EFM Trev Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Quote: John Gibson said: It is interesting to note that those who complain the loudest, always offer to help, never do and have difficulty getting off their drunken backsides. If I were you, I'd sue for libel, AFF. Some of you may have noticed that I didn't get off my backside last night. From the sound of it, I didn't miss much. They were pretty wretched again, by all accounts. I was going to go off on a long and illiterate rant about something or other, but I rather think that the above quote speaks for itself. It would seem that my support (which consists of the traditional "turn up, pay the admission price, drink in the bar before the match, at half-time, and afterwards, buy something to eat") isn't enough. Is it any wonder, regardless of the team's abject form this season, that I didn't turn up last night? Still, I daresay that the club can cope perfectly well without the £20-30 or so that I spend at every home match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESG Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 The one and only BIG RON as i keep saying its got f all to do with u so butt out, lemon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Zeal EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I think BIG RON is probably speaking from experience, ESG, and I for one am interested in what he has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Trevino, multiply your £20-30 by the 300 that didn't turn up, plus those that don't pay to get in, and you've got quite a sum. Do that twice some weeks and you could have kept Jon Challinor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESG Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 well IMo he's just stiriing sh.it from the past , yes the past...has the bloke not got any self respect, he fkuced this club up and is still hanging around.... the present has nish to do with him and his input is clouding th e issue of a very valid discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFM Trev Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Couldn't agree more, Laz. At least I know for sure what he thinks of those of us that pay to get in (Like I didn't before). If they can't persuade me to make a 10 minute walk to the Park for a League game, quite where he's going to magic up another 300 people from is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFF Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 Oh dear. I am at the stage where I really can't be bothered any more and having read The Chairman's message last night, I resolved to make no further comments. I fear that continuing debate makes a bad situation worse. However, one particular contribution this morning has prompted me. John Gibson doesn't come on here very often so he probably doesn't know the identity of some of the 'anonymous' contributors on this thread. They include: a former Chairman of the Club, one of the current 'Officials' of SACFC, a current member of The Supporters Club Committee, a former member of that Committee, the clubhouse manager, 4 season ticket holders, two people who contribute to the matchday programme, one person who writes match reports in the local press, one person who writes match reports for the Official web-site, one person who, jointly with Webbo runs the Club's official web-site, Webbo and the others regularly attend games, home and away. Not all of them are drunks. [For my part, I am not considering suing.] Thanks to the contribution of one of those in the main, deliberately I have no doubt, the impression was given to Gibbo that the entire debate concerned whether, or not, Ian Rogers has purchased a season-ticket. For Heaven's sake. On the deleted thread, a current member of the Committee of the Supporters Club confirmed knowledge that "lots of people get in the ground for free". Is that true? How many is lots, I wonder? That's the essence of the debate. 10? 20? 30? Instead of looking for an extra 300 people. it might be necessary to find 'only' 280. Amongst other things in his message, John Gibson confirmed that he will deal with any problems. Fine. Over to you Mr Chairman. The 'problem' that was under discussion was not whether Ian Rogers has a season-ticket. I do not doubt for a moment the truth of John Gibson's statement that Ian has bought a season-ticket. The person who did doubt the word of The Chairman on this thread this morning no longer attends matches at Clarence Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The one & only BigRon,EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Talk of finding 280 or 300 seems to be irrelevant when you consider last night's attendance. The declared gate of 220, presumably leaves 160 payers when you consider the proclaimed 60 or so freebies. This is as low as I can remember for a City home league match. If those gates (and receipts) continue for long, the club is obviously going to be well short of its projected income, based on the stated average gate of 550 (with no Aldershot to come this year of course.) All this talk seems to be the usual 'sticks and stones' about who has made a bad debate worse. But while we are resorting to the 'who said what', we should not (of course) forget the originator of the said debate and the chap who re-ignited once it had been censored. One in the same. If you still can't see it, just take a look at his recent additions to the storyline. There's only so many things you can blame a former chairman for. Starting and re-starting this debate is not one of them. Bear a grudge if you will, but subsequent comment and response are freedom of speech in my book. As folk are fond of saying, you have to be thick-skinned to come on here. Perhaps it's time to talk about the football - a winning side playing attractive football will solve most of City's problems. It's what the punters want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I remember 168 for a midweek league game against Bromley. I can't remember who the chairman was. I'm pretty sure the manager was Jimmy N. I think that shows how low it can go. There were also a few low ones during the "hate-mob" period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Zeal EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 We had a small attendance for Bromley at home, two days after we lost at Forest Green. That was 300 and something, though. Is that the one you refer to?? Jimmy Neighbour's season, we played Bromley on a Saturday just before Christmas and lost 0-1, unless we played them on a midweek the previous season. Either way, Tominey would've been the chairman at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Quote: The one and only BIG RON said: All this talk seems to be the usual 'sticks and stones' about who has made a bad debate worse. But while we are resorting to the 'who said what', we should not (of course) forget the originator of the said debate and the