Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: andyh on August 03, 2014, 11:22:01 AM
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/aston-villa-fans-backlash-over-7552040
Is there anything in this story or someone just shit stirring ?.
-
I know a Lions Club chairman who refused to go to the end of season Lions Club awards back in May because of some of the issues.
-
It looks like a bit of both, and as with everything like this it depends how the regulations are interpreted. I can understand why the Villa would say tickets can't be passed on - that's the rules even though realistically they are never applied. But there's a bit of difference between this
In point seven of the code, chairmen are effectively barred from criticising club officials, even on their own personal social media pages.
and this
It reads: “You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum."
You can be critical without being abusive.
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/aston-villa-fans-backlash-over-7552040
Is there anything in this story or someone just shit stirring ?.
I think the one point where the problem lies is "you must not get involved in any abusive conversations involving the club".
It depends what they consider abusive. Is constructive criticism classed as abusive?
-
It looks like a bit of both, and as with everything like this it depends how the regulations are interpreted. I can understand why the Villa would say tickets can't be passed on - that's the rules even though realistically they are never applied. But there's a bit of difference between this
In point seven of the code, chairmen are effectively barred from criticising club officials, even on their own personal social media pages.
and this
It reads: “You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum."
You can be critical without being abusive.
That's a good point.
-
Unless the club are giving them 'freebies' I know what I would be telling the club.
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/aston-villa-fans-backlash-over-7552040
Is there anything in this story or someone just shit stirring ?.
I think the one point where the problem lies is "you must not get involved in any abusive conversations involving the club".
It depends what they consider abusive. Is constructive criticism classed as abusive?
The rule says abusive, the writer says criticism. Anyone with any sense would know there's a big difference between the two. It's the sort of story we don't need and should have been dealt with at the time, though.
-
Yeah, the way it reads is a bit vague. What they're getting at might just be a basic common sense "don't make personally comments" type thing, but it is easy to see how it could be read a different way. I'm not sure there is much to this, even the most clueless business person would know that it is not wise to run things like a dictatorship.
-
What do the club chairman get for running the clubs?
-
So the club now want to dictate what certain individuals post on their own personal social media pages, I am sure that these people are also paying customers of Aston Villa and although they may get certain privileges from their position, they are not paid by the club, but toe the line or get out.
Abusive comments aimed at individuals, maybe not acceptable, but the club PR timing yet again stinks.
Now we know why the players are crap, as someone at the club keeps shooting them in the foot. Please Randy get a buyer soon, I am sure you are trying, but try a little harder before the club is totally destroyed, by you and your lackeys.
-
Genuine question but this is from Doogan:
It is simply an attempt to prevent ticket touting, which is against the law.
How does that square up with what Viagogo do?
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/aston-villa-fans-backlash-over-7552040
Is there anything in this story or someone just shit stirring ?.
I think the one point where the problem lies is "you must not get involved in any abusive conversations involving the club".
It depends what they consider abusive. Is constructive criticism classed as abusive?
Exactly.
What, for example, is this: "Tonev is shit"? Other than a fact obviously ;-)
That could be interpreted as either.
-
That would be down to context, I suggest.
In the middle of a match thread, if he wasn't playing very well, it's about his performance. He can do better.
On a general discussion, if it's stated baldly about him as a human being, it's personally abusive. Not a lot of room to find anything constructive there!
-
So would it have been possible to say "Gareth Barry is a wanker" when he dragged the club through the gutter press? and iflet's say Vlaar went on strike to force a move would we only be able to say that his attitude let's him down?
-
Genuine question but this is from Doogan:
It is simply an attempt to prevent ticket touting, which is against the law.
How does that square up with what Viagogo do?
Viagogo tickets are sold by the club and issued by the club to the person that buys them on Viagogo.
-
So would it have been possible to say "Gareth Barry is a wanker" when he dragged the club through the gutter press? and iflet's say Vlaar went on strike to force a move would we only be able to say that his attitude let's him down?
Yes :)
-
If the club was saying they can't be critical then I would be much against it, but it strikes me that the key words are abusive and harassment.
-
If the club was saying they can't be critical then I would be much against it, but it strikes me that the key words are abusive and harassment.
dThat all depends on who is making the decision, one mans critical is another mans abuse.
-
If the club was saying they can't be critical then I would be much against it, but it strikes me that the key words are abusive and harassment.
dThat all depends on who is making the decision
I'd hope that whoever it is would know that saying "Hutton is a prat" or after a defeat saying "well that was shit" is very different to some of the stuff we see on the FB page, and even on here at times.
-
I read what they are saying as "you will not be abusive". Not "you will not criticize". Sadly we live in a world now where people can barely construct a sentence without swearing and being vile.
A story blown out of all proportions if you ask me, but not good PR from Villa.
-
I read what they are saying as "you will not be abusive". Not "you will not criticize". Sadly we live in a world now where people can barely construct a sentence without swearing and being vile.
A story blown out of all proportions if you ask me, but not good PR from Villa.
I think that sums it up. This story has obviously been on the go since May and the club could have killed it in that time but as they often seem to do, have waited until it's been made public so they're now on the defensive.
-
I read what they are saying as "you will not be abusive". Not "you will not criticize". Sadly we live in a world now where people can barely construct a sentence without swearing and being vile.
A story blown out of all proportions if you ask me, but not good PR from Villa.
I think that sums it up. This story has obviously been on the go since May and the club could have killed it in that time but as they often seem to do, have waited until it's been made public so they're now on the defensive.
Although on the go since May I would imagine that things take time finalise during the close season. I should imagine that The Mail have not been sitting on this one as they are usually very quick to have a go at Villa, but there again!
-
From reading the article, isn't part of the problem that the club has issued a set of rules to a group of volunteers who are not even employees of the club?
-
From reading the article, isn't part of the problem that the club has issued a set of rules to a group of volunteers who are not even employees of the club?
Thats not a problem in itself, most if not all voluntary groups would have the same rules.
-
The Villa haven't covered themselves in glory tbf. At one point prior to the drawing up of the rules they were blocking customers season tickets. My son and I were unable to use our tickets for the Man U home game last year.
If that happened to me in any other part of my life I wouldn't go near VP again. Some of the people quoted, despite their disaffection, were still in Gronegan yesterday. The club don't deserve our support.
