The vendetta against the groundsman

TangerinePeel said:
Abuse is out of order, and any directed at him last night which caused him to delete his twitter account is definitely crossing the line.

However, we've had 4 games postponed in just over a month - I don't know why people are acting disgusted at the fact people are discussing it on here, the Blackpool FC forum? The bloke is the heads groundsman so naturally people are wondering if what is happening could have been prevented by the man employed to maintain the pitch, I'm sure the club will be asking these questions as well.
Click to expand...
As you rightly sat TPP, discussion is fine, however, where do you draw the line between discussion and outright vitiol and abuse.

I recently posted that one of our players, who will now remain nameless, had a shocker. His performance in that game was well below what he was capable of and what we were used to. I didn't call for him to be sacked, replaced, or even to wear sackcloth and ashes and so long as comments are reasonable I feel it's fair game, but when you finish up with a feeding frenzy of posters calling for someone's head, it goes beyond the pale in my book.

 
Eternaloptimist said:
Thanks for the reply Kurt. 👍

If though, as you say, he wasn’t there for most of the day then something is amiss as you would expect him to be supervising the prepping of the pitch on a match day

Then again, we don’t know what his contractual hours are.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was on day release, studying for his pitch drainage exam.
 
Curryman said:
As you rightly sat TPP, discussion is fine, however, where do you draw the line between discussion and outright vitiol and abuse.

I recently posted that one of our players, who will now remain nameless, had a shocker. His performance in that game was well below what he was capable of and what we were used to. I didn't call for him to be sacked, replaced, or even to wear sackcloth and ashes and so long as comments are reasonable I feel it's fair game, but when you finish up with a feeding frenzy of posters calling for someone's head, it goes beyond the pale in my book.

Click to expand...
No fans are allowed to talk about anything to do with Blackpool Football Club from this day forth unless it is only positive.
 
Poultongirl said:
needs to stop, absolutely pathetic, not just on here but Facebook was in meltdown from people that should know better!!!
we’ve even got a clown on here that used to live in a yellow submarine that now lives down south commenting about the Blackpool weather!!! Not only that but he is spreading malicious and unfounded information about the lads qualifications to be a groundsman, ffs this is the lads livelihood, god knows how he feels this morning ☹️
anyway, you’re reading this keep your chin up lad👍🏻
Click to expand...
👏👏👏👏
 
basilrobbie said:
It's an opinion. No more or less.

I think social media generally is a place for extremes these days. Strong opinions, strong prejudices, unwillingness to see another point of view, great willingness to form a judgement with few or no facts. This place is no different from others.

What I think has changed on places like AVFTT is that the proportion of sensible, reasonable people using these forums has shrunk quite a lot. It's just a feeling, I have no evidence to back it up particularly other than my own judgement. This place has always been very lively, and was all the better for it at one time. But I think the quality and courtesy of the discourse have plummeted in recent years.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough Robbie.

I do agree with your sentiment regarding the general quality of debate on social media - although no doubt I am in one/all of the groups that you refer to - but I just think it's too easy to dismiss opinions that differ from our own, there is no doubt that I can be guilty of this and perhaps we can all be at times ?

I don't want to be over critical of you re "Groundsmangate" but I do feel that Kurt should be allowed to make the points he has done and that where he resides should not exclude him from the debate, surely IF - I wouldn't have a clue - does not have the necessary qualifications then he should be allowed to state that and his location is irrelevant ?

Or maybe you think that he (Kurt) is not qualified to make such a statement and we disagree and are back to the start ?

I know I'm chunnering now but I just feel everybody should be allowed to hold and express any - non abhorrent views regardless of whether they are in the majority or not.
 
The venom for the groundsman is pathetic, but no more or less pathetic than all the other hot air on here and other social media sites.

It's a symptom of the times, where every buffoon has a voice, of sorts, but with all the import of a fart.

I hope it doesn't bother the targets, in fact I hope they have more sense than to read it.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
That's fair enough Robbie.

I do agree with your sentiment regarding the general quality of debate on social media - although no doubt I am in one/all of the groups that you refer to - but I just think it's too easy to dismiss opinions that differ from our own, there is no doubt that I can be guilty of this and perhaps we can all be at times ?

I don't want to be over critical of you re "Groundsmangate" but I do feel that Kurt should be allowed to make the points he has done and that where he resides should not exclude him from the debate, surely IF - I wouldn't have a clue - does not have the necessary qualifications then he should be allowed to state that and his location is irrelevant ?

Or maybe you think that he (Kurt) is not qualified to make such a statement and we disagree and are back to the start ?

I know I'm chunnering now but I just feel everybody should be allowed to hold and express any - non abhorrent views regardless of whether they are in the majority or not.
Click to expand...
That works both ways. If someone makes a statement it's not unreasonable for anyone to challenge it or ask for clarification.

