Corollary to SD minute about ST refunds

Plumbs said:
Sorry but I have to comment on this because at least you have seen through this-in whole or in part.

Personally I'm unsure that people said they'd sue the club and I have doubts about the integrity of the SLO, who really shouldnt be putting this stuff on an open forum. This is similar to something to what I've experienced where a Trust takes over a forum,has people in place close to the club and then finds a scapegoat within the fanbase to turn upon.

If anything the club is responsible for allowing this Structured Dialogue to go ahead as it has,because its disenfranchised many fans especially families and social fringe groups (like say LGBT) from getting involved-noted too that BASIL had two representatives on the board,where BST should have selected another candidate for balance.

The comments on safe standing are in line with the FSAs policy to push this at every opportunity, and I suspect this is interference from someone on the National Council rather than something regular Blackpool fans care about.
I've actually discussed* this with the Council lead on this some years ago, where there are several criteria to fulfil including making concourses wider and being able to facilitate egress targets.

Its also worth knowing that rail seating takes up more room per seat so many of you would lose yours in the popular stands, and where other clubs have got around this by having a more relaxed attitude to stewarding.

Generally I think you're all being lead up the garden path with regards to the Structured Dialogue meetings which are becoming divisive within your club,and its part of the nonsense that has BST running this forum and being the main contact with the club's directors, and also the head of the FSA suddenly appearing from nowhere to contribute rather aggressively on here.
Click to expand...
I posted on here primarily to correct the misleading statements Plumbs made about the history and current position of the status of regional groups in the FSA rules as well as other issues. I don't think that on any reading my posts could be described as aggressive in any way but I'm happy for readers to make their own judgement that.

I have no comments to make on the issues of structured dialogue at BFC or the integrity of the SLO. If our Blackpool members want any advice on these issues we would, as ever, be very willing to give it.

I will however respond to the comments about safe standing. To say that the FSA pushes this at every opportunity is an odd comment. It is FSA policy having been supported overwhelmingly at Conferences and National Council meetings over many years. All the evidence is that a large majority of match-going fans support it. Even Project Big Picture proposed it. But the position and the practicalities are of course very different at each club. If a football club or a supporters group at Blackpool or anywhere else wants advice or support on it, then of course we will provide it. We would be rightly criticised if we didn't.

Our Blackpool supporting members will know far better than I do how important this issue is to Blackpool supporters. I suspect they will also know better than Plumbs does and for him to say "I suspect this is interference from someone on the National Council rather than something regular Blackpool fans care about" is as bizarre as it is unfounded. No name is given for the FSA National Council member who is alleged to have "interfered" on this issue, or indeed what "interfered" means in this context.

Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair
 
Malcolm Clarke said:
I posted on here primarily to correct the misleading statements Plumbs made about the history and current position of the status of regional groups in the FSA rules as well as other issues. I don't think that on any reading my posts could be described as aggressive in any way but I'm happy for readers to make their own judgement that.

I have no comments to make on the issues of structured dialogue at BFC or the integrity of the SLO. If our Blackpool members want any advice on these issues we would, as ever, be very willing to give it.

I will however respond to the comments about safe standing. To say that the FSA pushes this at every opportunity is an odd comment. It is FSA policy having been supported overwhelmingly at Conferences and National Council meetings over many years. All the evidence is that a large majority of match-going fans support it. Even Project Big Picture proposed it. But the position and the practicalities are of course very different at each club. If a football club or a supporters group at Blackpool or anywhere else wants advice or support on it, then of course we will provide it. We would be rightly criticised if we didn't.

Our Blackpool supporting members will know far better than I do how important this issue is to Blackpool supporters. I suspect they will also know better than Plumbs does and for him to say "I suspect this is interference from someone on the National Council rather than something regular Blackpool fans care about" is as bizarre as it is unfounded. No name is given for the FSA National Council member who is alleged to have "interfered" on this issue, or indeed what "interfered" means in this context.

Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair
Click to expand...
Just got a bit of retaliation in first didn't we? and its fair to say that anything that you dont agree with you label as 'misleading'. Pity you aren't quite unequivocal when it comes to dealing with abuse against your own groups members, where your feet are consistently stuck in the clay (from the Potteries no doubt-guffaw)

Other policies included the motion (as voted on) against pyrotechnics but this was seen as a 'non vote winner' and subsequently ignored, which included exclusion from the FSF AGM minutes until someone brought it up.

The issue on safe standing in this context isnt with the subject matter but in how it found its way onto the agenda, where I'm not convinced it came from rank and file Blackpool fans. Other clubs allow fans to stand but by using more tolerant stewarding and a more open approach to the risk assessment challenges, and that could have been dealt with away from the dialogue and probably achieved a better solution.

