Of course they can ban it. After the scuffles yesterday they can justify it as a threat to health and safety and public order (and before anyone starts with the abuse, that isn't my opinion of what should happen!). Don't forget, this is not a criminal issue. The SMC can virtually do what they want, it's their property, the police only have input on the ground of public order, so they are hardly likely to have any objection.
I was in the Premier Club to yesterday and about 10 near me stood and chanted, one even turning to the Allams, thought that wasn't a bad idea myself.
I didn't say there was, just the potential for fighting ....... which there obviously was from what various people have said. As below .........
That's not a fight though ........... I had an outbreak of scuffles once but the doctor gave me some cream for it
They could in deed, but then it would end up being a battle of wits to find other ways of getting things into the ground, such as banners in bits. That could end up giving more publicity, as their incompetent actions yesterday did.
I think yesterday will have done one thing, and that's make him more determined to do the change, he is clearly a man who does things for pride look at the Barmby sacking, i think that was as much to say to NB you are not disrespecting me in public. As much as i agree with the actions yesterday, it will have only made him more determined to do it, the only way i see us succeeding is via the FA and PL route as there is no chance AA will back down as that will be seen to him as losing face.
Would he not lose even more face if he carries on until the FA reject it in April? Wouldn't you expect him to get in contact with the FA to find out if they'd be opposed or in favour in principal?
That's to sensible, remember he doesn't think he needs to consult anyone or get permission from anyone.
If you think Barmby was sacked because of pride or being disrespected in public, you're wrong. Barmby was sacked because he deserved it. It was also, as it happens, a brilliant decision for the success of our club. Its also funny seeing him described in various ways of not being someone who will back down, by people who won't accept any chance at all, at any costs, and will be "City Till They Die". Typically, they also blame him for the problems they are causing our club, and they'll be responsible for the decline again but will blame Dr Allam. This will be put down to "if only he hadn't changed the name" like its just a small thing, whilst arguing it's massive. If he left the club in exactly the same way it was when he committed his personal money in it, I guarantee the campaigners will blame him for that too. The contradictions are rampant, taking responsibility sadly, isn't.
I am not saying it didn't work out, it clearly did. However that was down to pride i don't know how you can think of it been anything other than that. Also why do we need to change though? Thats my issue, there is no financial benefit to changing. We are currently losing money when clubs on similar turnovers to ours are making money, that's got to be the first thing to look at. We need to look at raising revenue's in this country how can we get people spending more on match days, how can we expand our revenue not on matchdays. I don't get why changing the name is a good thing, and you can seriously suggest it it is? Also Dutch i agree it would make more sense for him to go the FA and PL now, but i don't think he will, i think he is to pig headed.
Could bankers be our ally? #you are football is pretty much what we're saying. please log in to view this image
Sorry, could you remind me who is changing the name when it is not wanted and has not in any way been proved to be beneficial? Who would be the person to walk away if he didn't get his own way? It is not the fans so I don't see how it is them causing the problems. Stop trying to shift blame to passionate supporters.
They have to ban banners though because those banners could say anything. and we are on TV now. Yes it didn't say anything bad. But it opens up the possibility of "**** off back to egypt" banners.
I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that Barmby was sacked due to his comments in the media. Ehab even stated after the sacking, "'the reason for the dismissal relates to certain comments made by Nick in recent interviews." At the time we'd just ended the season fairly well, only 7 points short of the play-offs (which we might have made if not for a terrible patch of form in March) with a small squad hampered by injuries, and we did all of this whilst playing some of the best passing football in the league. Fair play to Allam, Bruce was a wonderful replacement, however I'm still in no doubt of mind that Barmby's sacking was in no way justified, and was also a clear warning sign for what was to occur in the future.
Some good footage of the tug of war uploaded by a Palace fan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q04lat8lgck&feature=youtube_gdata_player It begins at about 1min 50 secs
There was "pride" involved on both sides, that seems to be conveniently forgotten, because obviously Barmby's pride is more important. It was also about a lot more than just Nick spouting off in the media. Ever wonder why we never actually heard "Nicks side of the story"? He would not come of it well at all.
Thanks for that, shows a bit more of the crowd then the other video though on both you can hear the crowd very well, all 200
Happy, clearly there was some sort of confidentiality clause (or gagging order) as part of Barmby's pay off. However, if we don't or rather can't legally hear Nick's side of it, how do you know he 'would not come out of it well at all'?
