This board have been sent a very clear message by the season ticket holders

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="mtv"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

About two thirds of season ticket holders have sent this board a very clear message......Of course there will still be a few on here who will try and spin this result in favour of the board (as they try to do with everything) But it is a clear a result as you can get. If they have any sense at all they will digest the meaning of this and listen to the fans a bit more, or maybe even think a bit harder if/ when potential buyers come calling (if they have''nt already)

The season ticket holders have spoken.....................

[/quote]Unless you can show that the majority of those who claimed their rebates did so for footballing reasons and not to ease their financial burden then your claim that it ''sends out a very clear message'' is speculative at best. It''s very easy to suggest that if City were doing well then fewer people would have claimed, but in the absence of relevant statistics it''s a claim which lacks sufficient evidence. Thus, I''m not convinced by your testimony. Produce the required evidence and I''ll be willing to change my mind. [Y][/quote]

 

I REPEAT      

Oh I''m pretty sure that you and your lot  would have made it very straightforward if it had been as conclusive the OTHER way
		Report

[/quote]In other words you can''t produce the evidence. What a surprise. [:P]

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

About two thirds of season ticket holders have sent this board a very clear message......Of course there will still be a few on here who will try and spin this result in favour of the board (as they try to do with everything) But it is a clear a result as you can get. If they have any sense at all they will digest the meaning of this and listen to the fans a bit more, or maybe even think a bit harder if/ when potential buyers come calling (if they have''nt already)

The season ticket holders have spoken.....................

[/quote]Unless you can show that the majority of those who claimed their rebates did so for footballing reasons and not to ease their financial burden then your claim that it ''sends out a very clear message'' is speculative at best. It''s very easy to suggest that if City were doing well then fewer people would have claimed, but in the absence of relevant statistics it''s a claim which lacks sufficient evidence. Thus, I''m not convinced by your testimony. Produce the required evidence and I''ll be willing to change my mind. [Y][/quote]Thats asking for evidence that can''t exist -> if city were doing better, no rebate would be offered!

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

About two thirds of season ticket holders have sent this board a very clear message......Of course there will still be a few on here who will try and spin this result in favour of the board (as they try to do with everything) But it is a clear a result as you can get. If they have any sense at all they will digest the meaning of this and listen to the fans a bit more, or maybe even think a bit harder if/ when potential buyers come calling (if they have''nt already)

The season ticket holders have spoken.....................

[/quote]Unless you can show that the majority of those who claimed their rebates did so for footballing reasons and not to ease their financial burden then your claim that it ''sends out a very clear message'' is speculative at best. It''s very easy to suggest that if City were doing well then fewer people would have claimed, but in the absence of relevant statistics it''s a claim which lacks sufficient evidence. Thus, I''m not convinced by your testimony. Produce the required evidence and I''ll be willing to change my mind. [Y][/quote]Thats asking for evidence that can''t exist -> if city were doing better, no rebate would be offered![/quote]Quite. But to suggest that the number of rebates claimed was a deliberate stand against the board is a little brash in my opinion. We simply don''t know who claimed for what reasons. [Y]

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

And some people said the majority of fans had full confidence in the board....

I understand some may claim back because of financial reasons but it still doesn''t make good reading when nearly 70% took the money back, even after foulger said he''d match the amount unclaimed. Shame those fans didn''t cancel their season tickets altogether but we can''t have it all our own way I suppose.

[Mtv 0]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"]I applaud the two thirds of season ticket holders, thats a very clear message you sent Smith and friends.[/quote]

And I present a slow hand clap to the other third.  [:P]

The tards.

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P]

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"]If everyone was happy with the way the club has been run I would say the figures would have been the other way round . Whatever way you look at it it is still pretty obvious that there are plenty of people who don''t have faith in this board to turn things around and would rather keep their money in their pockets than trust them to spend it where it should be spent.[/quote]

I know I should be use to it by now, but it defies belief that there are still people who defend the Board of this club even when presented with facts! These people must do it just to be bloody-minded by way of garnering the attention they''re clearly lacking in their miserable lives, because I simply refuse to believe that anybody could be so stupid.