Saying the groundsman doesnt have any qualifications is a bold statement. I'd like to know on what basis that has been thrown out there.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
That's fair enough Robbie.

I do agree with your sentiment regarding the general quality of debate on social media - although no doubt I am in one/all of the groups that you refer to - but I just think it's too easy to dismiss opinions that differ from our own, there is no doubt that I can be guilty of this and perhaps we can all be at times ?

I don't want to be over critical of you re "Groundsmangate" but I do feel that Kurt should be allowed to make the points he has done and that where he resides should not exclude him from the debate, surely IF - I wouldn't have a clue - does not have the necessary qualifications then he should be allowed to state that and his location is irrelevant ?

Or maybe you think that he (Kurt) is not qualified to make such a statement and we disagree and are back to the start ?

I know I'm chunnering now but I just feel everybody should be allowed to hold and express any - non abhorrent views regardless of whether they are in the majority or not.
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking about you particularly at all. You are rarely rude.

I'm also not against opinions - they are the lifeblood of the board. But if you have them, you have to accept that you may get challenged to justify them. And replying "I know what was told and I believe it" isn't very convincing. Especially when some of the people concerned are demanding people lose their jobs, or abusing them in person on social media. Is that what we are about?

On this particular issue, I have no opinion at all. I wasn't there, and I have no facts, so I find it hard to be otherwise. Clearly other people see these things differently.
 
Here's the criteria Wiz

EFL Official Website - Appendix 1 - Membership Criteria (Regulation 8)

www.efl.com www.efl.com

27.5 Each Club shall ensure that the individual person with overall responsibility for the maintenance of the pitch shall:

(a) where appointed after 1 August 2018, hold at least a Level 3 qualification by reference to the table set out below; and

(b) in each Season attend not less than one educational / development conference organised by The League for ground staff. The League will issue guidance information for dissemination to all other individuals involved in the maintenance of pitches.


I know Harry Bradley was L3 qualified

Don't know Paul Flynn so can't comment on his

As I read it if you held such a position prior to 1/8/18 you don't need to be L3

27.6 Where the individual with overall responsibility for the maintenance of the pitch (whether under a contract of employment, or contract for services) held that role at a League or Premier League Club (or any club in any other league of an equivalent standing to The League or Premier League, as determined by the League, acting reasonably) as at 1 August 2018, that individual will not need to comply with the provisions of paragraph 27.5(a), but will still need to comply with paragraph 27.5(b)
 
Wizaard said:
That works both ways. If someone makes a statement it's not unreasonable for anyone to challenge it or ask for clarification.

Saying the groundsman doesnt have any qualifications is a bold statement. I'd like to know on what basis that has been thrown out there.
Click to expand...

Wiz

My comments on this thread are more to do with the manner of debate than the performance of the groundsman.

I wouldn't like to see somebody lose their job as a result of an honest mistake but I don't think that somebody who is not up to the job should be excused because I feel sorry for them.

As you suggest, to say that the groundsman doesn't have any qualifications is a bold statement and should only be made if it is a FACT.

I can't speak for Kurt but I thought that he was stating a fact and my previous defence of him was based on that.

Although I do think that posters should be allowed to make suggestions, it should be clear whether they are making a suggestion or stating a fact.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Wiz

My comments on this thread are more to do with the manner of debate than the performance of the groundsman.

I wouldn't like to see somebody lose their job as a result of an honest mistake but I don't think that somebody who is not up to the job should be excused because I feel sorry for them.

As you suggest, to say that the groundsman doesn't have any qualifications is a bold statement and should only be made if it is a FACT.

I can't speak for Kurt but I thought that he was stating a fact and my previous defence of him was based on that.

Although I do think that posters should be allowed to make suggestions, it should be clear whether they are making a suggestion or stating a fact.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Happening a lot recently. Must be lockdown fever.
 
basilrobbie said:
I wasn't thinking about you particularly at all. You are rarely rude.

I'm also not against opinions - they are the lifeblood of the board. But if you have them, you have to accept that you may get challenged to justify them. And replying "I know what was told and I believe it" isn't very convincing. Especially when some of the people concerned are demanding people lose their jobs, or abusing them in person on social media. Is that what we are about?

On this particular issue, I have no opinion at all. I wasn't there, and I have no facts, so I find it hard to be otherwise. Clearly other people see these things differently.
Click to expand...

Robbie

Fair enough and I think we are in agreement here - or almost !!!!!!!!!

I don't know anything re the pitch/groundsman and therefore have no strong specific opinions on the matter.

I never like to see anybody lose their job and while I know that has got nothing to do with anything, I certainly agree with you in that people should be careful when making unverified statements that could potentially have an impact on another persons livelihood.
 
SeasideKurt said:
I'm not advocating for him to be sacked at all. I haven't once said it. I am merely commenting about it all.

