FC United FA Cup thread

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

so what? you're saying that the stance on one-off TV was barely thought out and the potential future assimilation into collective tv rights deals hadn't even been considered? hmm...

anyway, you need to be careful with your arguments imo...

the idea that you can take a moral stance against the way football is going/has gone, but yet only be accountable to and only recognise the right to scrutiny of your own members and stakeholders seems to me like very shaky ground. anyway, these appear to be fairly sore points so i'll probably leave it there atm...

Not trying to have the last word but I'll refer you to this from a few posts ago...

...you're perfectly aware of fc's determination to be at heart, a fan-friendly entity that is opposed to gross exploitation and pursuit of financial gain ahead of members' interests and wishes.

Originally Posted by forwardirektion

Wish someone would set fire to thingy throb tbh.....at least with waynes ears you're just getting the soundings off from a mentally unhinged recovering drug addict/non league fan.
Thingy throb is an overly verbose shit stirrer, "0oooh look at me I'm stirring debate"....It was done 5 years ago mate.
While I'm at it Borsuk is a bit boring and my dislike of Reem has disappeared.

I'm still rought from this weekend, it was mint.

Actually I don't mind throb tbh, he's just a bit weird I suppose.

i'll take that as a compliment i think

Originally Posted by redloner

I never thought I'd see the day we seriously debated club policy based on a line in a terrace song.

In other news, United fans are seen building bonfires and others exposing themselves fornicating with non-functioning liquid-carrying equipment.

or a list on a wall?

more than just a line redloner, you know that

it was a rallying cry at the time and was sung with real feeling, by me anyhoo...

Originally Posted by carlosartorial

Not trying to have the last word but I'll refer you to this from a few posts ago...

nor me

Late onto this thread so forgive me but I've watched the whole match a couple of times now as it was that good. The stuff of football supporting dreams.

Also, very very loud and decent looking crew for the pitch invasion Not sure where Fixers is getting his 'all FC fans are speccy and bald' point from coz they all looked fairly hardcore to me.

A big Keith thumbs up to all concerned.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

so what? you're saying that the stance on one-off TV was barely thought out and the potential future assimilation into collective tv rights deals hadn't even been considered? hmm...

anyway, you need to be careful with your arguments imo...

the idea that you can take a moral stance against the way football is going/has gone, but yet only be accountable to and only recognise the right to scrutiny of your own members and stakeholders seems to me like very shaky ground. anyway, these appear to be fairly sore points so i'll probably leave it there atm...

Why?

As a founder member and week-in-week out supporter I was uneasy about 'selling' our game to ESPN. On a idealistic level I think we sold out and debated this long and hard, even in the pub before the game. I did however accept that as members we had given our board a mandate to make a decision when this situation arose and they did.

There is nothing in our constitution about never accepting payment from TV companies in relation to moving kick-off times. I feel that ethically we should be against it and was dissapointed we chose to agreee to our game being moved but with nothing enshrined in the constitution my dissapointment is based on nothing more than an 'unwritten belief' that I was perhaps mistaken to have.

I'm a bit uncomfortable 'politically' that we accepted it because it was up the road at Rochdale but would not have accepted it if it was at Southampton.
But y'know...FC is trying to be different, we'll make mistakes and have arguments but we're only 5...we're still learning init.

And it was £#%&!ing mega tbh happy as a hapy @#%&!.

Originally Posted by My Name is Keith

Late onto this thread so forgive me but I've watched the whole match a couple of times now as it was that good. The stuff of football supporting dreams.

Also, very very loud and decent looking crew for the pitch invasion Not sure where Fixers is getting his 'all FC fans are speccy and bald' point from coz they all looked fairly hardcore to me.

A big Keith thumbs up to all concerned.

It was.

I'm not speccy.

Cheers Keith.

Not everyone wants to stand at football. There are hundreds who sit in the Main Stand at Gigg Lane. Others wouldn't think to sit, now they have a choice. Unsurprisingly, there are large numbers who don't have much of an opinion about games being moved for TV. Some are vociferously anti-Sky. Buying tickets in advance isn't a deal breaker for everyone, but some see POTG as the be-all-and-end-all. Some don't sing, others do.

What I'm trying to say is the support is made up of diverse opinions and politics and from time to time you'll come across issues important to some fans made to look like club policy.

