Statement Regarding Fixture Fulfilment

[Matt_B]

My point is that it was not fair on the vast majority of fans as they couldn't get there. I think it's fair to make a call to suit the majority hence why I believe it should have been postponed.

My point regarding the statement was that it is not uncommon for companies, organisations or the media to bend the truth or exaggerate things.

Others have also made comment as to the involvement with Sky, but you have chose no issue with those, just like another topic a couple of days back. If you have such an issue with what I post, please feel free to add me to your ignore list as, as has been discussed before, it is not possible for us peasant members to do likewise to moderators.

Nobody else has commented on it since the statement, you have. It would be fairly easy for you to check the rules if you believe they are lying.

 

[Macky]

My point is that it was not fair on the vast majority of fans as they couldn't get there. I think it's fair to make a call to suit the majority hence why I believe it should have been postponed.

Who exactly do you suggest should have made this "call to suit the majority"?

Others have also made comment as to the involvement with Sky, but you have chose no issue with those

Which others?

 

[pork pie fox]

My point is that it was not fair on the vast majority of fans as they couldn't get there. I think it's fair to make a call to suit the majority hence why I believe it should have been postponed.

My point regarding the statement was that it is not uncommon for companies, organisations or the media to bend the truth or exaggerate things.

Others have also made comment as to the involvement with Sky, but you have chose no issue with those, just like another topic a couple of days back. If you have such an issue with what I post, please feel free to add me to your ignore list as, as has been discussed before, it is not possible for us peasant members to do likewise to moderators.

But how would they have known how many would have gone M17tt? They can't ring everybody to find out, for all they knew there could have been 2000 or 15000 there. The ground was fit for purpose, the surrounding areas were deemed safe by the police and relevant authorities, what more could the club do?

 

[LeeCovFox]

There is some astonishing naivety on display here. The club may have no official authority to call off a match but do people really believe that a multi-million pound local business has no influence (especially over the local council or police) whatsoever on proceedings? They could have advised the police at any time that they felt conditions outside may be too dangerous and that thousands would be adversely impacted. And that Sky, a multi-million pound national and international business, have no influence on football clubs? People will swallow anything.

Personally I think the wrong call, whoever made it, was made on Friday night. If it is clear - and it was - that the vast majority of those who would be expected to attend the match could not possibly make it then it should have been called off. Sod the argument that the points were won. It's the managers job to make sure that happens whenever a match is played. There are sensible arguments that it was correct to let the game go ahead but unfortunately there is an undercurrent, largely emanating from fans who did attend, which suggests that many think those of us who did not attend were not able to because we didn't prepare properly for the conditions. That isn't true, but then people can believe bullshit if they so choose.

A gesture should be made to those fans who paid money and were genuinely unable to attend. Not for me; I don't want anything. But those who phoned the club saying they wouldn't make it should have the price of their ticket refunded or offered an alternative match. Or something. Anything that gives the appearance of the club actually giving a shit about the supporters rather than being content to play in a three-quarter empty stadium because the fans don't actually matter to them at all.

 

[The Old Fox]

There was much ridicule on this board, and I am sure many of its inferior imitators, when a game was called off, a season or two back, because of conditions outside the ground. Now, the club get the game on and that is wrong too. Why would club's bother with under soil heating, etc. were they to call off games when the weather turned inclement?

 

[pork pie fox]

You know what, feck it. I was going to reply but I can't be arsed.

 

[LeeCovFox]

Because well over half the fans who would ordinarily have been there couldn't make it. What's the point of putting a match on if hardly anybody is there to see it? Why are they even bothering playing football? I know that football is big business now and that millions rolling into the Thais' bank account as a result of promotion is more important than the supporters. But they could at least pretend to give a ****.

 

[pork pie fox]

Because well over half the fans who would ordinarily have been there couldn't make it. What's the point of putting a match on if hardly anybody is there to see it? Why are they even bothering playing football? I know that football is big business now and that millions rolling into the Thais' bank account as a result of promotion is more important than the supporters. But they could at least pretend to give a ****.

Right, I'm going to bite.

How would they know this for sure?

 

[fitz]

Because well over half the fans who would ordinarily have been there couldn't make it. What's the point of putting a match on if hardly anybody is there to see it? Why are they even bothering playing football? I know that football is big business now and that millions rolling into the Thais' bank account as a result of promotion is more important than the supporters. But they could at least pretend to give a ****.

So the club should -

Do a Cardiff and not bother attempting to get the pitch fit for purpose or do a Boro and just refuse to play the game. The first option would go unpunished but the second wouldn't.

 

[fitz]

Right, I'm going to bite.

How would they know this for sure?

Twitter

 

[Real Sharapova]

There is some astonishing naivety on display here. The club may have no official authority to call off a match but do people really believe that a multi-million pound local business has no influence (especially over the local council or police) whatsoever on proceedings? They could have advised the police at any time that they felt conditions outside may be too dangerous and that thousands would be adversely impacted. And that Sky, a multi-million pound national and international business, have no influence on football clubs? People will swallow anything.

Personally I think the wrong call, whoever made it, was made on Friday night. If it is clear - and it was - that the vast majority of those who would be expected to attend the match could not possibly make it then it should have been called off. Sod the argument that the points were won. It's the managers job to make sure that happens whenever a match is played. There are sensible arguments that it was correct to let the game go ahead but unfortunately there is an undercurrent, largely emanating from fans who did attend, which suggests that many think those of us who did not attend were not able to because we didn't prepare properly for the conditions. That isn't true, but then people can believe bullshit if they so choose.

A gesture should be made to those fans who paid money and were genuinely unable to attend. Not for me; I don't want anything. But those who phoned the club saying they wouldn't make it should have the price of their ticket refunded or offered an alternative match. Or something. Anything that gives the appearance of the club actually giving a shit about the supporters rather than being content to play in a three-quarter empty stadium because the fans don't actually matter to them at all.

I had no intention of going to the game as there were no trains back to London after the game, can I have a free gesture from the club anyway? Hats off the the club for getting the game on, whether they were influenced by Sky or not. Their job is to put football matches on, which they succeeded in admirably. The weather in Leicester and beyond was not their responsibility. Any call to postpone the game because of matters beyond their control was not their call to make, as has been pointed out by the club. I would say the club are blameless here, have a go at the local safety advisory group if you must, but it wasn't a decision the club could have any part in IMO.

 

[LeeCovFox]

They would know that a significant number of people were not going to make it. They wouldn't have required clairvoyance for this. Sure, they wouldn't have had numbers at their finger tips but it was bloody obvious, especially when people were calling the club, telling them they couldn't get there (and being told to **** off).

They made a judgement call and I think it was the wrong one. Many disagree and that's fine. But a gesture of goodwill to those who bought match tickets (I couldn't give a shit about them giving anything to me) would be a good step and wouldn't cost them the earth.

 

[LeeCovFox]

So the club should -

Do a Cardiff and not bother attempting to get the pitch fit for purpose or do a Boro and just refuse to play the game. The first option would go unpunished but the second wouldn't.

I think they could have expressed enough concern to whoever the local safety group is to have influenced their decision. The club does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[LeeCovFox]

I had no intention of going to the game as there were no trains back to London after the game, can I have a free gesture from the club anyway? Hats off the the club for getting the game on, whether they were influenced by Sky or not. Their job is to put football matches on, which they succeeded in admirably. The weather in Leicester and beyond was not their responsibility. Any call to postpone the game because of matters beyond their control was not their call to make, as has been pointed out by the club. I would say the club are blameless here, have a go at the local safety advisory group if you must, but it wasn't a decision the club could have any part in IMO.

Yes, I think they should, even in your case. They would take a small financial hit which would be outweighed by the goodwill they would receive in return, which would improve the standing of the club in the eyes of the supporters for a long time. I take much the same view of benefits fraud. Some people don't deserve it and will take the piss, but it doesn't mean we should stop giving them to everybody.

 

[Matt_B]

Yes, I think they should, even in your case. They would take a small financial hit which would be outweighed by the goodwill they would receive in return, which would improve the standing of the club in the eyes of the supporters for a long time. I take much the same view of benefits fraud. Some people don't deserve it and will take the piss, but it doesn't mean we should stop giving them to everybody.

Now who's being naive? The next few losses on the trot and any goodwill would be forgotten.

 

[LeeCovFox]

Now who's being naive? The next few losses on the trot and any goodwill would be forgotten.

I don't think that's naive at all. People are capable of separating good customer service from performance on the pitch. The club is not the same thing as the football team.

 

[M17TT C]

But how would they have known how many would have gone M17tt? They can't ring everybody to find out, for all they knew there could have been 2000 or 15000 there. The ground was fit for purpose, the surrounding areas were deemed safe by the police and relevant authorities, what more could the club do?

That's a fair point as there is no way they could say how many would turn up, but it was obvious that many would seriously struggle in attempting to get there.

The ground was fine which is great credit to the club but people still have to get there. With buses cancelled, which a number of people rely on, the official police advice of not to travel unless necessary, and many others stuck getting back from work or just generally in the mayhem on the roads, I wouldn't have been surprised if it was called off.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just trying to show a bit of sympathy for people that couldn't attend as it was awful conditions so understandable people couldn't make it.

It's a tough one to have a definitive answer on but is certainly understandable that many would have struggled greatly.

 

[Macky]

Yes, I think they should, even in your case. They would take a small financial hit which would be outweighed by the goodwill they would receive in return, which would improve the standing of the club in the eyes of the supporters for a long time. I take much the same view of benefits fraud. Some people don't deserve it and will take the piss, but it doesn't mean we should stop giving them to everybody.

What about the 8000+ supporters that did manage to make it? Included a sizable number from the North East. How much goodwill would've been generated with them when they arrived only to be told that the game had been postponed?

 

[RHYDAL]

Do you think if you whine enough they will replay the game for all the fans who missed it? I was pretty annoyed that I had to walk for over an hour each way to see the match on the day but it's done now, points won, move on.

Excellent. Draw, please.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

What percentage of fans being unable/unwilling to attend games should the league use as a reason for automatic cancellation of games? Should this apply if there is a boycott by fans? Maybe it could be used to influence games ie. if your team has a major injury crisis/players out on international duty etc. just arrange a mass boycott and the game will be played at a better time for the club.