Eloquent as ever, Chazz. I take it you have a grasp of what's going on now, then? You'll not be coming on asking for summaries as you are on holiday in the deepest jungle and can't get WiFi, will you? We know it's a right bastard, that Las Americas, Tenerife, did the drums still beat on a night?
If I recall, during the second half commentary on the night this came out Burnsy mentioned twice that he may have some news. At the end of the game he repeated it and said something along the lines of he will find out if he's allowed to say what it is. When he did break the news the headline was all about the potential savings of over £200 on an adult pass against this season. He said he didn't have all the details but I can't recall him saying that fans would have to move seats or that upper west would close, it seemed a very positive announcement which sounded as though he had had a quick briefing from someone at the club. I don't know if that's true, that's just the way it came across. If someone wanted to stir trouble, why would they only have given Burnsy the positive bits?
You're right, Burnsy didn't hear it from fans. The club briefed him on it but wanted him to wait and offered him an 'exclusive' if he did wait. That's the bit I don't understand because surely it already was an exclusive since no other media knew. They were annoyed at Burnsy for reporting it, but they were well aware that he knew about it.
Burnsy heard it from two "fans". He was only briefed by the club during the match. The important bit I suppose is who those two "FANS" are and were and how did they know. I know who and I live 250 miles away, Sydney Tiger knows one and he lives God knows how far away. Aren't you not close enough to know. OLM say's the breech was stupid. OLM... is not peddling this rubbish about Burnsy knowing. The NDA was broken and two fans went to Burnsy with it,
I'm not sure how you're so sure no other media knew, but my guess on why he did what he did is that someone had leaked snippets of the meeting to him, he queried the club about it and, they tried getting to hold back on a piece meal release with confirmation of a few points, and the promise of early viewing of the full scheme prior to release. Burns seems to have preferred the murky way so it looks like he has an insider. The club would have been annoyed at Burns leaking what he did, when he did, and with those that couldn't keep council for whatever reason. In my opinion, other than just doing nothing and accepting the scheme, this was one of the worst ways of dealing with the proposals and any revisions will come about despite, rather than because of all this..
It seems, TOM, that you are the one ITK. But there are elements that just seem odd. Burnsy is a pro of long-standing, he understands retaining channels with clubs, especially one as touchy and difficult as ours. I can't help but think that he said whatever he did triggered purely by professional reasons, journalistic ones. Is it possible he was initially given some form of exclusive brief, by the club, but told not to release until told. Then, at the game, he discovers that fans were in the process of making it public; his responsibility then reverts to his journalistic employer, who might less than impressed at him losing the exclusive. What I don't understand is why the club would try to impose a NDA and also take a journalist into their confidence. If they did brief him prior to the game then it smacks of either madness or tactical manipulation, which we know they are all too capable of. If, however, it was as you describe (if I read it right), then they only briefed him during the game when they discovered that fans were to expose their plans, they gave him a limited insight and the only purpose of this could be for him to do exactly what he did, broadcast his exclusive. He took dogs abuse for betraying their trust, although I have never seen anything from the club, but it looks more and more like he might have been just another badly used instrument of the club. Which is it?
Up to Monday I thought one fan had spoke to Burnsy. On Monday I was told that it was two. The first name was emailing the club complaining in the days before the game. The second name was a surprise. But looking back at a few things, I should have known. To be honest the damage has been repaired. To a certain degree. It has been pointed out that if Burnsy had been briefed, there would have been no point in an NDA.
People are reading to much into the two year thing. It's a couple of years since they first started thinking about a new approach to ticketing arrangements, but nobody's actually been sat working on this full time for years. The meeting was three hours long, but it covered all the other stuff that FWG meetings normally cover and only about an hour was on the membership scheme. We were only presented with an overview of the scheme, we were told the headline adult ticket cost of £252, but the other prices were unconfirmed at the time of the meeting, as were the zones. We were supposed to be called back in a week later after we'd all had chance to comment and the details had been finalised, but subsequent events and the rushed release put an end to that. Those who attended and the things that were discussed outside the membership scheme were all detailed in the meeting report as normal - http://www.ambernectar.org/blog/2016/03/notes-from-the-february-2016-fans-working-group/ The FWG have now been advised of the amendments and invited once again to give feedback, though I get the impression that they're unlikely to be amended again and will be released next week (people are currently seeking clarification of some aspects as the details provided still don't make it clear who has to pay what and who may still have to move).
Thanks, it's good to have a stake-in-the-ground, as it could all get quite interesting next week. I take it that, as the original NDA is defunct, no further NDA was imposed? Or do they believe it is still binding?
It's good that damage to your plans (social and charitable) are being repaired, as they are and should be beyond the silly politics. These names will come out eventually, that is inevitable; in my opinion they should go public and defend or apologize for their actions. I am far from certain that your Burnsy point is true, but, in my opinion, there never was a need for a NDA, it was always extremely risky and therefore worthless; other options should have been taken up.
I know who one of the fans you're talking about is but I didn't think that had anything at all to do with Burnsy. I'd be interested to know where you've got this Burnsy thing from; it seems like a red herring to me. I do know that the club were annoyed at Burnsy reporting the scheme and 'offered him an exclusive' if he waited a week, although as I said I don't understand why he would accept that given that he wasn't bound by anything. I wasn't at all surprised when to find Burnsy knew about it because I'd been told the day before that he was meeting Ehab to talk about it; I think I posted that on here at the time.