chap who re-ignited once it had been censored. One in the same. If you still can't see it, just take a look at his recent additions to the storyline. If you suggesting AFF is the originator, I think I should point out that he didn't join in until it had been running for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESG Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Quote: The one and only BIG RON said: All this talk seems to be the usual 'sticks and stones' about who has made a bad debate worse. But while we are resorting to the 'who said what', we should not (of course) forget the originator of the said debate and the chap who re-ignited once it had been censored. One in the same. If you still can't see it, just take a look at his recent additions to the storyline. There's only so many things you can blame a former chairman for. Starting and re-starting this debate is not one of them. Bear a grudge if you will, but subsequent comment and response are freedom of speech in my book. As folk are fond of saying, you have to be thick-skinned to come on here. as i keep saying what has this got to do with you? bear a grudge?, dont flatter yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The one & only BigRon,EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Laz - the original originator - we'll never know as it's dead and gone now, but I'm sure our 'occasional steward' friend started the deleted thread also. Trust you're well, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Zeal EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 It was me who started the original thread, when certain information about Miss C and Miss H came my way. So far, no response from either party has been satisfactory. "No, we don't pay, and why should we?" was the gist. It has since come to my attention that various other members of the Supporters Club Commitee do not allegedly pay for entry either. One, a moderately regular user of this board has been conspicuous by his absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Quote: The one and only BIG RON said: Laz - the original originator - we'll never know as it's dead and gone now, but I'm sure our 'occasional steward' friend started the deleted thread also. Trust you're well, etc? I think Zealster has probably answered any doubts about who started the thread. I'm well thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herts blue Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 The low crowds are interesting. Just a few thoughts. I'm not making excuses, or being an apologist for anyone or the club, but the fact that Man Utd were live on terrestrial TV (and the fact that Maidenhead brought 11 supporters at most) clearly didn't help last night. To those who suggest that other recent low crowds are down to us playing badly, then I just have to disagree - we played well against Sutton and, finishing aside, against Bedford and for a decent part of the game v Hayes - ok, I know finishing's a big part of it, but our approach play was good in large parts of those games, and surely we have to be balanced and at least be prepared to consider all aspects of each game before launching into one. Was there really anyone who went to Bedford but then didn't go last night because they were outraged with the manner of the defeat there? So what it comes down to, of course, is that while you still hear purists at the club talking about being concerned primarily with the style of play and the beautiful game, frankly, at City anyway, and elsewhere I suspect, it isn't the case. People want to watch a winning team, period, and a dour 1-0 win and challenging at the top leaves people feeling better (afterwards, anyway) than a 4-5 classic and struggling with nothing to play for. There's nothing wrong with that. To be honest it's probably how I feel, and perhaps we should all be a bit more honest with ourselves about what we really want. Would people be happier with a few more points even if it meant resorting to the long ball game? Not many would openly admit to it, but I think a lot would and it would be interesting to see what would happen to the gates if it meant a better league position. I don't particularly like watching it either and I'm not advocating it, but you still feel better afterwards, and I'm just making the point. It's worth considering because if people accept this, then it follows that a few good results and a bit of carefully targeted marketing (yes, that old chestnut, but people really do get out of the habit of coming down and do find other things to do) should see a few more coming in. But both aspects are important. What we can't afford to do is underestimate the need for the marketing to get those who have found other things to do back again. A winning team will generate more interest, but many will still need to be enticed away from what has become the regular Saturday afternoon activity since they stopped going down the football. We've got to sell it harder. Don't ask me how. I'm a civil servant. I'm here to point out the problems, not come up with the answers. And, to get my retaliation in first, to those who'll reply that it wasn't good last night, well I agree, but those who didn't show couldn't have known that beforehand and so can't point to it as a reason. I know this is nothing that hasn't been said before, but I just feel that it's worth taking a step back from slagging off the team and trying to look at why the gates are really down, and what we can do to improve things.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 That's an unusually long post, HB! Not wanting to drift too far from the thread here, but what is the current marketing stratagy. It would appear to be nothing. I haven't seen any posters around, but then I'm not really looking. I would like to see an article or two in the Observer, front page preferably, which would help get people interested again. Getting back to the point, it doesn't help when a dozen or so are gaining entry for free. I know it's not the 300 we are looking for but it is definately a percentage of our current gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Zeal EFM Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Especially as those dozen or so are pretty much hard-core City fans, and would still come to every game per season, even if they had to pay. It's money down the drain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFM The Firm, The Voice Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 At the moment this club mainly has the following set of fans 1. Freeloaders 2. Drunks Maybe Mr Gibson should be looking after both sets and not just one <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_the_Saint Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 OK, I think this discussion has probably run its course now so I've closed this thread. If anyone has any objections send me a PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts