do you want to succeed as chairman or are you happy losing customers hand over fist? why dont you just get rid of the concessions completly and make a rule saying 'corporate guests only' it sems to be the way thie 'community' club is going under your stewardship.
dont apologise, im just easily confused everything about the club is a bit (wnkr) at the moment. especially the farce that is public relations
the supporters club are not part of the club them 'taking' over is a poor excuse. the club have disbanded the young tykes and its disgusting. i have more faith in peter doyle than in gordon shepherd
the club getting shut of the young tykes i know people will say that the supporters trust is taking over the running but its not good enough. the CLUB should be doing its best to attract young supporters, not leaving it upto the supporters trust who arent even anything to do with the club.
So Without any information about the arrangement with the supporters trust you have deduced that the club are only interested in attracting 'corporate guests only' to come and watch the heady heights of 3rd division football. Fecking genius.
no i havent deduced that and certainly not from that. but the fact that tv's have been switched off throughout the stands but not the exec boxes, that the mascot has been ditched in favour of a 'corporate mascot', that the player of the year announcement was, as it appeared, going to be a corporate event and that prices for a worse product have been increased again this season way over the rate of inflation. things like that do tend to make make me think that the corporate guests are more important than the people that will be here supporting this club and being the sole reason for its very existence for years to come
RE: the supporters club are not part of the club So you'd rather have someone who threatened to close the club down?
RE: the supporters club are not part of the club no i wouldn't rather have him. but i do have more faith in his decision making at times. To be totally honest id rather have sean lewis over the lot of them so far, people say he had no money etc but that doesnt matter, his plans and ideas sounded ambitious, forward thinking, planning for the future. At the moment everything seems so short term. All of the money making ideas have seemed short term right from when ridsdale took over. they tide the club over for a season but never secure any money in the long term.
wtf has him personally having any money got to do with it? did you see john dennis/peter doyle/peter ridsdale through in a million of their own cash to help us out? NO do you see gordon shepherd stumping up £2m from his own pocket for players? NO I'm not quite seeing why somebody who had plans for the future and plans to make the club viable is condemned as useless because he wasnt rich (though he did have a lot of assets and had a personal wealth a lot higher than you may think) yet ridsdale/shepherd are gods because theyve got some cash, even if they arent using it on us. eh?
RE: wtf has him personally having any money got to do with it? Lewis didnt have enough cash to pay debt of, Cryne did!</p> He tryed to get us out of admin, but he failed because he couldnt pay the creditors of</p>