Adam
Chick Zamick
Posts: 7,518
|
Post by Adam on Oct 22, 2017 12:07:38 GMT
LOL the club was always going to win, as mentioned above the club has outwitted the Trust by simply keeping quiet. I to believe there is only one side to the story and more than meets the eye. I guarantee the ban won’t be lifted until the pointless Trust stops!
|
|
|
Post by thebestpanthers on Oct 22, 2017 12:20:48 GMT
LOL the club was always going to win, as mentioned above the club has outwitted the Trust by simply keeping quiet. I to believe there is only one side to the story and more than meets the eye. I guarantee the ban won’t be lifted until the pointless Trust stops![/font]Still will not be lifted as apparently it is against the person, not the trust - the easy way would be for the "interim chair" not to apply for election, and see what happens next to members of the committee. - The idea of a ban is to deter others from following suit, and, as such will probably work.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Oct 22, 2017 12:56:01 GMT
Plenty of ex directors still run companies.....they just do it from in the background. A job title means nothing ! 😉
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 22, 2017 13:23:46 GMT
Just goes to show how much the club actually values it's fans customers.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Oct 22, 2017 13:43:24 GMT
Take it from somebody who's been there and got the T shirt. If you're giving them money,things aren't too bad. But the minute the money stops,they'll very soon kick you in the teeth !
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 22, 2017 13:44:54 GMT
Take it from somebody who's been there and got the T shirt. If you're giving them money,things aren't too bad. But the minute the money stops,they'll very soon kick you in the teeth ! Pretty sure he still wants to go to games and pay his money!
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 22, 2017 13:50:51 GMT
So if I tallied up what me and my wife pay ever year we'd be looking north of £1k just in Nottingham on season tickets, Merchandise, 50/50, SOHB, etc.. I usually bring friends as when people visit they've never seen any hockey and they usually love it. That's been another £150 already this season and potentially new fans for much longer. Do I need to look over my shoulder if I wear a green and white scarve or do I pay enough money to be safe from a ban?
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,422
|
Post by iginla on Oct 22, 2017 13:57:19 GMT
So if I tallied up what me and my wife pay ever year we'd be looking north of £1k just in Nottingham on season tickets, Merchandise, 50/50, SOHB, etc.. I usually bring friends as when people visit they've never seen any hockey and they usually love it. That's been another £150 already this season and potentially new fans for much longer. Do I need to look over my shoulder if I wear a green and white scarve or do I pay enough money to be safe from a ban? Put it this way mate. I've had several family season tickets for nearly 20 years and my company sponsored them for many thousands of pounds too,plus various other things. And they still kicked us in the teeth !!!!
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 22, 2017 13:58:58 GMT
So if I tallied up what me and my wife pay ever year we'd be looking north of £1k just in Nottingham on season tickets, Merchandise, 50/50, SOHB, etc.. I usually bring friends as when people visit they've never seen any hockey and they usually love it. That's been another £150 already this season and potentially new fans for much longer. Do I need to look over my shoulder if I wear a green and white scarve or do I pay enough money to be safe from a ban? Put it this way mate. I've had several family season tickets for nearly 20 years and my company sponsored them for many thousands of pounds too,plus various other things. And they still kicked us in the teeth !!!! Well that's a pile of brown stuff! Oh well I shall still be wearing the bulls-eye around my neck!
|
|
|
Post by tootootrain on Oct 22, 2017 16:05:34 GMT
Oh well I shall still be wearing the bulls-eye around my neck! Same here. Not sure how they can enforce a ban to be honest. Between the clueless security and bored ticket scanners I can't see either being switched on enough to spot a banned fan getting in. Bit different if it's a season ticket holder and they 'block' their ticket but walk-up/online sales?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 16:34:31 GMT
LOL the club was always going to win, as mentioned above the club has outwitted the Trust by simply keeping quiet. I to believe there is only one side to the story and more than meets the eye. I guarantee the ban won’t be lifted until the pointless Trust stops!
|
|
|
Post by thebestpanthers on Oct 22, 2017 16:39:10 GMT
Oh well I shall still be wearing the bulls-eye around my neck! Same here. Not sure how they can enforce a ban to be honest. Between the clueless security and bored ticket scanners I can't see either being switched on enough to spot a banned fan getting in. Bit different if it's a season ticket holder and they 'block' their ticket but walk-up/online sales? When I was kicked out of a game for alleged abuse to a steward (untrue) I was told I would not get a refund and if banned for the season would not get any refund on my season ticket
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 16:39:31 GMT
Do you seriously find it funny that a someone who travelled to Bern to support his team can no longer take his young son to home ice hockey games?