There were no official trips to Holland yesterday, supporter groups made their own way. In part organized by supporter club chairmen. What do Villa do exactly to help their most loyal supporter base?
Nothing is the answer.
We're just waiting it out for the new broom to show!
-
I read what they are saying as "you will not be abusive". Not "you will not criticize". Sadly we live in a world now where people can barely construct a sentence without swearing and being vile.
A story blown out of all proportions if you ask me, but not good PR from Villa.
I think that sums it up. This story has obviously been on the go since May and the club could have killed it in that time but as they often seem to do, have waited until it's been made public so they're now on the defensive.
Although on the go since May I would imagine that things take time finalise during the close season. I should imagine that The Mail have not been sitting on this one as they are usually very quick to have a go at Villa, but there again!
The deadline for signing up was July 31st - which is why it is a story now. The refusal to sign back up has happened this week.
The line about abuse v criticism needs clarifying better, because it's obvious that fans aren't going to sign up to not being able to say 'That was shit' when it was shit. It is open to question whether this could be considered abusive. It is going to be difficult because many fans do just want to let of steam in the wake of a bad performance, or during general malaise - it hasn't traditionally been the case that fans need to be considered about how they do this, and ensure all criticism is constructive.
The uk Lions clubs have also been in dispute over the spending of the away supporters money. They feel the free coaches didn't really work for them, the money they received was inadequate within the scheme of things, and that building a profit line into the free coaches wasn't in the spirit of the initiative. So - yes - it has been building for a while.
-
Part of the problem is the ludicrous emphasis placed on social media, which means that many organisations in all walks of life are over-zealous about what's said and by whom.
-
That would be down to context, I suggest.
In the middle of a match thread, if he wasn't playing very well, it's about his performance. He can do better.
On a general discussion, if it's stated baldly about him as a human being, it's personally abusive. Not a lot of room to find anything constructive there!
Now you're splitting hairs.
-
That would be down to context, I suggest.
In the middle of a match thread, if he wasn't playing very well, it's about his performance. He can do better.
On a general discussion, if it's stated baldly about him as a human being, it's personally abusive. Not a lot of room to find anything constructive there!
Now you're splitting hairs.
I hope the dispute doesn't lead to a parting of the ways.
-
More bollocks from the mail dredging up boilerplate language about being abusive. Who cares?
-
It is very easy these days to get your voice heard through social media. Almost as easy to make it look like the voice of a group when it is only the individual or a few, rather than the majority.
I do not know about the structure of the various Lions Clubs and their official link back to the club so I may be barking up the wrong tree. It is clear that you have to have rules, guidelines or whatever to affiliate one organisation with another. The examples given in the article do not sound dictatorial to me. I would have thought the club will welcome constructive criticism through the right channels. What they do not want is a member of an individual branch shouting their mouth of, being abusive and purporting to represent the branch.
-
Aston Villa in doesn't want Chairmen/women of official supporters clubs to be abusing people online shocker!
This is a story how exactly?
-
Aston Villa in doesn't want Chairmen/women of official supporters clubs to be abusing people online shocker!
This is a story how exactly?
The question is whether they have the right to tell the people what they should and should not be doing on the internet.
Also, note this:
“You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum, whether this is on a page that is personal to you and bears your name, OR on a page that bears the name of your Lions Club (including social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc).”
I am not one of those people, so there is a limit to how upset I can get about it, but I do think it seems like unnecessary control by the club, coming at a time when, frankly, they need all the support they can get.
Then, who defines what "abuse" is?
It is one of those terms which is easily defined differently from one person to another.
-
The difference between criticism and abuse.
Criticism is the opinions most of us have reasonably said about the managerial abilities or otherwise of Lambert, McLeish, Houllier, and O'Neill.
Abuse is the opinions I hope all of us have reasonably said about the personal qualities or otherwise of O'Leary.
-
I am not one of those people, so there is a limit to how upset I can get about it, but I do think it seems like unnecessary control by the club, coming at a time when, frankly, they need all the support they can get.
Then, who defines what "abuse" is?
It is one of those terms which is easily defined differently from one person to another.
Oh I agree with that. Although most sites (maybe this one, I confess I have not read it) have some terms f service which talk about abuse.
But I think the non story aspect of this is nobody is gagging anybody and there is zero chance of the club really stripping anybody of an "official" supporters role because they said "Tonev played shit today." on their crappy little twitter feed.
The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.
I think they have wasted their time writing the whole thing, by writing the whole thing, I include Villa's Lions terms, the Mail's non story, the couple of Lions chairmen who are whining about non being able to abuse people and me for writing this. :D
-
Aston Villa in doesn't want Chairmen/women of official supporters clubs to be abusing people online shocker!
This is a story how exactly?
The question is whether they have the right to tell the people what they should and should not be doing on the internet.
Also, note this:
“You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum, whether this is on a page that is personal to you and bears your name, OR on a page that bears the name of your Lions Club (including social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc).”
I am not one of those people, so there is a limit to how upset I can get about it, but I do think it seems like unnecessary control by the club, coming at a time when, frankly, they need all the support they can get.
Then, who defines what "abuse" is?
It is one of those terms which is easily defined differently from one person to another.
Why is it these days that everybody expects to say what they like, at any time, about anybody and be as abusive as they like. Even more so when the person on the end of what they say is not in a position to defend themselves. I suppose it is all down to what people think is 'freedom of speech' in their written comments. What some people forget is 'subject to the laws against libel', which fortunately for many are not pursued.
-
Aston Villa in doesn't want Chairmen/women of official supporters clubs to be abusing people online shocker!
This is a story how exactly?
The question is whether they have the right to tell the people what they should and should not be doing on the internet.
Also, note this:
“You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum, whether this is on a page that is personal to you and bears your name, OR on a page that bears the name of your Lions Club (including social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc).”
I am not one of those people, so there is a limit to how upset I can get about it, but I do think it seems like unnecessary control by the club, coming at a time when, frankly, they need all the support they can get.
Then, who defines what "abuse" is?
It is one of those terms which is easily defined differently from one person to another.
Why is it these days that everybody expects to say what they like, at any time, about anybody and be as abusive as they like. Even more so when the person on the end of what they say is not in a position to defend themselves. I suppose it is all down to what people think is 'freedom of speech' in their written comments. What some people forget is 'subject to the laws against libel', which fortunately for many are not pursued.
