Larry_LCFC Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 The Sky is great. It's where I spend most of my time. I can't understand the bad press, but there again I don't understand a lot about you ground creatures. Think youre on the wrong forum. Here you go:http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/default.aspx Be a good bird and tweet off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozwin Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 For someone on the committe you have a terrible avatar man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Sigh, sounds like another fruitless meeting with the club then. You may as well talk to a brick wall tbh, you're never going to get these people to enter the real world. As for points being deducted for not televising matches, I knew Sky were powerful but that's even a more shocking situation than I imagined. Disgraceful state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broughtonblue Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 , You are Very Welcome FatBoySlow again as others have said its good of you to allow us an insight into the meetings. Ignore the dickheads on here, put them on ignore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 They, "turn a blind eye to standing in certain areas of the ground" and although it's been said that they are aware of and are looking into safe standing, I don't think it's high on the agenda, nor are they warm to the idea. I feel the 2 big arguments FOR safe standing would be: Giving a large contingent of our fans who want to stand the choice to do so & to increase revenue. Apparently it wouldn't increase revenue at all as they would actually need more space (due to H&S regs in UK) per person than when seated and secondly there is currently nothing that states a large enough contingent of our fans are PRO safe standing. Yes 4,000 odd stand at Forest away but how many of them actually want to/are forced to? I find this a bit hard to believe, they have said this before but I've not heard it from anyone else. I'm sure everything has been researched by those who are campaigning for it and they've always maintained that capacity would be increased. Likewise a lot of Championship clubs have supported it; obviously seeing the benefits for them. Those clubs I'm sure also realise the amount of fans who support it. Those clubs wouldn't have supported it if a) they didn't think most fans want it or b) they didn't see a financial benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Fox Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Yep, we enter a commercial contract with them as a FL member and if they request that our game is to be shown on TV, we must comply otherwise we CAN be faced with a points deduction. I presume that's more the relationship the FL has with Sky rather than ourselves. The only way we could avoid it is if the Safety Adviser Group (shudder) deem the match unsafe to play. Little known fact of the contract then. Maybe someone should call their bluff and test them as it will only damage further their reputation amongst an increasingly disgruntled footballing public. If they did go ahead and deduct points it could really be a PR disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 That's a Brilliant Write up BrummieFOX Very Well Put. Got to this stage of the thread and nearly collapsed laughing .......Jesus Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayfox Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Yes, exposure on Sky is a big plus but it's not always as good as it sounds. For example, only 52,000 people watched the Huddersfield replay and last year the televised games vs. Forest and Derby actually cost the club money due to reduction in projected attendance. The reduction in attendance will be more than made up for by the additional sponsorship, due to the game being televised, you telling me they aren't charging pukka pies etc, more for tv games and these electrical adverts than they were Marks electrical for a few hoardings at the front of the family stand.They are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Think I will take my banter sign off. birdwith2beaksandnofriends, is making me look like a rookie. On the contrary. It's making you look like you have good banter by comparison.... Which we all know isn't true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safe Standing Roadshow Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 I find this a bit hard to believe, they have said this before but I've not heard it from anyone else. I'm sure everything has been researched by those who are campaigning for it and they've always maintained that capacity would be increased. Likewise a lot of Championship clubs have supported it; obviously seeing the benefits for them. Those clubs I'm sure also realise the amount of fans who support it. Those clubs wouldn't have supported it if a) they didn't think most fans want it or b) they didn't see a financial benefit. It's good to see that LCFC are monitoring the safe standing debate and that SW attended the parliamentary event in December as you can see in .To clarify a couple of misconceptions: it is not possible for the owners of any stadium to say at this stage "our stadium would not be suitable because the deck gradients are too steep / shallow" or "there would be no financial benefit for us". Why? Because the rules have not yet been written to cover such aspects as appropriate gradients, rail heights or crowd densities for safe standing areas fitted with rail seats. It is precisely to assist with defining what these parameters should be that we want the government to permit a few small-scale trials. Only then and only when the appropriate new section of the Green Guide (the document that provides quasi-statutory guidelines on the safe construction and management of stadia) has been drafted will clubs be in a position to look at how easy or otherwise it may be for them to incorporate safe standing into their existing infrastructure. It will also only be then that clubs will be able to see whether or not they would be able to achieve an increase in capacity and thus additional revenue (in theory, depending on what rules get defined for this country, capacity could increase by up 100% in areas fitted with rail seats). This is, of course, beside the basic benefit of providing a section of your 'customer base' with a 'product' they crave and thus also retaining their custom - for life! It is on getting the government to allow such trials that all our efforts are focussed at present. It is great that half of the Football League, i.e. 36 of the 72 clubs, now either already have standing or support trials of safe standing areas. This will become 37 clubs on Friday, when the next one will go public. That, however, is not Leicester City. It would be really great and would help to move the debate forward to a definitive conclusion one way or the other if LCFC, too, would declare its support for trials to be run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdwith2beaksandnofriends Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 On the contrary. It's making you look like you have good banter by comparison.... Which we all know isn't true +1 on the mouthbreather column then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrummieFOX Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Those clubs I'm sure also realise the amount of fans who support it. Those clubs wouldn't have supported it if a) they didn't think most fans want it or b) they didn't see a financial benefit. Yea, exactly. I