Do you seriously believe that if someone in a confrontation just keeps quiet they somehow "outwit" the other party?
In that case, it's a pity you haven't got more wit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 16:40:11 GMT
Sorry, that last post was for Adam.
|
|
|
Post by spik on Oct 22, 2017 17:06:53 GMT
I can't understand how anyone could believe there's more to the story when it's all been plainly said.....the public had been told that a meeting was offered (when it was by solicitor on their terms at short notice threatening action otherwise) this was then explained as such , then it's classed as the Trust being flippant? What organised Trust would turn down a proposed meeting when dialog is being requested. Plain and simple .....A legal Trust had been formed and exists.You can't just stop it from working when you don't like the fact it's knocking on your door.
|
|
|
Post by thebestpanthers on Oct 22, 2017 17:41:52 GMT
Sorry, that last post was for Adam. Had me worried when I first read it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 7:52:56 GMT
First of all, banning any fan from supporting their team, unless for a security threat, or for abusive behaviour towards the team/other fans is totally unacceptable so I 100% stand by the fact that Rob should not be banned in any way whatsoever.
I personally, never saw a reason for the trust initially, and my mind has not be swayed one bit since it's inception and it still hasn't. But I get why people want it. The issue with "we said this" and "they said that" is that until one side provides evidence, then it's all hear say. I appreciate the fact that the trust have been repeatedly ignored by the Panthers and that isn't right. If Panthers weren't interested, then they should have said "thanks, but no thanks, we'll see you at the Q&A if you want to make suggestions".
What I do think the trust should have done is done absolutely everything they possibly could to get to that rumoured (again, as a neutral I see no proof of this being true or false at this point) meeting in Leicester. The trust knew full well what the club is like so any opportunity for a meeting should have been take with both hands regardless of location etc. Obviously the trust has it's reasons though.
I was at the Q&A, I do not think Rob was "abusive or threatening" as mentioned above as the reason for the ban. What I do think though, is that the conversation turned heated from the Trust's point of view and I came away annoyed that I'd gone to listen to Neil talk about the club and his plans etc, but it had been taken over by this tempered discussion. If that was not the intention then fair enough, but that's how it came across.
I also don't know what the Trust wants? When asked at the Q&A by Neil what suggestions they had, they said "It's too short notice". The Q&A had been planned for weeks, then it was delayed. That's no excuse in my eyes. The other reasoning was "we hadn't discussed it with the members" which is a legitimate reason. But why are only the members getting told of the Trusts intentions? Surely making them public would maybe get even more to join?
The trust has made a numerous amount of mistakes in my eyes whilst Panthers have kept quiet publicly. Yes they're a pain in the backside and there's things we'd like to change but I think they have actually been more professional in the public eye than the Trust. If evidence comes to light from the Trust (as we were told was going to happen following the Q&A...) then I will happily base my judgement on it.
I hope you get this situation reverted soon Rob and you can continue supporting your team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 9:22:28 GMT
I started a separate thread in an attempt to get the ban lifted, but can I say on here that if you think the ban is excessive could you please email the panthers office at info@panthers.co.uk and say so. Just a simple "Lift the ban" will do (unless you feel inclined to add to it). Even if you don't agree with the Trust, help out a fellow fan.
With hindsight I wish that the Trust had been able to make the meeting, but they were advised by both Supportes Direct and the legal representative not to go to any meeting before the allegations of misrepresentation made in the letter had been investigated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 9:27:13 GMT
I started a separate thread in an attempt to get the ban lifted, but can I say on here that if you think the ban is excessive could you please email the panthers office at info@panthers.co.uk and say so. Just a simple "Lift the ban" will do (unless you feel inclined to add to it). Even if you don't agree with the Trust, help out a fellow fan.
With hindsight I wish that the Trust had been able to make the meeting, but they were advised by both Supportes Direct and the legal representative not to go to any meeting before the allegations of misrepresentation made in the letter had been investigated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 9:28:14 GMT
Told you I'm not good at this stuff - but I'm trying!