Yes, that's true, and that is the entire problem with this - where does "critical" become "abusive", and who gets to decide?
And why should that apply to what Lions Club people say in their personal capacity on the internet?
What I don't get is, why introduce this now, at a time when, frankly, the club needs as much support as it can get? Why stir up this controversy at all? Whichever rules we had in place could just have been continued, so why take the route of most resistance?
-
The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?
And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.
-
Wasn't the Lions Club independent of the club back in the day?
-
The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?
And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.
The line is crazy hard to draw its one of those "know it when I see it" things. It is why I think putting it in there was a waste of time. Much better to just turf people out of organizations retroactively if they behave badly and have the whole terms be "Just don't be a prick, ok?" It conveys the same meaning but a lot clearer.
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/aston-villa-fans-backlash-over-7552040
Is there anything in this story or someone just shit stirring ?.
I think the one point where the problem lies is "you must not get involved in any abusive conversations involving the club".
It depends what they consider abusive. Is constructive criticism classed as abusive?
Exactly.
What, for example, is this: "Tonev is shit"? Other than a fact obviously ;-)
That could be interpreted as either.
If you wrote to Tonev and said You are shit, that would be abusive. It's called grammar.
-
To be honest I don't think it was meant as a legal document but just a working framework. I doibt they would even get involved in most type of abusive mentioned here. However, I do wonder if this is a very American type of contract? Whether they are saying 'Don't criticise Randy' in particular? If so then that is intolerable.
The supporters clubs may be just volunteers but they do get a privilege position in terms of links with the club, tickets, promotions, and I'm sure a lot more. If this the former as mentioned above, it should have just been ignored by the supporters groups and they should have just spoken with the club privately regarding their concerns.
-
http://www.avfclionsclubs.co.uk/member-benefits
-
http://www.avfclionsclubs.co.uk/member-benefits
Not bad.
-
Well they have missed out on one benefit over the last couple of years.
Chairmans Meetings hosted at Villa Park
-
I don't understand why the club suddenly needs a disclaimer to be signed. On top of the drastic reduction in ticket allocations to supporters clubs, this seems to be straining relationships with supporters who do a lot of the club's work for them.
I can only speak for the Kingston Lions but Kingthing runs it and it's an absloutely thankless task. Imagine organising tickets, chasing members for payment on time and all the other logistics involved in running a supporters club and I think the few benefits they get are totally deserved. I'd certainly be attending less Villa games if it wasn't for people like him and you wouldn't catch me volunteering to take on a commitment like that.
He's a pain in the arse, Kingthing, but he's a grafter....
-
http://www.avfclionsclubs.co.uk/member-benefits
Not bad.
He who pays the piper calls the tune and all that?
-
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this or if it's already being covered elsewhere,please move if it is.
What are people's thoughts on the row that now seems to be going on between the club & several of the "official lions clubs" over there code of conduct?
This has now made national & local newspapers & all over social media,just another black cloud that's dragging the club down it seems.
-
Here (http://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=52415)
-
Thanks
-
Update (http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10265~4054475,00.html)
-
So some of the clubs haven't signed up?
What a mess.
-
In reply to the Official Statement.
Well if the club was not being run in such a shambolic way you would not need to worry about the conduct of supporters.
-
This reads as if there has been some targeted bullying designed to cause distress then?
If not it is a strangely specific thing to include.
-
I really don't get the problem with this. The lions club is an associate organisation and can therefore be seen, in part, to be representative of the club. Given that there need to be guidelines from the club in how they want to be represented, which will include things which, as has been mentioned, basically add up to "don't be a prick". Some people seem to have jumped to a conclusion on what abusive behaviour means and made it a huge deal that's now been picked up in the press. A simple "can you clarify what you mean by abusive?" would have been enough to resolve things, it's clearly not intended to be a gagging order of any kind, the reaction to the suggestion that it might be that proves why it would be a fucking stupid thing to do.
I've said it before but villa fans are our own worst enemies at times, I fucking hate reading shit in the press about how awful a club we are but for some reason some fans will believe any old shit that paints us in a negative light and now are even willing to create the bad news themselves.
Read the conditions and then compare them to similar conditions at any other club and I'd be willing to bet you'll find "don't be a prick" is the common theme across all of them. Fuck it, look at the affiliate program for pretty much any business and it will be similar.
-
I think the problem is that it represents a different view of the Villa - Lions Club relationship, in that the LC probably don't see the club as being in a position to tell them what they can and can't do, even if that thing is something pretty obvious (although I would query whether the definition of "abuse", even if it were made clear now, would remain that way).
The Lions Club people do a lot of work for the club. They get a few perks back but, really, from what I've read, nothing like sufficient for the amount of work they do to get people to go to matches.
If you look at the terms, they also cover what people running Lions Clubs are allowed to say on their own, personal social media or web presences - that's a very, very contentious area to get in to.
This, basically:
In point seven of the code, chairmen are effectively barred from criticising club officials, even on their own personal social media pages.
It reads: “You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum, whether this is on a page that is personal to you and bears your name, OR on a page that bears the name of your Lions Club (including social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc).”
Also, "will not partake in any abusive conversations" - so, if you take part in a discussion on here about Paul Lambert, and some people are dishing out abuse, whereas you are being highly criticial but non-abusive, you're still taking part in that conversation which contains something they define as "abuse", so you are in contradiction of the terms.
I thought the club got unfair stick for the Ian Taylor thing, but the crucial differentiating factor is that he is an employee of the club, these people running Lions Clubs are not.
I honestly don't see why the club suddenly thought there was a reason to introduce this - you do have to wonder if it is a coincidence that there has been (unsurprisingly) a lot more criticism of the club in recent seasons.
Your point about affiliates for any other business is fair enough, but in those cases - at least in the highly affiliate marketing based area i work in - the affiliate has a relationship with the main company in order to create profit.
That is not the case with the Lions Clubs.
What this needed was common sense, not legalese, and that's the option they've gone to. Yet again, a totally avoidable cock up.
-
The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?
And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.
The cynic in me suggests that the club could easily the class criticism of the manager and chairman as "abuse" and Im guessing that's what the lions club members thought as well.
-
The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?
And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.
