Teeno Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 He's a decent bloke and I respect him as he is a genuine LCFC fan and he told us today he took out a personal 50 grand loan to put money into the club. I haven't changed my mind but I'm coming to terms with the idea and realise that no matter what we do they aren't going to changed their plans. The main positive for me was to hear Davies say that him personally and the club are behind the Stand up Sit down campaign to bring Terraceing back into football. There does seem to be a lot of financial sence to it but all this about dressing for rugby and football days isn't going to happen. If you get to walk around the stadium, like where we were in the Banks suit there are thousands of City pictures and memorablia, I just can't see how it will be 50/50. Shame that only 50 odd people turned up though.
Guest Daniel Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 Nice one mate, good to hear. I knew we wouldnt change there minds. Looks like a done deal then?
davieG Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 He's a decent bloke and I respect him as he is a genuine LCFC fan and he told us today he took out a personal 50 grand loan to put money into the club. I haven't changed my mind but I'm coming to terms with the idea and realise that no matter what we do they aren't going to changed their plans. The main positive for me was to hear Davies say that him personally and the club are behind the Stand up Sit down campaign to bring Terraceing back into football. There does seem to be a lot of financial sence to it but all this about dressing for rugby and football days isn't going to happen. If you get to walk around the stadium, like where we were in the Banks suit there are thousands of City pictures and memorablia, I just can't see how it will be 50/50. Shame that only 50 odd people turned up though. 42529[/snapback] Well done for making the effort Teeno, I think all that you can hope to achieve is to lessen the impact, e.g. stadium appearance and to use the situation to change things you currently don't like, i.e the standing. I can't see the Tigers supporters taking the standing issue sitting down (excuse the pun) so there should be a concerted effort to support them to get this incorporated. then all you have to do is get the government to change the law or at the very least allow us be the test ground for these new seats. Now that sort of thing is achievable.
Sparky Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 i would like to see terracing brought back but i just cant see the goverment agreeing to it after the taylor report was issued
Scow Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 i would like to see terracing brought back but i just cant see the goverment agreeing to it after the taylor report was issued 42537[/snapback] You're right. It's all well Davies saying this, but realistically it won't happen.
Cobbo Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 Davies did refer to all of us as customers too, which was quite annoying to be fair. Hmph. He didn't see too willing to take people's views on board, ah well. Tigers have 3 options to choose too, rebuilding a stand at Welford Road, building a new stadium on a green field site out of the city or moving into the Walkers. This decision has to be made before the start of next season too.
Foxes_Trust Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 Davies did refer to all of us as customers too, which was quite annoying to be fair. Hmph. 42549[/snapback] Why is seeing us as cuetomers annoying? The club used to see us as turnstile fodder who would just turn up regardless, that Tim Davies believes in good customer service is a positive step forward the club has made.
Wilson Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 But customers is still a dodgy word to use, he could have said something like "supporters" instead.
Cobbo Posted 2 December 2004 Posted 2 December 2004 But customers is till a dodgy word to use, he could have said something like "supporters" instead. 42565[/snapback] He was talking about most businesses not asking their customers when they make a decision. This came up due to people asking whether there could be a fans vote on the matter, which there won't be apparently. I detest being refered to as a customer, I have not supported this club since I was 5 to be refered to as a customer of it by our chief exec. I'm sure the many number of fans who put a lot of money into keeping the club afloat themselves will love being called a customer of it. Smashing.
Anish Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I personally think it's better to be called a customer - because every successful business has to keep their customers happy, whether it be through excellent services or cheaper pricing. Businesses (LCFC are one) need to keep their customers happy in order to succeed, and the usage of 'customer' shows that the club will work for our best interests.
Scow Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I personally think it's better to be called a customer - because every successful business has to keep their customers happy, whether it be through excellent services or cheaper pricing. Businesses (LCFC are one) need to keep their customers happy in order to succeed, and the usage of 'customer' shows that the club will work for our best interests. 42577[/snapback] It's disheartening for supporters to be referred to as 'customers'. It's very impersonal to be referred to in such a way, I don't like it. Football is unique, we stick by the club through thick and thin - you don't get that with 'customers' who shop at Tesco, then decide to shop at Asda because it's cheaper. Football supporters should be respected, not patronised and referred to as a 'subject' of income.