[ca 1]

I also think it sends a strong message to the board, well done to the 66.6% who claimed their money back.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I have to agree it is a big kick in the teeth for the board. Financial reasons is a pretty weak argument if you ask me because when people bought their season tickets they did not know whether we would be in the championship or league 1. if we had not gone down then no rebate would have been payable yet those people still obviously felt they could afford a season ticket. i''m sure some people took it beacuse they did not want to pay as much for league 1, some just because they are tight/careful with their money but most will have taken it because they were completely fed up with the board and did not trust them to spend it on players/wisely.

 

i didn''t claim mine in the end but had i claimed it it would have been purely out of protest.

[ACE 0]

I would suggest that even in deepest darkest Norfolk a £70 rebate is not going to make anyone''s life any richer.Two thirds of the fans claimed the rebate - went out of their way to return the form.  I suggest most of those people are unhappy and wanted to make a point, rather than grabbing back enough cash to buy an extra pint per game.The pro board spin machine has run out of fuel.

[Yelverton Yella 0]

I don''t consider myself qualified to enter this debate since I am no longer able to purchase a season ticket but I would make the following points:Most clubs in this division and the Championship would be delighted to have over 11,000 season ticket holders (never mind18,000) at almost any price so I can''t criticise those who, for whatever reason, took the rebate.The offer from Michael Foulger was extremely generous. It seems hypocritical to me to say, ''I''m claiming my rebate as a matter of principle- they were the terms on which I purchased it'' and then to criticise MF for saying ''Here are the terms for my contribution, I am going to stand by them''.

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]I also think it sends a strong message to the board, well done to the 66.6% who claimed their money back.[/quote]If the 66.6% did so to show a lack of confidence in the directors then sure, it sends a strong message that people aren''t content with their constant mismanagement of club affairs. Unfortunately we have absolutely no idea whether this was the case. So, whilst I remain of the opinion that the board of directors have done a horrific job in managing the club in recent years, I remain unconvinced that the 66.6% who claimed their rebates all did so out of discontent. I''m simply not privy to their reasons for making their claim. [Y]

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P][/quote]

It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P]

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P][/quote]

It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P][/quote]It''s only obvious if you''ve asked the 66.6% for the reasons and they all said it was because they lack faith in the board. You haven''t, so it isn''t obvious. No need to get so personal. [:S]

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P][/quote]

It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P][/quote]It''s only obvious if you''ve asked the 66.6% for the reasons and they all said it was because they lack faith in the board. You haven''t, so it isn''t obvious. No need to get so personal. [:S][/quote]

That''s it I''ve had enough! I''m off to my cottage retreat in Alderney.

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P][/quote]

It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P][/quote]It''s only obvious if you''ve asked the 66.6% for the reasons and they all said it was because they lack faith in the board. You haven''t, so it isn''t obvious. No need to get so personal. [:S][/quote]

That''s it I''ve had enough! I''m off to my cottage retreat in Alderney.[/quote]Maybe you should ask the 66.6% their reasons for claiming their rebate first. Haha! [:P]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]I also think it sends a strong message to the board, well done to the 66.6% who claimed their money back.[/quote]

If you really wanted to send ''a strong message to the board'' you would have cancelled your season ticket. Gutless the lot of you.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]

It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P]
[/quote]


It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!

I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P]
[/quote]

It''s only obvious if you''ve asked the 66.6% for the reasons and they all said it was because they lack faith in the board. You haven''t, so it isn''t obvious. No need to get so personal. [:S]
[/quote]

 

Flashheart come on. Your are coming across like the sort of bloke who would argue black is white. You know nobody is going to be able to ask that but in my view its pretty obvious what most peoples motive was.

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="mtv"]

I have a good idea...how about no one comment on anything that cant be proven in cast iron facts, especialy if it shows up the imcompetence of the current board. So have we got that clear........if you want to raise a point or cast an opinion or show your conclusion on events, you can only do that with cast iron facts..............ok?

 

What a prize pillock you are mate.................................................(and I have cast iron facts for that statement, just read your posts)

[/quote]It''s very simple: If you want to suggest that the number of rebates which were claimed were done in order to show a lack of confidence in the board, then show us that this was the reason the majority did so. If you can''t do this your original post looks a little spurious. [:P][/quote]

It''s obvious to anybody with half a brain, you total f*cking idiot!I guess you were the type of pupil at school who had to be told how to do the same thing several times before it finally sank in. [:P][/quote]It''s only obvious if you''ve asked the 66.6% for the reasons and they all said it was because they lack faith in the board. You haven''t, so it isn''t obvious. No need to get so personal. [:S][/quote]

 

Flashheart come on. Your are coming across like the sort of bloke who would argue black is white. You know nobody is going to be able to ask that but in my view its pretty obvious what most peoples motive was.