The cynic in me suggests that the club could easily the class criticism of the manager and chairman as "abuse" and Im guessing that's what the lions club members thought as well.
I don't even think you have to be particularly naturally cynical to suspect that something like that might happen.
I dunno, I am not involved with a Lions Club, but if i ran one, and put in as much work as some of these people do - unpaid - for the club, then there is no way I would accept a condition that told me what I could and could not write on a personal internet presence.
I don't care if it is "only" what they term "abuse" - I'd rather I got to decide what was and was not "abuse" in my internet activity than Alan Perrins or Brian Doogan.
-
Normally I would be level headed and read between the "worst case scenario" stuff that some of our posters immediately jump to.
But Gloucestershire are no longer Lions Club members and it takes an awful lot to get John Holder in a strop with the club.
He has been doing that job for 40 years and long before Lions clubs, with the minimal perks they receive, were invented.
No, if he is taking a stand, then I will throw my lot in with him.
-
Mr Lerner certainly doesn't like criticism does he?
Like him or not, Howard Hodgson had the same when he voiced his opinion.
-
Mr Lerner certainly doesn't like criticism does he?
Does anyone?
This has been handled so poorly. I think it is only right that if a group wants to formally affiliate then there has to be a set of standards and guidelines that they adhere to but the wording used is completely over the top and I can understand why it rankles. The silly thing is that it could so easily have been avoided if a little more intelligence had been applied to the drafting.
Several years ago I was involved in a group at my then place of work tasked with drawing up employee conduct guidelines. The document we we were presented with as a starter was pulled apart in minutes as unenforceable. What we eventually ended up with said pretty much the same thing but in much broader terms. This then went to the Union who passed it back without comment.
-
So some of the clubs haven't signed up?
What a mess.
I was told yesterday that 7 haven't signed up.
-
Two pretty heavily populated ones haven't as I understand it. Gloucestershire and Sutton.
-
For gods sake there must be someone with basic common sense working for the club. This would be so easy to sort out. Invite those who have not signed up to a meeting at Villa Park (or The Holte Hotel) and sort it out round a table. Everybody needs to be reasonable we have enough problems as it is.
-
These are the ones removed according to the Mail
Branches removed include Sutton Coldfield, Pheasey, North Walsall, Cannock, Stafford, Swindon and Wilts, Gloucester and Somerset.
-
Mr Lerner certainly doesn't like criticism does he?
Like him or not, Howard Hodgson had the same when he voiced his opinion.
I doubt that Mr Lerner had anything to do with either of them.
-
These are the ones removed according to the Mail
Branches removed include Sutton Coldfield, Pheasey, North Walsall, Cannock, Stafford, Swindon and Wilts, Gloucester and Somerset.
I've seen Pheasey Lions around on my travels and they're well supported so that's a shame.
Anyway, have they actually been removed or not just yet signed? I presume there's a deadline of some sort.
-
Have the chairmen of these clubs made the decision not to sign or did they canvass their members? After all, that's a lot of Villa fans now without an official Lions Club because of what may have been a rather...err...dictatorial decision by one person not to sign up.
-
Have the chairmen of these clubs made the decision not to sign or did they canvass their members? After all, that's a lot of Villa fans now without an official Lions Club because of what may have been a rather...err...dictatorial decision by one person not to sign up.
However, it is the head of the Lions Club who is subjecting his personal internet activity to scrutiny, so maybe it's more onerous for them than the other members?
-
This has been handled so poorly. I think it is only right that if a group wants to formally affiliate then there has to be a set of standards and guidelines that they adhere to but the wording used is completely over the top and I can understand why it rankles. The silly thing is that it could so easily have been avoided if a little more intelligence had been applied to the drafting.
Absolutely agree with this.
-
If it had been one, it could be pushed aside. Not seven! Should hold their hands up and say they got it wrong
-
Excuse my ignorance but how many Lions Clubs are there? If the OS is saying the vast majority have signed up, but on here 7 haven't, I presume the total number must be quite high?
-
Excuse my ignorance but how many Lions Clubs are there? If the OS is saying the vast majority have signed up, but on here 7 haven't, I presume the total number must be quite high?
I was told last night by one of the rebels that there were around 200 but 60-odd were basically defunct (not his words). So around 95 per cent of the active ones signed.
-
Cheers Dave - puts it into perspective
-
Excuse my ignorance but how many Lions Clubs are there? If the OS is saying the vast majority have signed up, but on here 7 haven't, I presume the total number must be quite high?
I was told last night by one of the rebels that there were around 200 but 60-odd were basically defunct (not his words). So around 95 per cent of the active ones signed.
Speaking to one of the steering committee over the weekend away, they were all consulted (but not very well by the look of it). Some clubs decided to go with it, others didn't. I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
I think that there is a lot of six of one and half a dozen of the other here with both sides having valid points. There has been a bit of individual abuse that has been directed at certain individuals, that I think was the reasoning behind the clubs main criticism point.
Villa PR has scored an own goal with this issue, that could have been nipped in the bud much earlier. This is not a recent thing and I know for a fact that this was bubbling up from at least May this year. When people like John Holder, Steve Gough and Mark Goodwin get marginalised, when it could well have been avoided, it is a bit sad to say the least.
-
Excuse my ignorance but how many Lions Clubs are there? If the OS is saying the vast majority have signed up, but on here 7 haven't, I presume the total number must be quite high?
I was told last night by one of the rebels that there were around 200 but 60-odd were basically defunct (not his words). So around 95 per cent of the active ones signed.
Speaking to one of the steering committee over the weekend away, they were all consulted (but not very well by the look of it). Some clubs decided to go with it, others didn't. I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
I think that there is a lot of six of one and half a dozen of the other here with both sides having valid points. There has been a bit of individual abuse that has been directed at certain individuals, that I think was the reasoning behind the clubs main criticism point.
Villa PR has scored an own goal with this issue, that could have been nipped in the bud much earlier. This is not a recent thing and I know for a fact that this was bubbling up from at least May this year. When people like John Holder, Steve Gough and Mark Goodwin get marginalised, when it could well have been avoided, it is a bit sad to say the least.
It sounds like lack of thought more than anything else. But they should acknowledge it.
-
I can't help but think this wouldn't have been a story at a club that doesn't have the media sharks sensing blood.