The main thing to remember is the democratic process which underpins what happens. If enough members propose and vote for a resolution that says "we'll never move a game for TV" then that's what will happen.

In the two votes on the subject, a majority was in favour of the board accepting our inclusion in the FA Cup knowing this might happen and another ratified the board's actions in accepting the Rochdale game being moved.

I'm happy to debate these issues and I've always played things with a straight bat. I won't keep my mouth shut if I think something's going on.

I was looking out for sueders on the pitch

Originally Posted by elephantstone

I was looking out for sueders on the pitch

Surprised you didnt see me tbh stoney. Black coat and skinhead. Did I not stand out from the rest?

I was watching and looking out for you, I did see a lad that sat on our row for years on there and did wonder where he got to

Well done to the rebels, Margy looks more like Ricky Hatton each time I see him ffs

Originally Posted by suedeshoes

Why?

As a founder member and week-in-week out supporter I was uneasy about 'selling' our game to ESPN. On a idealistic level I think we sold out and debated this long and hard, even in the pub before the game. I did however accept that as members we had given our board a mandate to make a decision when this situation arose and they did.

There is nothing in our constitution about never accepting payment from TV companies in relation to moving kick-off times. I feel that ethically we should be against it and was dissapointed we chose to agreee to our game being moved but with nothing enshrined in the constitution my dissapointment is based on nothing more than an 'unwritten belief' that I was perhaps mistaken to have.

I'm a bit uncomfortable 'politically' that we accepted it because it was up the road at Rochdale but would not have accepted it if it was at Southampton.
But y'know...FC is trying to be different, we'll make mistakes and have arguments but we're only 5...we're still learning init.

And it was £#%&!ing mega tbh happy as a hapy @#%&!.

because the thing is set up to represent an ideal, and to be a model of all that's right in the game railing against all that's wrong. obviously that isn't written into the constitution either, but it is nevertheless true isn't it? it's a mighty big ideal to live up to.

Originally Posted by redloner

Not everyone wants to stand at football. There are hundreds who sit in the Main Stand at Gigg Lane. Others wouldn't think to sit, now they have a choice. Unsurprisingly, there are large numbers who don't have much of an opinion about games being moved for TV. Some are vociferously anti-Sky. Buying tickets in advance isn't a deal breaker for everyone, but some see POTG as the be-all-and-end-all. Some don't sing, others do.

What I'm trying to say is the support is made up of diverse opinions and politics and from time to time you'll come across issues important to some fans made to look like club policy.

The main thing to remember is the democratic process which underpins what happens. If enough members propose and vote for a resolution that says "we'll never move a game for TV" then that's what will happen.

In the two votes on the subject, a majority was in favour of the board accepting our inclusion in the FA Cup knowing this might happen and another ratified the board's actions in accepting the Rochdale game being moved.

I'm happy to debate these issues and I've always played things with a straight bat. I won't keep my mouth shut if I think something's going on.

i'm not sure how a vote like that could ever be taken though. how can the support separate the need for a new ground from the revenue generated from tv coverage? it can't be done. whatever way it's phrased, the question still comes down to do you think the club should forego EMI's 75k or don't you?

Fair points tbf fair to you TT. No-one ever said it was gonna be easy. We're trying our best though. And we're doin more than ok. Que sera sera.

Originally Posted by suedeshoes

Fair points tbf fair to you TT. No-one ever said it was gonna be easy. We're trying our best though. And we're doin more than ok. Que sera sera.

and that's reflected in the atmosphere around the place and in the results over the first 5 years - a tremendous success story in many ways

but... i think it's fair to say that up to now most coverage of the club has been from the angle of either curious voyeurs or friendly messenger. sooner or later there will be a far more critical coverage that runs alongside that i reckon, and most of it will inevitably focus on money and resources.


wrote that twice. trying not to offend

i much prefer the way you've spoken about the whole TV money thing honestly, compared to how most seem to have tried to make it fit

I too was uncomfortable at first with the switch to the Friday night, but the board's statement I found fair enough. As has been said, there's nothing in the constitution about moving matches. We have matches moved all the time for various reasons.

The 'not working for Sky' thing was and is about fans not being consulted, TV money being placed before fans' interests and clubs, league and TV not giving a flying £#%&! about fans being inconvenienced. In this case, the clubs were asked their view; Rochdale voluntarily lowered the ticket prices, a great gesture; and FC decided that with Rochdale being so close, it wasn't any more of an inconvenience to the majority of our fans than a Tuesday or Wednesday night.