think that's our problem, I think it would be hard to make a guess as to how many are in support/against it. It's good to see that LCFC are monitoring the safe standing debate and that SW attended the parliamentary event in December as you can see in .To clarify a couple of misconceptions: it is not possible for the owners of any stadium to say at this stage "our stadium would not be suitable because the deck gradients are too steep / shallow" or "there would be no financial benefit for us". Why? Because the rules have not yet been written to cover such aspects as appropriate gradients, rail heights or crowd densities for safe standing areas fitted with rail seats. It is precisely to assist with defining what these parameters should be that we want the government to permit a few small-scale trials. Only then and only when the appropriate new section of the Green Guide (the document that provides quasi-statutory guidelines on the safe construction and management of stadia) has been drafted will clubs be in a position to look at how easy or otherwise it may be for them to incorporate safe standing into their existing infrastructure. It will also only be then that clubs will be able to see whether or not they would be able to achieve an increase in capacity and thus additional revenue (in theory, depending on what rules get defined for this country, capacity could increase by up 100% in areas fitted with rail seats). This is, of course, beside the basic benefit of providing a section of your 'customer base' with a 'product' they crave and thus also retaining their custom - for life! It is on getting the government to allow such trials that all our efforts are focussed at present. It is great that half of the Football League, i.e. 36 of the 72 clubs, now either already have standing or support trials of safe standing areas. This will become 37 clubs on Friday, when the next one will go public. That, however, is not Leicester City. It would be really great and would help to move the debate forward to a definitive conclusion one way or the other if LCFC, too, would declare its support for trials to be run. Thanks mate, useful to have clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 +1 on the mouthbreather column then! You have a column just for yourself? Your parents must be so proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 It's good to see that LCFC are monitoring the safe standing debate and that SW attended the parliamentary event in December as you can see in .To clarify a couple of misconceptions: it is not possible for the owners of any stadium to say at this stage "our stadium would not be suitable because the deck gradients are too steep / shallow" or "there would be no financial benefit for us". Why? Because the rules have not yet been written to cover such aspects as appropriate gradients, rail heights or crowd densities for safe standing areas fitted with rail seats. It is precisely to assist with defining what these parameters should be that we want the government to permit a few small-scale trials. Only then and only when the appropriate new section of the Green Guide (the document that provides quasi-statutory guidelines on the safe construction and management of stadia) has been drafted will clubs be in a position to look at how easy or otherwise it may be for them to incorporate safe standing into their existing infrastructure. It will also only be then that clubs will be able to see whether or not they would be able to achieve an increase in capacity and thus additional revenue (in theory, depending on what rules get defined for this country, capacity could increase by up 100% in areas fitted with rail seats). This is, of course, beside the basic benefit of providing a section of your 'customer base' with a 'product' they crave and thus also retaining their custom - for life! It is on getting the government to allow such trials that all our efforts are focussed at present. It is great that half of the Football League, i.e. 36 of the 72 clubs, now either already have standing or support trials of safe standing areas. This will become 37 clubs on Friday, when the next one will go public. That, however, is not Leicester City. It would be really great and would help to move the debate forward to a definitive conclusion one way or the other if LCFC, too, would declare its support for trials to be run. Thanks for clearing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vale Blue Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 What is the volume of Pearson's head? Could you cut your hand on his haircut? Who has the bigger shoes, Filbert Fox or Nigel F Pearson? Also, can I have Filbert's number? Oh and if we lose enough games and can't go up, can the owners force Nigel F Pearson to prance about like an idiot and let Filbert Fox manage the team? Ta. ROFL!!!! :clap: Oh happy days, f**k the finances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentFox Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Did Anthony Knockaert win any money in the Alea casino in Nottingham at 4.20 am on Saturday night/Sunday morning? I am a regular there ! Are you ? Never seen Knocky there , though ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdwith2beaksandnofriends Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 I am a regular there ! Are you ? Never seen Knocky there , though ?? He turned up at gone 4am mate, do you tend to be in there at that time? I'm not a regular. Not sure I'll be welcome again actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentFox Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 He turned up at gone 4am mate, do you tend to be in there at that time? I'm not a regular. Not sure I'll be welcome again actually. at my age ??!! There's only one place you'll find me at 4 am ! Bed ! But not my own !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ted Posted 7 March 2013 Share Posted 7 March 2013 Did the OP refer to 'banning standing'? Could anybody elaborate further on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrummieFOX Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 Did the OP refer to 'banning standing'? Could anybody elaborate further on this? There was no talk on banning standing and the club said that they turn a blind eye to certain areas of the ground. It was mentioned because the FCC members had to suggest agenda items, which the club then put into an overall agenda for the meeting. 'Banning standing/Safe standing' was one of the agenda items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc-fan Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 Anything mentioned about the shit overpriced food and ques which take 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensible Chap Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 When r dey making da stadium bigga? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 When r dey making da stadium bigga? Top WUM'ing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoareyaaa Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 Are our owners concerned about the way we're playing just now and have they discussed with Nigel Pearson any ways of restoring the expansive style which took us to the top of the table and perhaps financing further reinforcements to better guard against both injury and burn-out? She ain't the chairman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broughtonblue Posted 8 March 2013 Share Posted 8 March 2013 Can the foxes eye video from the big screens be put in the public domain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.