-
I can't help but think this wouldn't have been a story at a club that doesn't have the media sharks sensing blood.
I've made the same point on a few subjects, we're an easy target for bad news stories, the media love having a crisis club to report about and we fit the bill.
-
I agree. It's really no different to the Ian Taylor has been stripped naked and beaten to near death by Brian Doogan with a back issue of H&V to stop him from going to the US story. Or whatever it has manifested itself into today. The negativity, though much of it self inflicted is getting a little out of hand and every little story is being blown up because we're an easy target. Everything at Villa is depressed and shit because it makes more noise than the other way around.
-
Have the chairmen of these clubs made the decision not to sign or did they canvass their members? After all, that's a lot of Villa fans now without an official Lions Club because of what may have been a rather...err...dictatorial decision by one person not to sign up.
However, it is the head of the Lions Club who is subjecting his personal internet activity to scrutiny, so maybe it's more onerous for them than the other members?
Yes I'm sure it is, but a head of a Lions Club surely has a duty to it's members before making a decision that, if it isn't solved quickly, effectively disbands their club, or at least means they no longer get the benefits of being affiliated to Aston Villa.
A couple of the ones who haven't signed are apparently very popular with a lot of members.
-
How does not signing up affect AVST and why would they be viewed as a Lions Club?
-
I agree. It's really no different to the Ian Taylor has been stripped naked and beaten to near death by Brian Doogan with a back issue of H&V to stop him from going to the US story. Or whatever it has manifested itself into today. The negativity, though much of it self inflicted is getting a little out of hand and every little story is being blown up because we're an easy target. Everything at Villa is depressed and shit because it makes more noise than the other way around.
Well, that and the fact that "good news" out of the club is rather thin on the ground, to say the least.
-
I agree. It's really no different to the Ian Taylor has been stripped naked and beaten to near death by Brian Doogan with a back issue of H&V to stop him from going to the US story. Or whatever it has manifested itself into today. The negativity, though much of it self inflicted is getting a little out of hand and every little story is being blown up because we're an easy target. Everything at Villa is depressed and shit because it makes more noise than the other way around.
Well, that and the fact that "good news" out of the club is rather thin on the ground, to say the least.
I think whatever good news the club generates is overwhelmed by a sense of resignation and cynicism right now. I don't blame anyone for it. None of that will really change until the takeover is completed and even thoguh it won't guarantee better days it will, initially at least be a reason for optimism.
-
I honestly don't know if that's the case (the overwhelming bit) When was the last time we had any good news?
Benteke signing an extension this time last year?
I'm not about to start teetering on the edge of a cliff because it has all got too much, but if you wanted to point out a club which has had pretty much no good news in the last few years, then we'd be a good one to be pointed at.
The daft thing with this is that it's all so pointless and was avoidable.
Incidentally, I'd also suggest re media vultures circling that it's hardly Watergate. The Mail, the Torygraph and a handful of football sites nobody reads.
-
Good point. Even the original story in the Mail attracted three comments - two from Noses and one from the type who comments on everything.
-
I honestly don't know if that's the case (the overwhelming bit) When was the last time we had any good news?
Tuscans' post on the other part of the forum that Villa Park will be in Fifa 15?
Best Villa-related news of the summer so far I reckon.
-
it's hardly Watergate if you are a rational person. But then whoever said football fans are rational? They are among the most emotional and sometimes irrational of all sports fans and the smallest things are blown up. That's why on a handful of sites that nobody reads Ian Taylor, former Villa player, champion eater, and pimp of wireless headphones misses a preseason 2 game club trip and generates pages of grinding teeth at how low the club have sunk. In the grand scheme of things Villa related it doesn't matter, but then in the grand scheme of the world none of this really matters.
-
Personally i think they should have left the 'don't speak out' bit or however it was meant to come across alone. I mean, who reads a Lions Club member's comments on Facebook or Twitter apart from fellow Lions club members and friends?
-
I honestly don't know if that's the case (the overwhelming bit) When was the last time we had any good news?
Tuscans' post on the other part of the forum that Villa Park will be in Fifa 15?
Best Villa-related news of the summer so far I reckon.
Yes! I saw that, about fucking time as well.
-
Personally i think they should have left the 'don't speak out' bit or however it was meant to come across alone. I mean, who reads a Lions Club member's comments on Facebook or Twitter apart from fellow Lions club members and friends?
The important bit is the crossover into their personal stuff. It was pretty all-encompassing.
-
I can't help but think this wouldn't have been a story at a club that doesn't have the media sharks sensing blood.
The club are doing a very good job of making themselves a target at the moment.
-
It should be a storm in a teacup. No doubt it has become more of a story as it fits nicely into the crisis Villa that the media are going to peddle if we start badly. But...
It was all avoidable. And, frankly, anything that sees the club at loggerheads with the likes of John Holder and Steve Gough should be avoided at all costs.
Perrins role in all of this I am not sure of but he seems to have caught some flak from those marginalised by this. He divides opinion between some of us as well.
Frank from here is a bloke who I have huge respect for and he got on very well with him in Italy the other year. I have always felt him to be a "gissajob", self important, arse.
I am sure this can be resolved amicably but, with all of the other bollocks going on at the club, it is yet another example of us not nailing the little things to avoid unwanted press.
And we used to be very good at it.
-
Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.
They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.
I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.
It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
-
The phrase "the little things" sums it up. They used to be got right even before they existed; now they're allowed to run and the club I'd permanently on the defensive.
-
If I were the owner, the minute the club got wind of such a thing, I would say "Sort that shit, will you".
You are right, we used to nail this stuff long before it became an issue. Now we react to it, and slowly.
You can't tell me this couldn't have been resolved, I will use John and Steve as the examples again, with lunch, a couple of pints and an open dialogue for an hour or two.
Its like when we met PF shortly after the library thing. "Well done. But you guys used to nail this for fun, what changed?"
I have a biased view here based on the years I have known John and my respect for the effort he puts in but the fact we keep crapping on our own carpet is driving me to despair.
And I am supposed to be a happy clapper/bought off buy the club/sellout*
*delete as appropriate
-
I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.
-
The important bit of the statement made by the club is:
The three additional points were prompted by comments from various Lions Clubs and have been implemented after being approved by a steering group comprising of six Lions Club chairmen selected at random and representative of the group overall.
