Robo61

A number spring to mind,  away trips to Luton (4-1) and QPR (2-0) in the cup run of 1974 when I was just 13.  The 3 goalkeepers 5-2 cup tie against Shrewsbury, madness.  The 7 Wembley appearances of the 90's especially the loss against Swindon,  the emotion when Steve Thompson netted the third was off the scale.  Ther whole of the 2015/16 season (well at least all the home games)  Both last 16 matches against Seville (including my only oversea's trip). 

Last but not least the win at Anfield in 1981 that broke Liverpools record run of 63 consective home matches without defeat,  shame I can't be there Sunday to see us repaet the feat.

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

I didn’t say there were now refunds.

 

I said it wasn’t “clear” it would be carried over.

 

I also that their excuse of it being missed off because they always presumed the season would restart is rubbish, as they literally added the no refunds t&c in regards the season not finishing, so they clearly had thought about it.

 

If a gigantic piece of info like that is missing, then it’s usually left out on purpose. It would have had a number of people signing it off, they aren’t idiots and would absolutely have considered next season.

Guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree and I can  get back to being concerned about much bigger issues in the world today.

36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Clearly you are missing something.

Just re-read the latest ST information and nowhere does it say there will be refunds, so clearly I have not missed anything.  Dont get me wrong I can see why people complained,  I just dont see it as the big deal some are making out it to be.

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's only clear if they say it, they didn't. 

 

Their excuse of saying oh well we expected there to be games so it didn't cross our minds was nonsense, as the original release specifically mentioned what happened in the even of no games and that was "no refund".

Unless I've missed something,  there will still be no refund for those that choose not to renew for 2021/22,  so no change then.

4 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Agreed Yeah exactly which they eventually was but it shouldn’t have taken the fans to point it out 

 

this was the before and after 

 

 

 

Unless I have missed something the update did not change this, i.e there will be no refund if you choose not to purchase a ST for either 2020/21   if these become available, or 2021/22,  if they don't.

All it did was confirm that the £70 could be put towards your 2021/22 ST. Yes this should have been said originally,  but it is clear to me that was always going to be the case.

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

If the stadium wasn’t at full capacity this season then we would’ve lost the money.

No we would not have,  as they have now made clear.   Wolves charge over £100 a season more for their ST's but apparently in your eyes they look after their supporters better than our owners whose only crime seems to be a minor omission in communicating.

40 minutes ago, Katy said:

It *was* money for nothing, that’s my issue. 

 

No it was not,  it was a deposit on your   your ST.  The original document made that clear,  it simply omitted to say what would happen in the event of ST's not being available this season.  This was corrected in the second document,  though it changed nothing in reality. I agree that it should not have been omitted,  but don't believe there was ever an intention to take money for no service. 

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Yes, looking forward to more doughnuts and caps as soon as possible. Funny how they had to be mythered into making the £70 mean something though eh? 

Firstly I never mentioned doughnuts etc,  and would broadly agree with you on that topic, I was just pointing out that Wolves ST are significantly more expensive than ours. Secondly the offer to credit the £70 against next seasons ST if grounds aren't at full capacity by the end of this season,  was not a change in policy given that the original proposal never contemplated that scenario. 

5 hours ago, Katy said:

“Putting fans first” 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

https://www.wolves.co.uk/media/8315/prices1920.pdf

Really,  my ST has cost me some £58 less than it would have done at Molyneax and I still have a £70 credit.  When considering the clubs attitude to supporters we really should all try to look at the overall package.  

39 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Hope the club realise they got it massively wrong

It must be remembered that our opponents have to agree to the pricing structures for Cup matches as they share the revenues.  In terms of revenue this fixture will make more than if they had reduced the pricing by £5 and got a full ground.  Whilst this may seem to be short sighted from the home clubs point of view the away side has maximsed its income whilst also getting the benefit of a bigger away following (by%),  with no down side as far as I can see.

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

When I saw the thread title I assumed it meant rail seating so I voted yes, I would love to be able to stand at games again. Now I think it means the old style terraces it's a definite no, I remember the days when blokes would piss at the back and it would run through my sandals 

That cannot be described as "safe  standing".

5 hours ago, MPH said:

So it has been claimed only 5% of fans would like a Safe Standing area with no seats at all. I wasnt sure where this percentage came from so i thought it best to ask.

 

My understanding is that SW claimed that 5% of supporters would use safe standing if it was available not that they would like safe standing to be installed.  I for one am not particularly surprised by that figure as most people these days prefer to watch any form of entertainment in comfort.

You still haven't clarified what you mean by safe standing without the seats.  Can tou give an example of where this is currently used?

35 minutes ago, notnow john said:

Last time I mentioned this,you claimed it was smoke and mirrors,in fact you promised to run round the KP

naked if it happened so if you're looking for sponsors for the Foxes Foundation let me know!

  Seriously though,this would be the third course in the area to close recently.More players than courses

is bad news for all players.

But that is not the case,  there are currently too many courses and insufficient golfers to make them viable.  Always sad for the members to lose a well loved facility but this may help others to survive.

4 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

Are we the only side ever to be unbeaten in the Champions league? 

 

Especially in its modern format. I can't find anything! 

No,  as we are not unbeaton?

Saturday we equaled our highest number of away wins in the top division. This season will also be the first time we have won more away games than we've lost, again in the top division.

Trouble makers will cause trouble if they're sat down or if they're stood up. That West Midlands police officer absolutely nailed it with his argument.

 

I'm sorry but these politicians who are against it are doing it because of plain ignorance and nothing else. There is not a single proper argument against it.

Really so how do you explain :1) That almost all trouble in the 70s/80s was caused by people who were in standing area's  2)  the immediate reduction of acts of hooliganism following the introduction of all seater stadia.

Largely trouble makers are cowards and are therefore happy to disrupt others of there are no consequences to them.  In old style terraces that was largely the case as individually they were anonymous.  Having them in seats makes them significantly more identifiable by the authorities and therefore have to suffer the consequences (arrest).   I am not saying that this cannot be the case with safe standing but that the authorities need to be convinced that this is the case.

Then they should come out and say that instead of focusing on safety.

We will get no where if the guys making the decisions refuse to listen to the obvious flaws in their safety argument.

Then we can concentrate on squashing that part if the argument.

Though I accept you have to read between the lines a little to understand what "security" means it is clearly raised as a concern in the debate,  particularly for the police.

But I was trying to point out to the poster that it is no good just telling politicians it must happen because we want it,  if public concerns are not met.

Is that a fvcking piss take?

 

Could they have possibly missed the point any more?

 

I am utterly sick of the amount of idiots who are completely out of touch with the reality of this. WE. DID. NOT. WANT. SAFE. STANDING. TO. FEEL. EXTRA. SAFE. WE. WANTED. IT. BECAUSE. WE. WANT. TO. STAND.

I will start my saying that I am fully in favour of the re-introduction of standing at football grounds not because I myself wish to stand particularly,  but because I recognise that plenty of fans do.    However if any progress is to be made campaigners need to understand that politicians will need to be persuaded that not only can standing be safe but that it would at the least not hinder security (i.e. not an aid to those that wish to cause trouble).  As it they that will get the blame from the voting public if its re-introduction  was to lead us back to the dark days of 70's/80's style hooliganism.  

The tickets were sold out of our ticket office, if Peterboro have lied about the numbers then our office would be able to put the record straight. I was in standing to the left hand side of the terrace towards the top and there was plenty of room. Having others have said the problems were due to poor stadium design along woth poor stewarding on the day.