You're right-no name given on interference but Blackpool fans can decide exactly where this 'structured dialogue' is going, especially those who don't get a say and where some have singled out with allegations of suing the club. When the finger pointing starts at matches then folk can decide who started the nonsense in the first place.
 
Imagine coming onto a message board of a team you don’t support, to have an argument with someone who also doesn’t support the club. About something the actual supports of the club don’t really care about.

This could literally only happen on AVFTT. The strangest place on the internet.
 
Can't wait for the minutes of the next Structured Dialogue Meeting

God knows who'll be crawling out of the woodwork and posting on here
 
Last edited:
Rektseasider said:
Imagine coming onto a message board of a team you don’t support, to have an argument with someone who also doesn’t support the club. About something the actual supports of the club don’t really care about.

This could literally only happen on AVFTT. The strangest place on the internet.
Click to expand...
It's not the first time either what's more stupid that someone high up in an organisation pops up to defend the posts it would be like old B-low J-ob defending Cat's post about the Tory party weird.
 
BFC_53 said:
I'm actually astonished that someone has threatened legal action. I get that there maybe people who have fallen on hard times, however surely we all knew there was a pretty high risk of not being able to attend this season.
I hope he and Simon realise that this isn't indicative of the thoughts of the fanbase as a whole, far from it. What I mean is I highly doubt there will be an influx of similar demands at the end of the season.
Click to expand...
Some people just want to see the world burn.

50 fans equates to about one in 150 fans, which is 0.6%.
lets not lose sight of this fact.
0.6% is very low.
 
Im just wondering if the said 50 STH requesting refunds have watched the matches on IFOLLOW and still wanting a refund. Talk about having ya cake and eating it.
As far as I know it was stated anyone that bought a st for this season would get access via I follow to all pool home games for behind closed games if fans couldn’t return and that NO refunds would be offered ??
 
🙄 Given the number of people on avftt alone who regularly contribute and who have struggled to get onboard with I-follow for technical reasons, for which there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture, it isn’t too difficult to imagine that 50 out of 4000 may not have had their cake, never mind eaten it
 
"Im just wondering if the said 50 STH requesting refunds have watched the matches on IFOLLOW and still wanting a refund. Talk about having ya cake and eating it."

Problem with that is I use my mate's IFollow code every home game as he doesn't have a computer and an antiquated phone!
 
Recidivist3 said:
🙄 Given the number of people on avftt alone who regularly contribute and who have struggled to get onboard with I-follow for technical reasons, for which there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture, it isn’t too difficult to imagine that 50 out of 4000 may not have had their cake, never mind eaten it
Click to expand...
And it's easy enough to get a refund from the EFL if that's the case.
 
Recidivist3 said:
🙄 Given the number of people on avftt alone who regularly contribute and who have struggled to get onboard with I-follow for technical reasons, for which there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture, it isn’t too difficult to imagine that 50 out of 4000 may not have had their cake, never mind eaten it
Click to expand...
Can nobody mention cake again please! I'm on a bloody diet and could murder some Battenburg.
 
If these people do get a refund i hope the club docks them money for every ifollow they have watched and not give them any priority on ST sales next season
 
LimerickTangerine said:
If these people do get a refund i hope the club docks them money for every ifollow they have watched and not give them any priority on ST sales next season
Click to expand...

Dear me. Are we still tarring and feathering people for these alleged crimes?

I wouldn't go that way myself, but it's hardly crime of the century, is it? And I think a football club that wants to increase its support and give people reasons to come back can't afford to be as unbelievably petty as that.
 
Recidivist3 said:
🙄 Given the number of people on avftt alone who regularly contribute and who have struggled to get onboard with I-follow for technical reasons, for which there is actual proof rather than mere conjecture, it isn’t too difficult to imagine that 50 out of 4000 may not have had their cake, never mind eaten it
Click to expand...
Perhaps they still use a computer with a floppy disk drive & dial up.
 
basilrobbie said:
Dear me. Are we still tarring and feathering people for these alleged crimes?

I wouldn't go that way myself, but it's hardly crime of the century, is it? And I think a football club that wants to increase its support and give people reasons to come back can't afford to be as unbelievably petty as that.
Click to expand...
Look if it’s a case that someone needs the money as in to feed themselves or their family it’s understandable but if its a case they just want their money back because they didn’t get to a game is selfish when the club needs cash
 
LimerickTangerine said:
Look if it’s a case that someone needs the money as in to feed themselves or their family it’s understandable but if its a case they just want their money back because they didn’t get to a game is selfish when the club needs cash
Click to expand...

I agree. But persecute and exclude them? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top