Without knowing what those comments mentioned were any reaction to this is guesswork.
The easy response seems to be to moan about the club, but if concerns have been raised to the club about comments made by lions club chairmen then it's absolutely correct that they address it. The wording may seem a touch harsh to some but I just don't believe there would ever be any will to use this to take action against acceptable criticism of the team. To put it simply clamping down on a fan saying, for example, lamberts tactics are shit would create a lot more negative press than the comment left alone would create.
There is absolutely no logic in the club effectively creating a gagging order, it may be that the club should've arranged a meeting with the disgruntled chairmen but we don't really know the full events, they might have tried to explain this and got nowhere. I don't know any of the people who've refused to sign it so I won't presume to know their reasons but given the amount who agreed to sign it I'd suggest their was a degree of stubbornness on both sides here.
-
Don't get me wrong, this is stupid and there is very much a degree of culpability at both ends of the spectrum.
What grinds my gears is how simply it could have been nipped in the bud.
-
Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.
They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.
I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.
It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I assumed from their statement that they were asked to sign it and refused because some of their affiliates refused?
-
Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.
They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.
I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.
It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I assumed from their statement that they were asked to sign it and refused because some of their affiliates refused?
Not an expert, but are any Lions Clubs affiliated to The Trust and were The Trust ever asked to sign?
As usual I come from this from an angle of utter ignorance, it's why I asked the question about whether any Lions Club chairmen have asked their members before declining to sign up to the agreement, it's just that if I was a Lions Club member (never have been) I might be a bit annoyed if I was to lose my benefits for being in such a club because the chairman didn't like the wording of an agreement I never got the chance to decide if I liked or not.
-
There are no benefits to lose as a member. You get a handwritten plastic card. All the benefits are to the chairmen so,on a point of principle, they are giving up some decent perks, like playing at VP for example. So fair play to em.
-
What a massive PR own goal.
I'll back Mr Holder 100% on this one. The fact that we are now an "independent Supporters Club" says it all. If you want to marginalise someone who has given his life supporting the club then so be it.
We need Sir GT to turn up now and just say "it's a shambles".
-
The important bit of the statement made by the club is:
The three additional points were prompted by comments from various Lions Clubs and have been implemented after being approved by a steering group comprising of six Lions Club chairmen selected at random and representative of the group overall.
Without knowing what those comments mentioned were any reaction to this is guesswork.
I do not know the full ins and outs of it but it seems as though they agreed the guidelines with the steering group who I assume were representing the others. If the six thought some of the other Lions clubs would have issues with the wording, shouldn't they have taken it back to them to discuss. If this is the case, I do not understand why the club are getting flak and not the six Lions clubs who agreed to it.
-
There are no benefits to lose as a member. You get a handwritten plastic card. All the benefits are to the chairmen so,on a point of principle, they are giving up some decent perks, like playing at VP for example. So fair play to em.
Really? there are no benefits at all, except for a plastic card, for being a member of a Lions Club?
Again, his isn't me being facetious or not believing you, just I don't really understand why you would become a member of a club for no discernible benefit.
Yet again excuse my ignorance, but do you have to pay to be a member?
-
Short answer Dave, is no. No payment to join a club. It pretty much all falls on the time of their own they give, and also the judgement of the chairman on sharing any perks, as to how they are dispersed.
They generally are the least self serving you will ever come across.
Frankly, that it even got to them squabbling, is bloody silly on both sides. It isn't fair to ping those chairmen about canvassing membership before responding though.
It is them individually who felt wronged by what they perceived the club were asking.
-
I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.
That's a really twisted form of logic there.
They're not refusing because they demand the right to abuse people online - you're effectively calling them abusive in saying that. They're not signing because they dispute the right of the club to tell them what they can and can not say on the internet, whether it be in a Lions Club or personal space.
They are two totally different things.
-
The phrase "the little things" sums it up. They used to be got right even before they existed; now they're allowed to run and the club I'd permanently on the defensive.
I am aware of how depressive this sounds, but these days, they don't seem massively bothered about the big things, so perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised about the little things getting missed.
-
I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.
That's a really twisted form of logic there.
They're not refusing because they demand the right to abuse people online - you're effectively calling them abusive in saying that. They're not signing because they dispute the right of the club to tell them what they can and can not say on the internet, whether it be in a Lions Club or personal space.
They are two totally different things.
They are two totally different things. The other Lions Clubs put those clauses in specifically and only about abuse. They are very explicit. Those who do not want to sign up are refusing to do so because of the no abuse clause. I do not see how I am twisting logic at all.
It is all very silly and in order of silliness the lions clubs are are protesting their right to abuse people online are the silliest, then the Birmingham mail, then the club, then fans like me who are actually posting about it. We have bigger things to worry about.
-
Nobody is protesting about abusing people.You are doing exactly what you are accusing the mail of doing.
-
I became a Lions club member rudely by travelling with Sutton Lions, it didn't require me to do anything else or pay anyone.
In addition to being able to go on a coach at a reasonable rate with some great people who know some brilliant pubs near any ground in the land, I could also have access to 'priority tickets' because the chairman can get up to 6 for people who don't have the requisite booking history for the sell out away games & then there is an invite to that player of the season thing, which I think got cancelled this year (although I may be getting confused).
If you look at the member benefits for The Chairman - is there really much over and above that for the time and trouble they take to help other fans get to games? Not really, but they do it because they love they Villa and they want to.
However, in their shoes, I can do this with or without the 'benefits' the club bestow, and, if we have been shit, or a certain player looked like he couldn't be arsed, or I have reached the point where I think the manager has to go, I can take to a message board, Facebook, or twitter and say so. Do these things fall foul of the 'abusive' clause - well I'd have to carefully consider that wouldn't I?
..and there's the thing, who wants to carefully consider their on-line rants in the aftermath of another shocker? Certainly not Villa fans who've barely missed a game anywhere in the world for 30-40 years! These people have a passion for the club, and it will come out.
If it is abusive to the point of criminal harrassment, ask the police to look at it, but don't put vague clauses into things and expect people to sign up to having to wonder whether they have to call shit sugar.
-
Short answer Dave, is no. No payment to join a club. It pretty much all falls on the time of their own they give, and also the judgement of the chairman on sharing any perks, as to how they are dispersed.
