This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Holmesdale Fanatics thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Palace in the Blood  12 Sep 18 8.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman No proof that the club mishandled the situation? What, like consulting or just communicating something with the fans, which you incidentally haven’t said they did and therefore mishandled the issue.
There are many ways of consultation some formal some informal. The Club have said there was a negative reaction from existing season tickets phoning box office. Such a reaction if large enough negates the need for formal consultation. The world is not black and white - Not for the HF or against the HF. You by your responses clearly want the HF demands met irrespective of any potential costs to the club we all support. Clearly others have totally the opposite view of the HF. The vast majority of people including those on this forum would like to see a solution in the interest of the club as a whole. The HF in block B worked and was accepted by most if not all. Moving them to the Centre has a lot of problems Existing season ticket holders against The result of that will Club will be told to stop the standing and if they fail authority could close area. That is why going back to Block B as a Status Quo position makes sense for all. Dialogue can continue on how to expand the "singing" section. The fact is it will not happen overnight. It may have to wait for new development or a safe standing trial
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Crazy_Eagle South London 12 Sep 18 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I think at this point the HF have made their point and should come back to Block B and start the conversation for the 19/20 season. HF are a fantastic asset for us and CPFC need to do all they can, but it's not going to happen midway through a season now. - on a side note, whichever poster put Zaha and the HF in the same sentence needs a bit of a reality check.
R.I.P. DJ Hardline CPFC2010 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| .TUX. 12 Sep 18 8.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by coulsdoneagle
Very difficult to see how it will be fixed any time soon. The HF should take the seats back for now while they work on a solution, the club is clearly willing to talk at this point. They have bent over backwards and kept those seats open selling them on a match by match basis rather than off as season tickets. The HF are showing no willingness to help the club and are instead speaking to newspapers. Perhaps the club can write to 150 fans in the middle of block E and offer them a half price season ticket for next season, if they accept the proposal to move. If they tried this and it failed then the HF would have nothing to complain about. The club tried. I don’t think it’s right to evict a single season ticket holder unless they agree to to move. Either way it needs to be sorted soon, it’s just a shame the HF are happy to sabotage the atmosphere and impact the club they are meant to be fans of. It’s difficult to see what other steps the club could have taken when the plans were leaked, and so far I have yet to see a shred of evidence to suggest that this proposed move was actually agreed by the club, it was just discussed. The fact the club even were willing to have the discussion about it with a fans group is far more than most clubs will do. Edited by coulsdoneagle (12 Sep 2018 7.01pm) ........that they, to be honest for a moment, created? Hardly ''sabotage''.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Sep 18 8.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Palace in the Blood
There are many ways of consultation some formal some informal. The Club have said there was a negative reaction from existing season tickets phoning box office. Such a reaction if large enough negates the need for formal consultation. The world is not black and white - Not for the HF or against the HF. You by your responses clearly want the HF demands met irrespective of any potential costs to the club we all support. The vast majority of people including those on this forum would like to see a solution in the interest of the club as a whole. The HF in block B worked and was accepted by most if not all. Moving them to the Centre has a lot of problems Existing season ticket holders against The result of that will Club will be told to stop the standing and if they fail authority could close area. That is why going back to Block B as a Status Quo position makes sense for all. Dialogue can continue on how to expand the "singing" section. The fact is it will not happen overnight. It may have to wait for new development or a safe standing trial You’re clearly wrong. I can just imagine the kind of response you get in real life trying to speak for or twist other people’s words. ‘Irrespective of any costs to the club that we all support.’ Cringe. There’s standing everywhere. You watch the whole of the new spurs end stand, even if the seats aren’t fully made into those for standing yet. Again, I’m talking about dialogue with more than ‘irate from Cheam or Sutton’ tweeting to Parish or writing to the club, but yet again, you fail to see that for about the 199th time.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 12 Sep 18 9.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
And where you go we flounce, we flounce, we flounce.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Palace in the Blood 12 Sep 18 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
You’re clearly wrong. I can just imagine the kind of response you get in real life trying to speak for or twist other people’s words. ‘Irrespective of any costs to the club that we all support.’ Cringe. There’s standing everywhere. You watch the whole of the new spurs end stand, even if the seats aren’t fully made into those for standing yet. Again, I’m talking about dialogue with more than ‘irate from Cheam or Sutton’ tweeting to Parish or writing to the club, but yet again, you fail to see that for about the 199th time.