Also, the cost of being tenants of Bury is just unsustainable and by far the biggest problem FC has to deal with. Therefore, building the new ground takes priority.

I can't blame people for asking the question, it's a fair one for us to have to field. We've put ourselves out there so it's only fair if people start questioning things. Nonetheless, I do think there is a lot of simplistic thinking going on. It's like the merchandise issue - when the scarves, shirts etc. first came out, a lot of people laughed and said 'I thought they were against merchandise'. Well, no. It's all about what the money's used for. If it's used to keep ticket prices down, offer a 'pay what you can afford' season ticket and fund key community projects, then there's nothing wrong with it and it should even be encouraged. It still surprises me how many people don't get this.

Let's face it, when we started FC, a section of the support with great zeal went around suggesting we were the second coming, happily rubbing Reds' noses in it if they were still going to OT.

Part of that took what the club wanted to be and what was in the manifesto and went flying straight to the other extreme that we're anti-TV, anti-merchandise, anti-sitting. You name it, the club was against it.

Fortunately, over the time we've been in existence, the pragmatism of the membership as a whole has prevailed and those who try to impress their views on the club have seen their plans outvoted in the democratic process. The majority put the good of the club before the adoption or success of their own politics.

TT, when I was talking about the vote earlier, I wasn't so much talking about the subject, just that a vote can take place based on a resolution made by one member and signed off by five others. That resolution then stands or falls on how it's perceived by the membership. The vote I suggested could be taken, but based on the pragmatism I mentioned in the bulk of the membership, I expect it would be rejected in favour of allowing the board to weigh the pros and cons and decide for us.

Zorg's conclusion seems pretty fair, to me. It's not the money that's the problem, it's how it's employed in most cases. We don't have a problem taking TV money because we know how much good we can do with it.

Originally Posted by Zorg

I too was uncomfortable at first with the switch to the Friday night, but the board's statement I found fair enough. As has been said, there's nothing in the constitution about moving matches. We have matches moved all the time for various reasons.

The 'not working for Sky' thing was and is about fans not being consulted, TV money being placed before fans' interests and clubs, league and TV not giving a flying £#%&! about fans being inconvenienced. In this case, the clubs were asked their view; Rochdale voluntarily lowered the ticket prices, a great gesture; and FC decided that with Rochdale being so close, it wasn't any more of an inconvenience to the majority of our fans than a Tuesday or Wednesday night.

Also, the cost of being tenants of Bury is just unsustainable and by far the biggest problem FC has to deal with. Therefore, building the new ground takes priority.

I can't blame people for asking the question, it's a fair one for us to have to field. We've put ourselves out there so it's only fair if people start questioning things. Nonetheless, I do think there is a lot of simplistic thinking going on. It's like the merchandise issue - when the scarves, shirts etc. first came out, a lot of people laughed and said 'I thought they were against merchandise'. Well, no. It's all about what the money's used for. If it's used to keep ticket prices down, offer a 'pay what you can afford' season ticket and fund key community projects, then there's nothing wrong with it and it should even be encouraged. It still surprises me how many people don't get this.

this pretty much sums up my opinion on this but i do think TT is right the higher we climb up the leagues ladder and the more exposure we get the more the question of should we allow tv in will be asked> I also appreciate that he phrased his post well as we all now how emotive this can be .

the answer for me is "depends" on all the factors at the time.

eg moving the brighton/woking game to sat tea time is acceptable on balance but moving it to friday def is NOT acceptable . Haven't made me mind up about a possible sunday game yet. may depend on kick off time . We need to get out of gigg lane rapid.

ITV appears to be waiting for the Wimbledon v MK tie and ESPN has announced its games, so it's Woking or Brighton at 3pm on Saturday 27th. We can stop contemplating our navel for another year, or until we progress in the Trophy.

Originally Posted by redloner

ITV appears to be waiting for the Wimbledon v MK tie and ESPN has announced its games, so it's Woking or Brighton at 3pm on Saturday 27th. We can stop contemplating our navel for another year, or until we progress in the Trophy.

unless we win...

Originally Posted by Zorg

unless we win...

i think thats what progressing in the trophy means