Guest Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I came away from last nights meeting feeling no less against this 'proposal' than I did going in. I think as far as the Club are concerned, it is going ahead whatever the fans think. Some pertinent questions were asked, and rather than answers, TD skirted around the issue, and raised more questions for myself. As well as being referred to as "customers", which he realised was a mistake as soon as he said it, we are also incapapble of making a decision ourselves about what happens with the stadium, apparently. They are not prepared to use it as an exercise just to gauge the views of the fans. Granted, there are fans who will use the aesthetics as an excuse, but if we presented with a case for this move, instead of being told it's in our best interest, they might not have any opposition at all. Some of us do have some commercial sense! I understand that there are legal issues that cannot be discussed, but they did not want to go into the financial side of this proposal, which is one of my main concerns. There are still a number of factors beyond the control of both City and Tigers which could kill this proposal off, but the impression I have is it is a done deal. There were no reassurances over the aesthetics and the practicality of dual branding at the stadium. It would be interesting to see what happens at the Tigers meeting, as the noises from their side suggest the stadium will be overhauled to make it into the new Welford Road, with football as an interesting aside. I think the most interesting comment of the evening was made when the Tigers v Munster game from a couple of years ago was mentioned. They were offered the WS but turned it down because they didn't want to be outnumbered by Munster fans. Make your own conclusions!!
Hullfox Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I'm gobsmacked that despite the apparent ground swell of opinion against this idea that has been muted by people on this board, only 50 people turned up. Maybe people aren't really against it after all. And don't start saying "well it's a done deal so it's not worth fighting for" because that's a pathetic excuse. A sit in after the Reading game is not going to happen because it seems too many people can't be bothered to do anything about it. For those of you who are so anti the idea, how do you feel now? Last night was your opportunity to show how you feel and the club will feel extremely vindicated in the work that they have done.
Ric Flair Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I'm gobsmacked that despite the apparent ground swell of opinion against this idea that has been muted by people on this board, only 50 people turned up.Maybe people aren't really against it after all. And don't start saying "well it's a done deal so it's not worth fighting for" because that's a pathetic excuse. A sit in after the Reading game is not going to happen because it seems too many people can't be bothered to do anything about it. For those of you who are so anti the idea, how do you feel now? Last night was your opportunity to show how you feel and the club will feel extremely vindicated in the work that they have done. 42644[/snapback] Leicester fans are abit like alot of people when they say they would do anything to win the lottery but then never have a go on it!
Foxes_Trust Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I understand that there are legal issues that cannot be discussed, but they did not want to go into the financial side of this proposal, which is one of my main concerns. 42607[/snapback] We agree we would like more financial information, but while the negotiations with Teachers are on-going, plus the indicated conversations with Walkers the exact overall financial benefits are far from finalised. I doubt the club will ever provide the full details publically, as the level of 'cash injection' received will please / annoy one set of supporters dependent on the levels. As a shareholder we will try to gain more detail however even then we may only be able to indicate our support or otherwise based on the numbers than provide details. Don't forget if we get a publicised level of cash injection then prices for players from clubs will instantly rise as they know we have money to spend, so it may be against all our interests to provide certain elements of detail
Ash Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Im happy to hear they are thinking about terrancing But it would be pointless , because if we get promoted again we would have to change it all back to seating !
Ric Flair Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Im happy to hear they are thinking about terrancing But it would be pointless , because if we get promoted again we would have to change it all back to seating ! 42706[/snapback] I'm glad my name aint terrance, i'd proper ****ed.
Guest Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Maybe people aren't really against it after all. And don't start saying "well it's a done deal so it's not worth fighting for" because that's a pathetic excuse. 42644[/snapback] I don't think it is a pathetic excuse. I know many people against the idea, yet none of them saw the point in going. I also know people who wanted to go but had other commitments. I also know people who didn't even know about the meeting in the first place.