|
|
Adam
Chick Zamick
Posts: 7,518
|
Post by Adam on Oct 23, 2017 10:19:40 GMT
First of all, banning any fan from supporting their team, unless for a security threat, or for abusive behaviour towards the team/other fans is totally unacceptable so I 100% stand by the fact that Rob should not be banned in any way whatsoever. I personally, never saw a reason for the trust initially, and my mind has not be swayed one bit since it's inception and it still hasn't. But I get why people want it. The issue with "we said this" and "they said that" is that until one side provides evidence, then it's all hear say. I appreciate the fact that the trust have been repeatedly ignored by the Panthers and that isn't right. If Panthers weren't interested, then they should have said "thanks, but no thanks, we'll see you at the Q&A if you want to make suggestions". What I do think the trust should have done is done absolutely everything they possibly could to get to that rumoured (again, as a neutral I see no proof of this being true or false at this point) meeting in Leicester. The trust knew full well what the club is like so any opportunity for a meeting should have been take with both hands regardless of location etc. Obviously the trust has it's reasons though. I was at the Q&A, I do not think Rob was "abusive or threatening" as mentioned above as the reason for the ban. What I do think though, is that the conversation turned heated from the Trust's point of view and I came away annoyed that I'd gone to listen to Neil talk about the club and his plans etc, but it had been taken over by this tempered discussion. If that was not the intention then fair enough, but that's how it came across. I also don't know what the Trust wants? When asked at the Q&A by Neil what suggestions they had, they said "It's too short notice". The Q&A had been planned for weeks, then it was delayed. That's no excuse in my eyes. The other reasoning was "we hadn't discussed it with the members" which is a legitimate reason. But why are only the members getting told of the Trusts intentions? Surely making them public would maybe get even more to join? The trust has made a numerous amount of mistakes in my eyes whilst Panthers have kept quiet publicly. Yes they're a pain in the backside and there's things we'd like to change but I think they have actually been more professional in the public eye than the Trust. If evidence comes to light from the Trust (as we were told was going to happen following the Q&A...) then I will happily base my judgement on it. I hope you get this situation reverted soon Rob and you can continue supporting your team. 100% BANG ON THE MONEY!!!
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,382
|
Post by Yotes on Oct 23, 2017 13:25:23 GMT
It's been explained countless times that any issues that the Trust wants to raise with the club will come from the membership, so until we've had the chance to do that there was no way for Rob to answer that question at the Q&A.
I would assume that the only reason the interim board wanted a meeting was as an introductory step, to explain what the Trust is. Panthers could even have seen how that could be useful to them, instead of immediately raising the drawbridge.
Banning someone from attending games, for something done outside of the game environment, is ridiculous. If it's not to do with his association with the Trust, do we all need to watch what we say about the club now, either on here, Twitter, Facebook, wandering around the concourse? Careless talk costs season tickets. Come to the Q&A, but don't upset Neil...
|
|
|
Post by spik on Oct 23, 2017 13:25:41 GMT
So there we have it.People can understand certain points of the other side even if objectional about one. So we have to await fact and leave it there. 'Silversenior' has explained the reasoning behind not taking the chance to go to the proposed solicitor meeting.Apart from the fact that these guys on the Trusts board are fans in employment eleswhere.Not from an organisation who can meet short notice, distance dates requested.
And I'm quite sure when Rob said they'd not be taking over the Q and A night as an oppertunity, so as not to deflect general public questions, he meant it. Yet had to answer NB's statement which he saw as incorrect.
I'll turn a page and see what happens next.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Oct 24, 2017 12:22:56 GMT
Hard to believe that’s the only reason to be honest Precisely, it's such a bold move that I feel there must be more to it than is portrayed on here. If everything said on here is 100% true then yes it's completely unreasonable but I just think there must be more to it because it just doesn't add up. If NB was going to ban somebody just for speaking out then Iginla wouldn't have been allowed within 10 miles of the arena years ago. The ban is for the abusive and threatening comments made to Mr Black at the public Q&A. As I didn't make any abusive or threatening comments i'm keen to get the ban revoked asap so that I can get back to supporting my team and taking my lad to the appropriate games for him. Whatever anyone thinks of me personally ( I don't know many Panthers fans personally) there are no evil or malicious motives behind the trust. The idea was and still is to improve the relationship between the clubs management and the clubs fans. Since the emergence of the trust much of the stuff we were hoping would happen has happened and we have been quick to praise the organisation for these improvements. I believe that the emergence of the trust has helped at least in part to see an improvement for all fans of the club, even the vocal minority (Not including you Stratty) who take every opportunity they can find or create to have a snipe at the trust.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Oct 24, 2017 12:30:00 GMT
Do you seriously find it funny that a someone who travelled to Bern to support his team can no longer take his young son to home ice hockey games? Do you seriously believe that if someone in a confrontation just keeps quiet they somehow "outwit" the other party? In that case, it's a pity you haven't got more wit! I think and hope that Adam's online persona is probably quite different to his real life one. Why any reasonable person would think it's funny that a Father cannot take his Son to support the team they both love is beyond me.
|
|