[/quote]But on what basis is it ''pretty obvious''? All we have is a percentage. It tells us nothing about why these people claimed their rebates. I don''t see why that''s a controversial point to make. [:S]

[CaptnCanary 0]

Something else to consider is that some of the people who did not claim the money back will have done so out of pure laziness or forgetfulness or misplaced paperwork.

Just a thought but I wonder what would have happen if they asked season ticket holders not to claim the money back until christmas and the club asked fans to wave the refund if we were in the top 6 at that time. Or a similar deal to that effect.

[Mtv 0]

I dont think anyone has said that ALL the 60 odd%  claimed as a protest nor did all those who didnt claim give their money to show a backing for the board. What is obvious to anyone who cares to look is that had the fans been behind the board then there would have been a vast majority giving up their rebate. In the absence of the absolute facts, it is assumable (word?) that the vast majority dont trust this board. I am able to make this assumtion just as you are able to assume the opposite. But I think your assumtion is based on nothing. 

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="mtv"]I dont think anyone has said that ALL the 60 odd%  claimed as a protest nor did all those who didnt claim give their money to show a backing for the board. What is obvious to anyone who cares to look is that had the fans been behind the board then there would have been a vast majority giving up their rebate. In the absence of the absolute facts, it is assumable (word?) that the vast majority dont trust this board. I am able to make this assumtion just as you are able to assume the opposite. But I think your assumtion is based on nothing. [/quote]I''m not really ''assuming the opposite'', merely pointing out that without being privy to the reasons why people claimed their rebates it''s tricky to tell just how many of them did so to make a stand against the directors. I''m sure some did but it''s impossible to tell how many. [Y]

[Mtv 0]

Well based on the bad feeling towards this board , and without any other way of telling, I am taking this as a clear indication that the season ticket holders have said their bit and the board had better listen..........

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="mtv"]Well based on the bad feeling towards this board , and without any other way of telling, I am taking this as a clear indication that the season ticket holders have said their bit and the board had better listen..........[/quote]You do that. I''m as angry at the directors as the next person but I''m not willing to make the same inference as you regarding the reasons for claiming rebates. End of discussion. [Y]

[CaptnCanary 0]

I think Flash has a point in that it is not possible to tell how many claimed the refund due to displeasure with the club as opposed to their own financial plight. However, that is as far as the point goes and I dont think Flash will dispute that.

But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option. So it then seems pretty clear to me that if the fans were happy with the running of the club the majority would have done the boards bidding and if they were unhappy the majority would claim their money back. The majority have spoken.

[shortfatb 0]

I have no confidence that Delia and Michael know what to do with Norwich City anymore, they are two successful business people who have bought something they fancied and it''s all gone wrong, they put their faith in various people who have let them down and, approaching 70, they must wonder what the hell has happened. I don''t have much faith in Bryan Gunn either, in fact out of the 4 key members of the management team I have more faith in the other 3 in footballing terms than him, but I didn''t claim my rebate.The last couple of years in particular on the pitch have been grim and the 330 mile round trip that I make for home games has been more of a trial each time I have made it, but after discussing it with my uncle who I go to the games with, the monthly direct debit goes down £7 per month, and although I haven''t had a job since March and have cancelled all other luxuries, demanding the rebate back seemed pointless given that the effect it would have on my life was non existent. As my uncle said, we''ll still go and watch the sh*t whatever league they are in because it''s about more than just the football, it''s about ritual, tradition, family, emotions, belonging, being there and much more. If people really want to protest then they shouldn''t buy season tickets at all, but that''s not where I want to be. The board have f*cked up, we''re relatively skint, but not much more than most of the competition in our league, Delia and Michael still own the club whether we or they like it or not and taking £70 or so off the club seems to be the wrong type of protest, and poor old Foulger, who may be a bit of a puppet, I don''t know, is berated for putting his hand in his pocket, blackmail, and now for being tight because he''s only matching the 33%. Delia or not, I do think that we have reached an inevitable nadir and I don''t believe that next season will be as bad in terms of performances and results than the last dreadful effort, I am also very happy with the new CEO and the 3 signings we have made, although I like others was excited about Brellier and others, so what do I know. I''m glad we''re cutting our cloth more sensibly, that we are getting people on contracts not loans and I hope this is a new beginning, I actually think the D&M factor is almost irrelevant and out of their hands and I hope my whole season ticket amount including my unclaimed rebate helps. Also although I have never met any of Tilly and the gang, their parochial, self serving, egocentric discourses on here do not make me want them to lead me anywhere and I truly wonder what they thought the board would do in response to their push to demand the rebates other than lay people off and declare they had a small budget, although that is just an aside and had no effect on my own decision.                