They generally are the least self serving you will ever come across.
Cheers.
-
I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.
I wasn't saying that the Lions clubs that are not signing up are being abusive as clubs. Whether some of their members have, or indeed those of clubs that have signed up, I cannot say as I don't know who was doing it.
What I do know is that there has been some and not just isolated incidents either.
-
The phrase "the little things" sums it up. They used to be got right even before they existed; now they're allowed to run and the club I'd permanently on the defensive.
I am aware of how depressive this sounds, but these days, they don't seem massively bothered about the big things, so perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised about the little things getting missed.
Seems that way
-
ITK -
Mate of mine told my other mate, that Villa have insisted that the lions clubs must now wear Black Shirts. lol
Time for some reason me thinks
-
Just chuckled at TBAR's last tweet. It starts
"TBAR proud to be uncensored"
If only they could sell irony. They would have enough to buy out Randy and have money left over for Messi.
-
Just chuckled at TBAR's last tweet. It starts
"TBAR proud to be uncensored"
If only they could sell irony. They would have enough to buy out Randy and have money left over for Messi.
I'm sure that I followed them, but can't locate it 'em on my feed ...hmmmm
-
Just chuckled at TBAR's last tweet. It starts
"TBAR proud to be uncensored"
If only they could sell irony. They would have enough to buy out Randy and have money left over for Messi.
I'm sure that I followed them, but can't locate it 'em on my feed ...hmmmm
thankfully I don't, but one of Kendrick's retweets about them caught my eye and I saw that.
-
I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.
Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.
That's a really twisted form of logic there.
They're not refusing because they demand the right to abuse people online - you're effectively calling them abusive in saying that. They're not signing because they dispute the right of the club to tell them what they can and can not say on the internet, whether it be in a Lions Club or personal space.
They are two totally different things.
They are two totally different things. The other Lions Clubs put those clauses in specifically and only about abuse. They are very explicit. Those who do not want to sign up are refusing to do so because of the no abuse clause. I do not see how I am twisting logic at all.
It is all very silly and in order of silliness the lions clubs are are protesting their right to abuse people online are the silliest, then the Birmingham mail, then the club, then fans like me who are actually posting about it. We have bigger things to worry about.
Because they don't want the club telling them what they can do on the internet as a matter of principle, not because they want to actively abuse people.
Can you honestly not see the difference? Refusing to promise you won't do something doesn't automatically mean you actually want to do it.
If this site demanded all members sign a pledge to never attend a blues match and members refused to, would you make the same assumption? That the reason they refused to sign would be because they fancy going to the Sty? Or maybe because we have no right to tell them what they can and can't do?
I agree, the whole thing is a waste of time. Why they decided to do this, in this way, is beyond me.
-
villa are now selling coach travel and a ticket to the sell out fixture at Stoke for £99. A seat in the away end. You do get brekkie at VP though.
That's why people are resigning... Ticket touting by any other name. And very wrong... What next away tickets to the highest bidder?
-
villa are now selling coach travel and a ticket to the sell out fixture at Stoke for £99. A seat in the away end. You do get brekkie at VP though.
That's why people are resigning... Ticket touting by any other name. And very wrong... What next away tickets to the highest bidder?
how is the club selling tickets, that it's entitled to sell, anything remotely similar to ticket touting? The price might be a touch high but it's well within the accepted range to go away to a premier league game. They will have marked those tickets as first refusal for the lions clubs but if they're not taken up (for whatever reason) and there's 9 days until the game it's perfectly reasonable for the club to make them available.
I really don't get what you're criticising the club for here.
-
The tickets are £35! A coach at the most is £20 per person.
I will leave the game forever if they start this pxxx taking honestly.
Edited the swear... Sorry... I'll resign;-)
-
villa are now selling coach travel and a ticket to the sell out fixture at Stoke for £99. A seat in the away end. You do get brekkie at VP though.
That's why people are resigning... Ticket touting by any other name. And very wrong... What next away tickets to the highest bidder?
how is the club selling tickets, that it's entitled to sell, anything remotely similar to ticket touting? The price might be a touch high but it's well within the accepted range to go away to a premier league game. They will have marked those tickets as first refusal for the lions clubs but if they're not taken up (for whatever reason) and there's 9 days until the game it's perfectly reasonable for the club to make them available.
I really don't get what you're criticising the club for here.
This tickets go on sale to executive box holders first,nothing to do with the Lion's club.
To be fair to the club it's not a bad deal.
-
I assume most clubs do a similar type of thing.
-
I assume most clubs do a similar type of thing.
Yep.
-
Let me explain why I'm annoyed.
Last season for the Spurs game away, which you recall was a hot ticket, I gave my sons ticket to another lions club member ( my cousin, chairmen of one of the North American branches). Villa have banned this practice even though in my eyes that was my sons ticket to do with as he wished, no profit was made obviously.
The new Lions Club rules ban this.
But the club are now selling tickets to anyone off the street who can afford it at the expense of loyal fans. It's wrong.
It's not a direct link to the Lions Club of course but they are doing the same thing with spare tickets for profit that the lions clubs have been banned from doing for cost !
-
I think these are the tickets offered to executive box holders.For away games they get first dibs.
I can't see the problem in itself as they are spending the most money.
-
I have just spent a fair amount of time catching up on this thread and three comments stood out. Cheltenham Lion spoke of us crapping on our own carpet and CT said we need SGT to come in and tell people "It is a shambles". Paulie said that we are not getting the big things right so why should we have any optimism about getting the little things right. I am usually a glass half full person but I find it hard to argue with any of those statements.
-
I think these are the tickets offered to executive box holders.For away games they get first dibs.
I can't see the problem in itself as they are spending the most money.
Yes of course, but why do they have to pay £99. What if they lived in Stoke ?
-
Let me explain why I'm annoyed.
Last season for the Spurs game away, which you recall was a hot ticket, I gave my sons ticket to another lions club member ( my cousin, chairmen of one of the North American branches). Villa have banned this practice even though in my eyes that was my sons ticket to do with as he wished, no profit was made obviously.
The new Lions Club rules ban this.
But the club are now selling tickets to anyone off the street who can afford it at the expense of loyal fans. It's wrong.