Oli Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Im happy to hear they are thinking about terrancing But it would be pointless , because if we get promoted again we would have to change it all back to seating ! 42706[/snapback] I'm glad my name aint terrance, i'd proper ****ed. 42711[/snapback] Ash you really need to sort your spelling out.
Hullfox Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Maybe people aren't really against it after all. And don't start saying "well it's a done deal so it's not worth fighting for" because that's a pathetic excuse. 42644[/snapback] I don't think it is a pathetic excuse. I know many people against the idea, yet none of them saw the point in going. I also know people who wanted to go but had other commitments. I also know people who didn't even know about the meeting in the first place. 42770[/snapback] Sorry Lisa but if people felt that strongly then they'd act. Also if they felt that strongly some would have been able to change their commitments to accommodate the meeting. Why did the many people people against the idea that you know not see the point in going? I don't follow the logic? To resort back to one of your earlier points, what would have happened if Ms Pankhurst and the Suffragette movement had other commitments or just couldn't see the point when it mattered? The fact that people did not know about the meeting possibly shows the level of feeling if they couldn't 1) be bothered to follow what had happened 2) asked one of the gang of 50 to keep them informed. The no campaign has had 50 people sitting in and at best (assuming everyone was against the idea) 50 people at the meeting. It seems to me that there's no fight in the fans to halt it. Bearing in mind the numbers required to make the club sit up and listen, the no campaign is a long way short of where it needs to be.
davieG Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 I'm against the idea of a ground-share in principle, the only reasons that would change my mind was if it prevented us from going bust, going into administration again, or being relegated to League 1.I've been around long enough to know that this would not have been announced (after 6 months of discussion) if it were not a done deal. I’ve written to Tim Davis and filled in my Foxes Trust questionnaire, I could see no point in attending a question and answer session where, quite naturally all the answers have been agreed before hand. There is no way this will not go ahead just because some fans think it shouldn’t, ok if all 20,000 City fans and 17,000 Tigers fans had joined together in one massive protest then maybe, but that was never going to happen. If it does fail it will be because of something else. I don’t see myself as apathetic more as realistic and pragmatic. I’ve worked through enough business changes to recognise that the consultation is all about quelling any potential antagonism sufficiently to prevent it becoming annoying or disruptive and to give the protesters the feeling of involvement. The best we, as fans can hope for is to influence how the changes are implemented, reducing the impact of the changes on individuals and to bargain for some minor improvements that we might not have got otherwise. This ground-share will go ahead, there is nothing the fans can do to stop it.
Guest Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Davie has summed up the feelings of a lot of my friends, HF. Unfortunately, modern society no longer has the will to fight for anything much. There are other causes where the public as a whole disagree, but never bother to do anything to change the situation. It's a shame that there are only a few people like myself who are prepared to fight for their beliefs. I'm against the idea of a ground-share in principle, the only reasons that would change my mind was if it prevented us from going bust, going into administration again There is no chance of this happening, we were told last night.
davieG Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Davie has summed up the feelings of a lot of my friends, HF.Unfortunately, modern society no longer has the will to fight for anything much. There are other causes where the public as a whole disagree, but never bother to do anything to change the situation. It's a shame that there are only a few people like myself who are prepared to fight for their beliefs. I'm against the idea of a ground-share in principle, the only reasons that would change my mind was if it prevented us from going bust, going into administration again There is no chance of this happening, we were told last night. 42935[/snapback] That's why I can't see that there is any necessity for it.
Guest Posted 3 December 2004 Posted 3 December 2004 Davie has summed up the feelings of a lot of my friends, HF.Unfortunately, modern society no longer has the will to fight for anything much. There are other causes where the public as a whole disagree, but never bother to do anything to change the situation. It's a shame that there are only a few people like myself who are prepared to fight for their beliefs. I'm against the idea of a ground-share in principle, the only reasons that would change my mind was if it prevented us from going bust, going into administration again There is no chance of this happening, we were told last night. 42935[/snapback] That's why I can't see that there is any necessity for it. 42942[/snapback] It's the choice between owning the stadium in a maximum of twenty years, or owning half of it in ten.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.