How do you know there was any efforts from the groundsman? You're presuming. Where as I am talking from actual information.

Man's role and job is to keep the pitch in a fit and proper state. He multiple times fails to do so albeit in other towns locally who have received as much weather, manage to do so. It starts to really limit down the blame game tbh.

As I understand it, he wasn't even there the majority of yesterday.
And he isn't full qualified to do the role.
Click to expand...
So you think he isn't qualified because he hasn't got a piece of paper to say he is. I've worked with people with degrees and they were the most useless people I know. I've also worked with people with no so called quality certificates and they were the best for the job. Maybe this guy is the best we could get and knows his job.
 
Tangojoe said:
I can't be arsed to read this thread, but I would say I've not seen the playing surface looking as good in Winter for decades. Give the guy a break FFS.
Click to expand...
This

Ok, not as much footy is being played on it but my god it's been in some states over the last 15 years.
 
Paul Flynn was promoted to head groundsman at Oldham in July 2019 after completing his qualifications. They waited to appoint him untill he was fully qualified. So whoever is saying he isn't qualified is waffling utter shite as per usual.
Also if you look at the job he did at Oldham then his resume speaks for itself.
Some of you need to give your head a wobble seriously, he's only been with the club a few winter months.
 
basilrobbie said:
I think this is exactly right. Do people react like this to disappointment in their workplace? Of course they don't.

I don't understand how people can be so condemnatory when they aren't on the spot, didn't know what had been done to mitigate the risk, or have first hand knowledge of the underlying problem. I hope the club don't take too much notice, because I think this forum stopped being a representative or reasonable barometer of opinion quite a long time ago.
Click to expand...
It is true that, at times, there are some very intolerant views aired on this site but on the whole, most posters are reasonable and understanding. I still think it is a "reasonable barometer" once we're able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
Last edited:
SeasideKurt said:
I'm not advocating for him to be sacked at all. I haven't once said it. I am merely commenting about it all.

How do you know there was any efforts from the groundsman? You're presuming. Where as I am talking from actual information.

Man's role and job is to keep the pitch in a fit and proper state. He multiple times fails to do so albeit in other towns locally who have received as much weather, manage to do so. It starts to really limit down the blame game tbh.

As I understand it, he wasn't even there the majority of yesterday.
And he isn't full qualified to do the role.
Click to expand...
The pitch has been found wanting on a number of occasions, resulting in postponements. That is worrying. Moreover, it has been found wanting on occasions when nearly all other matches in our league have gone ahead. That makes it even more worrying. However, there are ways of raising concerns that do not point fingers or lay blame at anyone's door. That's why, yesterday evening, I wrote to the SLO asking whether the Board knew of any remedial action that could be taken (short & long term) that would provide a better chance of getting games played in the conditions that currently lead to postponements. I also asked whether, if the Board were aware of remedial action that could be taken, they were willing to take it. The SLO replied that he would raise the matter with the Board.

For me, asking questions in an open manner is the way to get these concerns addressed. I find that making assumptions or insinuations as to why things haven't worked only causes people to withdraw and become defensive.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
The pitch has been found wanting on a number of occasions, resulting in postponements. That is worrying. Moreover, it has been found wanting on occasions when nerly all other matches in our league have gone ahead. That makes it even more worrying. However, there are ways of raising concerns that do not point fingers or lay blame at anyone's door. That's why, yesterday evening, I wrote to the SLO asking whether the Board knew of any remedial action that could be taken (short & long term) that would provide a better chance of getting games played in the conditions that currently lead to postponements. I also asked whether, if the Board were aware of remedial action that could be taken, they were willing to take it. Th SLO replied that he would raise the matter with the Board.

For me, asking questions in an open manner is the way to get these concerns addressed. I find that making assumptions or insinuations as to why things haven't worked only causes people to withdraw and become defensive.
Click to expand...
Correct. I know nothing about pitches or drainage so can’t really comment and haven’t commented. Obviously it ruined my night with another late postponement and everyone else seemed to be able to get their games on so would hope that everyone at the club looks at how to improve things.
 
SeasideKurt said:
No fans are allowed to talk about anything to do with Blackpool Football Club from this day forth unless it is only positive.
Click to expand...
It does appear that way

Maybe we should have a list of who you can be critical of

As it appears the groundsman is now off limits along with the head coach
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
It does appear that way

Maybe we should have a list of who you can be critical of

As it appears the groundsman is now off limits along with the head coach
Click to expand...
Personally, I have no issue with criticism directed at anyone with the club. I have criticised Critchley on a number of occasions, but I do think that we should wait for the facts to come out before we jump on people. I didn't say anything last night about the groundsman because I didn't know the facts. Some people jumped on him and now look foolish for doing so as it blatantly wasn't his fault. Saying he isn't qualified with no proof of that, is ridiculous especially when it appears that he is actually fully qualified. Our right as paying fans is to critises, but there are ways to go about it. Trying to discredit them as people and their credentials isn't the right way in my opinion.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
It does appear that way

Maybe we should have a list of who you can be critical of

As it appears the groundsman is now off limits along with the head coach
Click to expand...