It's not a direct link to the Lions Club of course but they are doing the same thing with spare tickets for profit that the lions clubs have been banned from doing for cost !
but they're the clubs tickets to sell, the lions club and it's members, get the tickets as affiliates and the tickets are (I assume given it's been banned) sold as 'no transfers' so the lions club has no right to just sell these on (cost is irrelevant). This is standard practice, try changing the name on a reservation for a flight or with a hotel for example. This doesn't apply to the club because they are the seller not an affiliated reseller.
Aside from that you're not even comparing like for like, Villa sold out all allocations other than tickets which were reserved for {a group} (I don't know who) who had first say on them. That first say will have now expired so those tickets become available in the general circulation. How much the club then charges for the package that ticket is part of isn't anything to do with any other tickets that are sold.
I really don't understand what you're upset about.
-
I think these are the tickets offered to executive box holders.For away games they get first dibs.
I can't see the problem in itself as they are spending the most money.
Yes of course, but why do they have to pay £99. What if they lived in Stoke ?
Then they'd have bought tickets like the rest of us. This is a specific deal, like most clubs do.
-
It was a sell out with no more tickets available.
All of a sudden it's not a sellout and they have £99 tickets left. If you think that's fair then fine.
All about opinion...
-
I have a ticket by the way. Someone could be sitting next to me who is paying 3 times more!
-
So when the Holte End sells out against Man U it would be acceptable if they put on a coach from town, gave a free burger, and charged £99 for Holte End lower tickets that 'suddenly' came available the week before?
-
It's still a sell out apart from a specific hospitality package.
Travel to Villa’s away games in style with our executive away travel packages. Your chance to experience a comfortable trip to stadiums across the country alongside fellow Villa executive supporters.
Enjoy a brunch at Villa Park and then VIP executive coach travel to and from Villa Park to the away teams ground. View the game from the away stand enclosure.
Games available:
Stoke City v Aston Villa Saturday 16th August 2014
Burnley v Aston Villa Saturday 29th November 2014
Arsenal v Aston Villa Saturday 31st January 2015
Southampton v Aston Villa Saturday 16th May 2015
-
It was a sell out with no more tickets available.
All of a sudden it's not a sellout and they have £99 tickets left. If you think that's fair then fine.
All about opinion...
Once more, tickets get reserved as available only for {a group}, after a while that reservation expires and the ticket becomes available. The ticket itself, in it's entire existence as a 'service' was only available as part of a package that the club charge at £99 so when it became available on an open market that's the package which became available.
The holte end analogy is miles away from being remotely relevant, the key bit being that there is no market for the club to sell travel arrangements and food to people coming from the city centre, there is however a market to sell that package to go away to stoke.
-
It's still a sell out apart from a specific hospitality package.
Travel to Villa’s away games in style with our executive away travel packages. Your chance to experience a comfortable trip to stadiums across the country alongside fellow Villa executive supporters.
Enjoy a brunch at Villa Park and then VIP executive coach travel to and from Villa Park to the away teams ground. View the game from the away stand enclosure.
Games available:
Stoke City v Aston Villa Saturday 16th August 2014
Burnley v Aston Villa Saturday 29th November 2014
Arsenal v Aston Villa Saturday 31st January 2015
Southampton v Aston Villa Saturday 16th May 2015
-
I stand corrected on being unaware of 'executive' away packages tbf.
It's still a bloody rip off and unfair though!
-
I wish I had the money for an executive away travel package to Stoke, Burnley and Arsenal. In fact I wish I had enough money to have a yacht moored off the coast of Stoke, Burnley and Arsenal. Not Southampton obviously because that is nowhere near the coast.
-
We got 2,900 tickets for Stoke. I'm guessing that about 50-60 go to the executive package as i'm assuming it is only one coach. Not really unfair.
-
More fool them for paying it!
-
They've been doing these packages for years and they wouldn't do them if there was no demand.
-
Oh dear. John has had a pop in the local paper today. Now that to me is something he shouldn't have done. That said, he is a cantakerous old sod with nothing else to worry about since he retired!
-
I stand corrected on being unaware of 'executive' away packages tbf.
It's still a bloody rip off and unfair though!
Welcome to modern football!
-
More fool them for paying it!
Why? It's like criticizing the existence of Ferrari's.
-
I stand corrected on being unaware of 'executive' away packages tbf.
It's still a bloody rip off and unfair though!
Welcome to modern football!
It isn't even modern football, though, surely this sort of thing has been going on for years now?
-
I stand corrected on being unaware of 'executive' away packages tbf.
It's still a bloody rip off and unfair though!
Welcome to modern football!
It isn't even modern football, though, surely this sort of thing has been going on for years now?
True, should have edited my post so I was just replying to the "It's still a bloody rip off and unfair!
-
I stand corrected on being unaware of 'executive' away packages tbf.
It's still a bloody rip off and unfair though!
Welcome to modern football!
It isn't even modern football, though, surely this sort of thing has been going on for years now?
True, should have edited my post so I was just replying to the "It's still a bloody rip off and unfair!
it's not really a rip off if you're not forced to pay it. It's an option for those who want have that experience.
-
What I find odd, is dressing up a bus journey as executive travel.
-
I wish I had the money for an executive away travel package to Stoke, Burnley and Arsenal. In fact I wish I had enough money to have a yacht moored off the coast of Stoke, Burnley and Arsenal. Not Southampton obviously because that is nowhere near the coast.
Agreed when you consider what is put on the pitch, and termed competitive!
-
So when the Holte End sells out against Man U it would be acceptable if they put on a coach from town, gave a free burger, and charged £99 for Holte End lower tickets that 'suddenly' came available the week before?
When you're sitting on a plane in any class, you'll be sitting next to, in front, or behind someone who is very likely not to have spent the same for their travel as you.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/10623955_863113980366352_8410485553107674973_o.jpg)
They could do with a spell-check...
-
When I am on a plane I fly for free in the seat next to the pilot. All I have to do is not call him Shirley.
-
I am so pleased you picked up on the spelling mistake, unfortunate I know , but if that's all you found wrong then I'm happy. It means that you must agree with what we are doing as you don't comment about the actual substance of the statement. Thank you for your support.
-
You don't sound that pleased.
-
Think Bob, makes a good point, if were looking for spelling mistakes sounds like he agrees with content,
on the other hand the quality of the paper.