Dictatorial Villa?

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[ciggiesnbeer]

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.

[bertlambshank]

Nobody is protesting about abusing people.You are doing exactly what you are accusing the mail of doing.

[amfy]

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.

[Dave Cooper please]

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.

[Lee]

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.

[Lee]

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

[Tony Erdington]

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

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[Lee]

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

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[andrew08]

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?

[paul_e]

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.