Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB

Bloody hell it is ground hog day, the last time war broke out between HC and posters this side of the pond it went on for ages (and I think HC won [:D]). Big up to the USA for spanking the Spanish.

USAcanary - The number of people that would see the failure of the club as a moral victory is miniscule, the number of people sucked in by the whole rebate thing is much larger.... 

Bump[:D]

LQ - Regarding "cheap" season tickets, who sets the price of the season tickets? 18,200 ST holders at an average price of £270 per ST or 10,000 ST holders at an average price of £405 per ST, the choice is yours......

Lets look at the facts: Who offered a rebate on season tickets if Norwich City FC get relegated to League One? - Answer: Norwich City plc Who sets the price of season tickets? - Answer: Norwich City plc Who is responsible for the demise of Norwich City FC? - Answer: Board/Players/Manager/All of these (You decide) I see a pattern emerging here. Now, turning to the rebate question: There never was a "shortfall" - 18,200 ST holders paid the price set by Norwich City plc If posters are going to argue that the failure of the rebate waiver scheme is not just about the fans sending a message to the club but is also about the recession (which is probably true), then I ask again how many of the 18,200 season ticket holders that did renew would not have done had the rebate not been on offer?. Taking all of the above into account I am still of the opinion that the club must be absolutely delighted with 18,200 ST renewals and the £360K raised by the rebate waiver scheme.          

This thread illustrates perfectly my gripe regarding the whole rebate fiasco. As I have said on numerous occasions there is no "shortfall", the only way the club could legitimately say there is a "shortfall" is if they budgeted for 20,000 season tickets holders renewing but only 18,200 did. The club offered the rebate to the fans should we be relegated, you have to ask whether they were complacent and did not think for one minute they would have to pay out. What also has been missed is the number of ST renewals, you need to ask yourself how many ST renewals there would have been had the the rebate not been on offer. And finally you have to ask why the "donation" from Mr Foulger was conditional, after all the board members are all fans just like us and they are always on the look out for investment...... The club are wholly responsible for the whole ill thought out rebate policy, but I would suggest that in reality they are delighted with 18,200 ST renewals and £300k in rebate waivers.   

I am loathe to do this.....but bugger it I will.....I claimed my rebate, and sent a snotty letter with my rebate request, I asked the club to acknowledge receipt of my letter, I am still waiting......

It is down to individuals whether they claim their rebate or not. I have no problem admitting I have issues with the whole rebate affair, which centre around how easily people have been sucked into believing their is a "shortfall", which is clearly not the case, certainly not in terms of how the request for the fans to give up their rebate is being presented, and how people believe it is right for the club to effecitvely try to break the contract it has with ST holders. I do not believe the offer to be "emotional blackmail", but I do believe the offer deliberately plays on the emotions of the fans.  

T - Why on earth do you keep using the term "subsidy"? all ST holders, members etc have paid the price for their ticket as set by the club. You are wrong to say that the club are making an offer, what they are actually doing is changing the offer they have already made (ST for price "Y"). There is also no "shortfall". There can only be a "shortfall" if the club expexted 20,000 ST renewals but only got 18,200. The decraese in revenue is as a direct result of relegation and the offer of a rebate to ST holders for the same, which clearly is not a "shortfall". We all know these are tough financial times, we all know about the reality of finances in football, the "offer" from Mr Foulger is not about any of that, do you belive for one second we would have this "offer" had we not been relegated, I certainly do not.    

T - What on earth are you talking about? I do not think that Mr Foulger is obligated to hand over any money. The facts speak for themselves, under the stewardship of the current board, of which Mr Foulger is a member, we have seen a steady year on year decline culminating in relegation to the third teir of English football. The facts regarding the price of a season ticket are also indisputable, price "X" if we stay in the Championship", price "Y" if we get relegated to League One and price "Z" if we get promoted to the Premiership. The fact is we got relegated to League One, therefore price "Y" applies. We are constantly being told the board are fans of the club, just like us, we are constantly told that the club is always looking for investment. Here we have a director (and fan?) of the club with apparently up to £1M available to donate to the club, so I ask again,why not donate that £1M and say all waived rebates will be added to that amount? I find it very unfortunate that the club has effectivley looked to back out of the contract to offer a season ticket at price "Y", I find it equally unfortunate that you (T) think that by asking the question I have, I am looking for somebody to "subsidise" my weekend entertainment, when clearly I have paid price "Y" as set by the club. Enough of the facts, now for the opinion bit, I believe to use the term "shortfall" is misleading at best. What is this so called "shortfall"?, one conclusion is that the club never really thought they would have to pay out a rebate, as they were complacent about the possibility of relegation (shock, horror), if this is true is it a "shortfall"? because as pointed out above the season tickets were offered at price "Y" and the fans paid price "Y". So if all of the above makes me numerically challenged then so be it, much better to be numerically challenged than a gullible twit...