What a childish comment. What people are saying is that he shouldn't be criticised for things he can't control.

We all know that if you can't criticise people that will be your AVFTT career finished.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
It does appear that way

Maybe we should have a list of who you can be critical of

As it appears the groundsman is now off limits along with the head coach
Click to expand...
Come on Phil lad, if a football player misses an open goal from two yards out then it is 100% his fault, but to blame the groundsman for three hours of unprecedented torrential rain and a bad drainage system already in place and then on top of that make false accusations is bang out of order.
 
The fact is we've had more games postponed this season due to "weather" than any I can remember despite significantly fewer games played in the last 12 months. It's compounded by teams local to us not having the same issue.

It would be good if we could be told the reasons why, beyond "it was cold" and "it was wet."

Given the investment in the pitch, after revelling in those beautiful photographs and basically showing off; it's a legitimate question.

Edited to add: Having seen the other thread about drainage - why when it was a mess did it not cause the same issues?
 
Kyle Seasider said:
Paul Flynn was promoted to head groundsman at Oldham in July 2019 after completing his qualifications. They waited to appoint him untill he was fully qualified. So whoever is saying he isn't qualified is waffling utter shite as per usual.
Also if you look at the job he did at Oldham then his resume speaks for itself.
Some of you need to give your head a wobble seriously, he's only been with the club a few winter months.
Click to expand...
Well said 👍🏻
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I honestly don't know why folk are getting so pished off about the postponed games?

Its not like you are on the road going to a match

Hardly an inconvenience travelling from your kitchen with your rich teas and hot milk to your lap top is it

It takes all of 2 seconds to close down i follow when the game is off

Weather happens get over it

Will be fine, we have a massive squad and will catch up on games

No bother...
Click to expand...
Just perfect that 👌
 
Scaramanga said:
I don’t know if the grounds man was at fault or not and wouldn’t want to accuse him either. But the fact we couldn’t get a game of football on after 3 hours of rain beggars belief in this day and age. Are we to now check the weather forecast on the morning of a game and if rain is forecast cancel the game just in case we can’t mange it ? It’s pretty poor to be fair.
Click to expand...
I think there has to be some sort of bigger issue with the drainage because the amount of rain that came down on Tuesday would not ordinarily waterlog a pitch. Especially after a fine, dry Monday.
I'm sure the problem will be sorted in the summer.
 
Poultongirl said:
Come on Phil lad, if a football player misses an open goal from two yards out then it is 100% his fault, but to blame the groundsman for three hours of unprecedented torrential rain and a bad drainage system already in place and then on top of that make false accusations is bang out of order.
Click to expand...
Actually i completely and utterly disagree with that 🙃

Professional footballers don't miss chances on purpose

I agree Kurt can come across as a bit of a tool sometimes but the grief he's getting is well over the top

As for games being postponed I'm not overly bothered I just think people are being hypocritical
 
Kyle Seasider said:
Paul Flynn was promoted to head groundsman at Oldham in July 2019 after completing his qualifications. They waited to appoint him untill he was fully qualified. So whoever is saying he isn't qualified is waffling utter shite as per usual.
Also if you look at the job he did at Oldham then his resume speaks for itself.
Some of you need to give your head a wobble seriously, he's only been with the club a few winter months.
Click to expand...
Good on you Kyle! 👍
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Actually i completely and utterly disagree with that 🙃

Professional footballers don't miss chances on purpose

I agree Kurt can come across as a bit of a tool sometimes but the grief he's getting is well over the top

As for games being postponed I'm not overly bothered I just think people are being hypocritical
Click to expand...
I ain’t no hypocrite.
anyway who said anything about doing anything on purpose!! In certain cases blame can be apportioned whether or not the act was done intentionally!!
But in this case the blame does not lie with the grounds man.
 
It strikes me that the level of debate on here has resorted in the main to negative criticism. Seemingly those criticising the groundsman are clearly lacking in knowledge and details of the underlying source and extent of the problem.
There is definitely an infrastructure issue which Ben Mansford has pointed out requires further investigation.
Maybe some of our more “jump the gun” let’s blame the nearest person should take a breath, pause and engage their brains before spouting their inane unfounded drivel
 
Someone will be on in a minute to discuss the earth being flat.
 
If the groundsman is not doing his job properly then it is a matter for the Club to resolve. I don't know if the issue is due to poor grounds-manship or not and I suspect I'm not alone in that respect. Some of the posts I've seen have been tantamount to bullying and harassment from persons who have no idea what they are talking about. Needs to stop now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top