'll know this because you're talking about yourself! F'cked us off last year & renewing now!
You'll know this because you're talking about yourself! F'cked us off last year & renewing now!
It's why I've been praying for promotion Stevie G will still be coming won't he?!
You said it pal!
Stevie G will still be coming won't he?!
You have no idea what I do. Why would I interfere in something that doesn't involve me?
You've done more than 'point out', but if you want to make it appear otherwise then crack on.
Ah, you're back to your avoidance banter, same **** you use with everyone. Seriously, stop whinging, it's boring.
1. I haven't made any point about people moving seats ever. My point has only been about those who have had to move because they're not allowed to re buy their seat
You pulled OLM up that he confused evictions with other movement - I simply called that other movement migration, for clarity.
2. What info? Unless they have sold the seats of the people evicted, which I'm assuming they haven't, then if they gave up on the plans they could just offer them back
You admit to making assumptions, which is why I say await more info.
3. I agree with him on lots of things, but I don't think I have criticised them at all. This debate started when I tried to separate the drive to move the away fans from the scheme itself.
It's okay, he denies it himself now.
4. We just have different opinions on it then. I think the relationship issue is understated. I mentioned money because you said you were happy to move to save money
I just don't see or hear a big reaction to it, I accept it is there, but I believe it is overstated. The odd thing is that when folk normally post on here about the folk around them it is normally to criticise them.
I have never said I would be happy to save money, I have said others are.
5. True
Agreed
6. I'll ignore the last part of this and assume you weren't being snide either!
I don't think the current owners will listen at all
My point earlier today was that I was asking questions as to whether there was a separate campaign regarding the forced evictions due to the away fan move or not. Because they might introduce concessions if they had to, but that wouldn't help those moved forcibly. I do think that if we got new owners they could be very quickly convinced to leave the away fans where they are now if there was strong enough feeling, but I don't know if that's what other fans want, neither do supporters groups so they couldn't campaign for that
The owners listen, but they react as only they can.
Do you believe something worthy could have been achieved in the time available from the volunteers concerned? Do you think the result would have been credible. representative and a good use of resources?
Do you not think you were, or could be thought to be, criticising others for not doing what you are saying should or could have been done?
I wasn't being snide, I was being descriptive - although it would appear there has been no criticism at all, which I think folk will find a tad strange.
You pulled OLM up that he confused evictions with other movement - I simply called that other movement migration, for clarity.
2. What info? Unless they have sold the seats of the people evicted, which I'm assuming they haven't, then if they gave up on the plans they could just offer them back
You admit to making assumptions, which is why I say await more info.
3. I agree with him on lots of things, but I don't think I have criticised them at all. This debate started when I tried to separate the drive to move the away fans from the scheme itself.
It's okay, he denies it himself now.
4. We just have different opinions on it then. I think the relationship issue is understated. I mentioned money because you said you were happy to move to save money
I just don't see or hear a big reaction to it, I accept it is there, but I believe it is overstated. The odd thing is that when folk normally post on here about the folk around them it is normally to criticise them.
I have never said I would be happy to save money, I have said others are.
5. True
Agreed
6. I'll ignore the last part of this and assume you weren't being snide either!
I don't think the current owners will listen at all
My point earlier today was that I was asking questions as to whether there was a separate campaign regarding the forced evictions due to the away fan move or not. Because they might introduce concessions if they had to, but that wouldn't help those moved forcibly. I do think that if we got new owners they could be very quickly convinced to leave the away fans where they are now if there was strong enough feeling, but I don't know if that's what other fans want, neither do supporters groups so they couldn't campaign for that
The owners listen, but they react as only they can.
Do you believe something worthy could have been achieved in the time available from the volunteers concerned? Do you think the result would have been credible. representative and a good use of resources?
Do you not think you were, or could be thought to be, criticising others for not doing what you are saying should or could have been done?
I wasn't being snide, I was being descriptive - although it would appear there has been no criticism at all, which I think folk will find a tad strange.
Stevie G will still be coming won't he?!
Has your lass still got her half and half shirt?
Aaanywaay.
Does anyone on here know any timescales for decisions?
I doubt the PL will refuse us admission, as it creates havoc elsewhere and could reflet badly on all concerned.
I suspect IF they feel it's a breach, they'll threaten to withhold enough money so that it costs more than it's worth.
Does anyone on here know any timescales for decisions?
I doubt the PL will refuse us admission, as it creates havoc elsewhere and could reflet badly on all concerned.
I suspect IF they feel it's a breach, they'll threaten to withhold enough money so that it costs more than it's worth.
I did misread your post when you said many would move for price, I thought you said you would, apologies
We disagree on some things which is fine.
The Premier League AGM was on 2 June 206. Normally its a formality that the promoted clubs are accepted into the league and the relegated clubs hand over their golden share. I've seen nothing to suggest we haven't been formally accepted into the Premier League. I'd have thought if we had been rejected something would have slipped out by now.
I'd guess the next thing will be the anouncement of matchday prices.
When I've spoken to the Prem about pricing in the past, it was surprising how little they knew about clubs pricing structures for home supporters. It doesn't seem to be high on their agenda. The issue for them is more related to visiting fans, and we're trying to give them what we're among the most expensive seats in the ground, for less than home fans had been paying.
According to some on here we will be refused angry to the league or will have to rip up the whole memberships scheme.
It's pompous to suggest otherwise, apparently.
It's pompous to suggest otherwise, apparently.
Page 16.
Back to the drawing board. That means rip up and start again?
Last edited:
Get with your own argument! That's a few pages back from the above. Think that's saying we won't be allowed in, or will have to rip up the scheme and start again.
If you aren't aware I'm not sure how you can keep posting blather with any sincerity.