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]

I think Flash has a point in that it is not possible to tell how many claimed the refund due to displeasure with the club as opposed to their own financial plight. However, that is as far as the point goes and I dont think Flash will dispute that.

But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option. So it then seems pretty clear to me that if the fans were happy with the running of the club the majority would have done the boards bidding and if they were unhappy the majority would claim their money back. The majority have spoken.

[/quote]Good reply, Captn, but I''m still going to take issue with it. [Y]"But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed

up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price.

Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not

have to reclaim their refund when it became an option."I think this would be a valid inference if you could show that the financial position of the season ticket holders hadn''t changed between renewing their season tickets and claiming their rebate. One could certainly conceive of a number of circumstances where priorities could be shifted depending on various factors. [I]

[CaptnCanary 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="CaptnCanary"]

I think Flash has a point in that it is not possible to tell how many claimed the refund due to displeasure with the club as opposed to their own financial plight. However, that is as far as the point goes and I dont think Flash will dispute that.

But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option. So it then seems pretty clear to me that if the fans were happy with the running of the club the majority would have done the boards bidding and if they were unhappy the majority would claim their money back. The majority have spoken.

[/quote]

Good reply, Captn, but I''m still going to take issue with it. [Y]

"But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option."

I think this would be a valid inference if you could show that the financial position of the season ticket holders hadn''t changed between renewing their season tickets and claiming their rebate. One could certainly conceive of a number of circumstances where priorities could be shifted depending on various factors. [I]
[/quote]

OK if you want to argue about it. How about looking up the change in unemployment figures from the season ticket renewal date to the rebate deadline. I cant be bothered to look up the figures but I doubt very much that its a change of more than 1%. So if we assume the fan base covers a fairly wide section of the employed we could then say that up to 1% of the claimants did so due to recent loss of employment. Fair? Even if it were 2% or 5% really make little difference to this discussion does it?

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="CaptnCanary"]

I think Flash has a point in that it is not possible to tell how many claimed the refund due to displeasure with the club as opposed to their own financial plight. However, that is as far as the point goes and I dont think Flash will dispute that.

But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option. So it then seems pretty clear to me that if the fans were happy with the running of the club the majority would have done the boards bidding and if they were unhappy the majority would claim their money back. The majority have spoken.

[/quote]Good reply, Captn, but I''m still going to take issue with it. [Y]"But, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the people who signed up for a season ticket could afford to do so at the full price. Therefore it is again reasonable to assume that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option."I think this would be a valid inference if you could show that the financial position of the season ticket holders hadn''t changed between renewing their season tickets and claiming their rebate. One could certainly conceive of a number of circumstances where priorities could be shifted depending on various factors. [I][/quote]

OK if you want to argue about it. How about looking up the change in unemployment figures from the season ticket renewal date to the rebate deadline. I cant be bothered to look up the figures but I doubt very much that its a change of more than 1%. So if we assume the fan base covers a fairly wide section of the employed we could then say that up to 1% of the claimants did so due to recent loss of employment. Fair? Even if it were 2% or 5% really make little difference to this discussion does it?

[/quote]I don''t think something as strong as that is required. You just need to show that it''s reasonable to infer that the majority did not have to reclaim their refund when it became an option because they could afford the season ticket at the full price. Like I said, in the abscence of evidence regarding why they reclaimed, we can''t really go any further than to say that 66.6% of season ticket holders claimed their rebate. I wish we could say more but we really can''t. [:''(]