If safe standing is rejected by Parliament and presently I would say its 50:50 then the licensing authorities will look to rigorously enforce. Do you want it to be Palace stands that are closed? Also there is the question of liability for mass standing in seated areas if there was an incident and people were hurt or even killed. Pre the current Law such incidents were common now they are rare. SP and the other directors are not fools and I am sure they will have taken legal advice. The law relating to corporate manslaughter has changed dramatically since Hillsborough and prosecution of senior individuals is much easier. I support safe standing and I think that the political view and their advisors is moving in that direction, however any serious incident that takes place would reverse that movement. CPFC if I remember correctly are one of the clubs who support the change in law Your final paragraph you show how biased you are in your views "Again, I’m talking about dialogue with more than ‘irate from Cheam or Sutton’ tweeting to Parish or writing to the club, but yet again, you fail to see that for about the 199th time". You only want the HF view heard - 100 season ticket holders. Irate of Cheam or Sutton has as much right to be heard. Other season ticket holders in area have a right to be heard too. It would be interested how and who you wanted Club to consult? In my mind if after the original contact with HF the club had decided that it should have been taken forward then some sort of formal contact with those affected would have taken place. Reading between the lines I think it had failed before that point ie there was clear indication that many people objected. There is also the question of cost of consultation who should pay? I assume it would be a written letter to all season ticket holders in Holmesdale with a pre paid reply. Possibly sent to an independant organisation so there is no question of bias. Your final point for 199th time. Unlike you I have not commented 199 times. You have your own views and I respect your right to have them. You need to respect that other people think you are very wrong and that you are unwilling to debate solutions which fall short of HF demands
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Sep 18 11.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
You fool I want everyone to be asked and heard, that’s the point. That’s the HF point too. They’re protesting ‘inaction.’ I have my opinion on what I want, but that should be, or needs to be, after everyone is consulted and/or there are alternative seating arrangements. Nobody knows for sure if there is or isn’t solutions to this because there’s been zero effort. On my description of irate from wherever, it doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s fair they’re consulted. The liability reason is just an excuse to kick it into the long grass. Lots of big areas stand. Old spurs, and all behind the goal and along the pitch, the Kop, Arsenal, probably new Spurs and thousands there, Chelsea, etc etc etc. Questioning who should pay for consultations when Palace is now a multi multi million pound business making a profit every year is quite amusing, especially when you then factor in the cost of pre-paid envelopes. If you venture onto the BBS you’ll see how many there are who think it should at least be explored with consultations, and there are some who don’t want it but agree on consultations and then some in central blocks who would move. Edited by Rudi Hedman (13 Sep 2018 12.00am)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 13 Sep 18 3.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
I thought the HF were maintaining a dignified silence, whilst talks could progress between them and the club. But no. they have links to the media, so go gobbing -off, and not for the first time.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BarEagle Monmouth 13 Sep 18 6.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
I thought the HF were maintaining a dignified silence, whilst talks could progress between them and the club. But no. they have links to the media, so go gobbing -off, and not for the first time. That’s if you believe they spoke to the media. You do know a huge amount of stuff in the press is false?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BarEagle Monmouth 13 Sep 18 6.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Palace in the Blood
If safe standing is rejected by Parliament and presently I would say its 50:50 then the licensing authorities will look to rigorously enforce. Do you want it to be Palace stands that are closed? Also there is the question of liability for mass standing in seated areas if there was an incident and people were hurt or even killed. Pre the current Law such incidents were common now they are rare. SP and the other directors are not fools and I am sure they will have taken legal advice. The law relating to corporate manslaughter has changed dramatically since Hillsborough and prosecution of senior individuals is much easier. I support safe standing and I think that the political view and their advisors is moving in that direction, however any serious incident that takes place would reverse that movement. CPFC if I remember correctly are one of the clubs who support the change in law Your final paragraph you show how biased you are in your views "Again, I’m talking about dialogue with more than ‘irate from Cheam or Sutton’ tweeting to Parish or writing to the club, but yet again, you fail to see that for about the 199th time". You only want the HF view heard - 100 season ticket holders. Irate of Cheam or Sutton has as much right to be heard. Other season ticket holders in area have a right to be heard too. It would be interested how and who you wanted Club to consult? In my mind if after the original contact with HF the club had decided that it should have been taken forward then some sort of formal contact with those affected would have taken place. Reading between the lines I think it had failed before that point ie there was clear indication that many people objected. There is also the question of cost of consultation who should pay? I assume it would be a written letter to all season ticket holders in Holmesdale with a pre paid reply. Possibly sent to an independant organisation so there is no question of bias. Your final point for 199th time. Unlike you I have not commented 199 times. You have your own views and I respect your right to have them. You need to respect that other people think you are very wrong and that you are unwilling to debate solutions which fall short of HF demands I think you miss the point. 1) The atmosphere is worse without them. If you disagree with either then have another prawn sandwich.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 13 Sep 18 7.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BarEagle
That’s if you believe they spoke to the media. You do know a huge amount of stuff in the press is false? The HF have form for speaking to the press. And as a general comment on the thread, the snide comments/abuse to other posters having an opinion is just sad.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Tipp_Eagle  Tipperary 13 Sep 18 8.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BarEagle
I think you miss the point. 1) The atmosphere is worse without them. If you disagree with either then have another prawn sandwich. that sums it all up , well put .
oh yeah ,fcuk off brighton. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.