So it is a donation from Foulger now [:D], which revises my question to "Why does he not make a donation of £1M with no strings attached?". I remain astounded that there are still people who belive the "short fall" myth........

Annoying but not a new thing, games in the 1986 World Cup Finals in Mexico were blighted by those bloody horns.....

Balham Yellow - You need to look at the bigger picture mate. If we do not get out of League One it will not be because fans took their rebate. Ask yourself this, why is Foulger only "match funding"?, we are constantly being told that the Directors are fans just like us, we are constantly being told that the club is on the look out for new investment, well here we have a Director who has £1M to invest (if you believe the figures bandied around in the press), so why not invest it in players, no strings attached? I will go further and say I do not believe the figures being bandied around, they are only accurate if you can demonstrate that all 18,200 ST renewals would have renewed if the rebate was not on offer. So being less gullible than yourself i can see this stunt for what it is.

Butterworth was a very good CB. PC - I second what Ricky Knight says, have a look at Cloughies goal scoring record before serious injury curtailed his playing career

Which begs the question why Cam is banned and Ryan is allowed to post!! Blah x 3 is right re dumbing down. Mr Tilson dare I suggest that abusive language should not be tolerated regardless of the gender of the poster it is aimed at...

PAM - A few things to consider: Given that we are constantly being told that the board are all fans and given that we are constantly being told that the club is always seeking investment, why is the offer to invest £1M in the club being made conditional?, why not just invest £1M in the playing side and say it will be topped up by whatever the fans raise by not claiming their rebate? Given that the Board are responsible for the financial meltdown of the club, they should be responsible for sorting it out, the fans have backed the club in record numbers of ST renewals over the years, not to mention the share issue. The fans commitment and loyalty is not in doubt. Norwich City FC entered into a contract with each and every ST holder that renewed, why should they be allowed to back out of that contract?. Ask yourself if they would be prepared for the fans to back out of the very same contract had the club been promoted to the Prem. How is the £1M arrived at?, as I have said before that figure can only be accurate if you can demonstrate that all 18,200 ST renewals would have been made had the rebate not been on offer and it also assumes that all 18,200 ST renewals are due the full 20% rebate for renewing by the first deadline. To get a figure of £1M+ from rebates assumes an average ST price of around £275 (before the rebate) which seems a little on the high side to me.  

Yellow Shirt - Why do I get the impression you are one of those "MK Businesses"?[:D] Surely the fact that AFC Wimbledon were formed shows there was some intrest (admittedly only from fans and we know how little their opinion counts these days). Whatever the arguements, you cannot fail to be inspired by the fact that AFC Wimbledon have managed to progress as they have, with a fraction of the investment received by "the franchise".

And lets not forget that te club are "actively seeking investment" from the fans to[:D]

Yellow Shirt - Your arguement hinges on one item, which appears to be that "Wimbledon were going bust anyway", even if this was a fact (rather than an opinion), it begs the question how much money has been pumped in the franchise known as MK Dons (I suspect rather a lot) and why the money was not used to save Wimbledon and allow them to continue in their traditional home of south London.

Well said Ryan.

Yellow Shirt - Tell the AFC Wimbledon fans that.....

Stevo - You clearly have been sucked into all of this rebate shortfall nonsense. These are the questions you need to think about: If the rebate was not offered how many ST renewals would there have been?, only then can you gauge with any accuracy how much the "shortfall" is - If you assume 16,000 fans would have renewed at the full price of say an average ST cost of £250, that gives you an income of £4M, if you assume all of the 18,300 ST renewals keep their rebate, and you assume they are all eligible to the 20% rebate that gives you an income of £3.66M (£200 x 18,300). This gives you a shortfall of £340K, which leads onto the second question. Where has the figure of a £1M+ "shortfall" come from?, to arrive at that figure would mean an average ST price of £270 and again assumes all 18,300 ST renewals are eligible for the 20% rebate. Other posters talk of a £600K "shortfall", so what is it? and why do the club not just say exactly how much could be raised, after all they will know, rather than bandying emotive figures such as in excess of £1M? Why are the club effectively trying to back out of a contract they have entered into with each and every ST holder? What were the clubs projections re ST renewals following relegation, and how does the 18,300 ST renewals compare to those projections. Personally I think the club must be absolutely delighted with the level of ST renewals they achieved, the "shortfall" (if indeed there is one) is way lower than the figures being bandied about and the letter from Mr Foulger is a dirty, shabby trick to pull on the very loyal, long suffering Norwich City fans.      

FC St Pauli - Germany Djurgarden - Sweden

Ren - You clearly do not understand what constiutes a contract under English Law , I suggest you have another look at your ST renewal form, the offer bit clearly states that you pay x pounds if the club stays in the Championship and that this price will be adjusted upwards or downwards dependant on promotion/relegation.

The silence from Blahx3 seems to indicate that he is in talks with Gunn. For what it is worth Blahx3 I hope that you still have time to post on this message board.