-
Posts
3,619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
62
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Onthefringes
-
đ Am I? Sides are splitting. Nobody has professed the Bois are angels. You and others constant reference to them show the lack of understanding on the subject also. A denial as you put it by the evil villain/employee mentioned has little to no bearing on the protest, but, itâs not fitting your agenda - suspect the information which is will be known as the proposed meeting happens. Away and throw shite at the moon? Really? Act your age and not your shoe size never more apt. As for the personal slate? Whatâs a bammer? Nobody was injured, has there ever been? The disabled fan himself would take you to task too, he even laughed what is your version of any incident off online. Iâd say it would be unfortunate but, not the target practice you seem to think it is. Rightly, the culprit (in a worse case scenario) should be called out and be suffice - no issue with that. But, running to the powers that be (the club have enough as it is Iâm told) is behaviour worth the watching. itâs grassing. Remember snitches get stitches đ
-
Right, so youâve gone from âlobbing intoâ then âthrowingâ to âthey threw them indiscriminately in a direction towardsâ. Well, now that youâre sure⌠took you three goes to decide. A lot of facts there. Pissing yourself at someone being injured as you alleged? I bet, you go down a storm at a party. On your media outlets quip, fair to return the pedantic baton to yourself. Burn injury would have received exposure on plenty of platforms. It didnât & not for the reason youâve given. Get real? Have been throughout, much to your chagrin obviously - not once have I defended throwing pyro devices so your rambling is erm, pointless. 100%. Nobody likes a grass either.
-
No they never. Read what they said & not just look at the words! Nobody threw anything âintoâ the crowd⌠Wheres the evidence of this burnt hand? Befuddled. Given the scaremongering going on this wouldâve made the media outlets without a doubt.
-
In your opinion. Suspect if they acted like you say they do the powers that be would have âem disbanded toot sweet. Flying with the crows is way off in this instance.
-
đ I knew you would. Gepetto? Deary me. Pedantic as I am, point me to where I am defending the matter? You claim âfactâ - when all that was asked was to keep things factual. Recall it being mentioned real time, felt it was exaggerated then as I do now. Poster above gives fair reasoning though. Tell your friend Iâm definitely not in the group, never have been nor ever will be. I certainly donât mind their company on occasion and understand their aims. It happens when you expand your mind.
-
Fair comment.
-
Youâre peddling that again⌠We get youâre not in favour. And for your information they were pilloried for the action in plenty of circles. Youâll see itâs never happened again even when similar situations arose.
-
Your opening gambit is where they are. Discussion is planned I hear, those wishing to chair are basing any talks on âsocial mediaâ output and not on behaviours including that of employee(s) so itâs felt by many the tone that will likely be taken. Think the requests by others to be represented who have no links to any group is pretty telling. Those who are in support of the groups and action being taken arenât disagreeing that groups should be complying with rules, the constant reference to release of pyro is for another debate, as Iâve mentioned issues are not inextricably linked. Fairly balanced reply although off on a tangent for me. Not in reply to yourself, anybody saying âlobbing flares into your own supportâ give off heavy Pinocchio vibes.
-
Youâre on the right trackâŚ
-
How parochial. Any âbeefâ is due an employee offering information on numerous occasions that has lead to zero convictions whilst innocent parties (as ruled by the judiciary) have been subject to dawn raids of late amongst other unusual practise. Itâs not just that section of our support having issue, plenty with no links have registered complaint too.
-
Hysteria. At least keep your point of view factual? You are correct, there needs to be a solution - assuming the majority think that one individual is the problem and not them isnât the case no matter how many times you & others tell yourselves.
-
If the viewpoint is constructive why not? Not going into the rights and wrongs, abuse or threats isnât a good look - Iâm of the opinion incidents of that nature are few and far between.
-
Conjecture? Not on my part. All that was said was âaccess granted to the away supportâ which it was - in advance or not is nether here nor there. Donât recall anybody mentioning one group gaining more access than the other? For the avoidance of doubt, the representations to the club by many including those not in any of the groups & any protest isnât down to no access to have displays.
-
Semantics Mr Park. Entry to the ground with at least one box full of glossy copy paper isnât exactly sneaking the stuff in so âaccess granted to the away support for a displayâ isnât an untruth.
-
đ âcanât be disputedâ yet, easily discounted.
-
No bother precious. To answer your question. My difference of opinion, informed or not, doesnât make yours or other opinion âtired repetitionâ - itâs the whataboutery of they did this, they did that & we donât agree with is or we donât agree with that. Itâs not inextricably linked to the statements made or protest yet, some have it on rinse, repeat. Only asked for something different? Dont know where âThe bois can do no wrong in your eyesâ chat comes from. Iâve already stated theyâve been censured and plenty of us remind them when required. Youâre again linking the âboisâ when in truth their input to what you claim is minimal if at all. Thatâs the factsâŚ
-
So you say. Why then the representations being offered to the club from many in the fanbase who are not attached in any way to the group and concerned parents alike? Iâve already said it wouldnât be my choice of protest. Itâs certainly a starting point. If it had disrupted the matchday experience of the holier than thou the same folk would moan instead of mockery.
-
Well, it ainât difficult. Offer something that isnât tired repetition?
-
Constantly post on the forum with apparent in the know knowledge? But, I generally don't back up claims? Think youâll find I can & do back up everything I say, itâs been remarked on here that I do also. Iâll say it again, donât think I get any more than others, just better and itâs corroborated before I do post. In a manner that upsets a few, but, plenty & not just those who know me understand the whyâs. I make no apology for that. And if anyone has a different opinion you belittle them? Handâs up, on occasion I have done, when itâs felt I should given the out there takes being replied to. Genuinely have taken stock of that and have refrained from doing so. Its digressing from the topic though. Iâve already said, some are only seeing what they want to see. If it doesnât conform to how they think you should itâs all bad. Easy to discount from our points of view as everything may not be as it seems. Player attack analogy was poor as it bore no relation to the idea of protest as made out in the statements. Nobody has disagreed with âif you do something wrong then you have to pay the priceâ of course! There has to be regulation or itâs chaos. What have they done though thatâs wrong in this instance thatâs required the public statements? Nothing you and a few others keep repeating on here. They are separate issue & not always by who youâre claiming to be carrying them out. Canât reiterate that enough. Not enjoying some awaydays is the curse of ineffective stewarding and policing in most cases Iâm afraid, Reaction of some is again indigenous. Such is the make up of our away support and ground layouts itâs easy to remove yourself from the locale they choose, thatâs a nod to the earlier sentiment. Mock you may. Another nod to ineffective stewarding if they were allowed to gather up the back surely? Wouldnât have been my choice of protest, either stay outside then enter at the agreed time or today couldâve been spent watching from afar giving trade to local business as there was live coverage and absence would receive greater coverage and give the powers that be something to focus on that isnât as one sided offered to them by someone screaming âWoah! Look at me!â
-
Itâs been said before, obvious some watching what they want to see. Ainât nobody condoning what youâre terming âstupid behaviourâ either and itâs certainly not the argument theyâre having with a certain individual if you care to read statements published. Certainly nothing tangible on offer from some usual suspects at anyrate except naysayers and happy clapping is good and those who donât conform bad.
-
Aye. OK. You added fuck all to any debate anyway.
-
Again, unfounded claims. The âboisâ involve themselves in stupid behaviour both in and out the stadium is a misnomer - suggests you know little despite seeing it with your own eyes. I explained the reason that itâs myth as it has happened when no disorder of any kind was evident. Hardly a strange slant. Problem been further compounded today we hear with access granted to the away support for a display. Club owners should be taking note.
-
Your first statement not entirely true, plenty of evidence that theyâve taken accountability. Can say what we want about them but Burrows & Russell were always a sensible go-between. They understood the aims and objectives and were supportive. The second statement is myth. Thereâs also been plenty of events when not involved as you say that attempts to exert an undue control and influence by the club employee. Fully expect that would be the case moving forward too.
-
In your opinion? Maybe. I suspect most donât agree both inside and outside. You donât really get the jist of meaningful protest for starters. Out of touch and a total lack of understanding.. Theres also a saying âfor those who understand it needs no explanation, for those who do not, no explanation is possibleâ. Fan culture has shifted immeasurably even since the inception of the group at the end of the East Stand. The generational gap between those in the East Stand, the naysayers and those in the boardroom is the real worry. Do us a favour and leave out the âGreen Brigade wannabeâ references. Itâs far removed from whatâs been going on. I for one am glad political & religous belief is generally left outside the gates.
-
Another nonsense statement from yourself. You understand who the Well Bois are? Itâs not difficult to grasp the demographic on how the end section is made up, largely 3 factions. Itâs disingenuous to brand all the same. Yet, you donât âlikeâ. Never once have they sought âto value their status more than the club itselfâ. There are plenty within the fanbase who have reminded them of that and theyâve grown stronger due that actively encouraged by the club. It would be anarchy without. Again, some just donât want to recognise that.