On the cash refund issue, we agree and that's why the policy was suspended so that they could be made. it clearly wasn't designed for this situation, but it is in place for a reason and therefore it required a management decision to change. It's not something for the staff at the window to decide.
I know what you are saying and why, PA. And possibly another ref would have made a different decision.
But Kings Hill has a real point. The club was far too gung-ho about the game going ahead, apparently based on the Christmas Eve inspection. Given the low temperatures overnight on Friday and Sat, they should have recognised there would be a need for further inspections (they clearly did not, as there was no mention of the possibility on the OS, and even the Friday inspection was described by the OS as merely ''precautionary'').
There should have been an inspection on Xmas Day or at 9am this morning at the latest. Did the club ask Mr D'Urso to arrive earlier than 10.30 am? Or had we kidded ourselves on the strength of Friday's inspection that all was fine and so we weren't fussed what time he showed up today?
Given that D'Urso couldn't make a decision at "10.30" or at 11.30, what would have been achieved by an inspection 24 hours earlier?
Very simply that we would have known far earlier what his concerns were, and therefore had time to try to do something about them.
You yourself said the real queastion was why he failed to turn up until 10.30am (or possibly later). Yet you then say that nothing could have been achieved by him turning up earlier (whether the day before or several hours earlier on Sunday morning.) You can't have it both ways.
It still seems strange to me that the club apaprently failed to identidy the areas which - rightly or wrongly - D'Urso and at least one of his linos singled out as a problem. And we're talking about a problem which experienced officials thought was serious enough to prevent the match going ahead.
It's not about whether Paddy or you or Kavanagh agreed with Durso's decision or not. it's about the failure of any of you to spot the difficulties that D'Urso might raise.
I don't want to knock the club. I would love to believe that we were simply scuppered by an egomaniacal ref who gets his kicks from sending 15,000 people home disappointed. But I doubt even Andy D'Urso is motivated by such misanthropy.
I never thought the game would go ahead at any time over the last week, and said so repeatedly on CL. Then I was lulled into believing that the club knew more about the weather conditions than the Met Office by a gung-ho report on the OS on Friday. Which, of course, has turned out to have been quite misleading.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]D'Urso may well have small knob complex or something, hence his need to be the centre of attention and ruin the day of 15,000 plus people, but you too had the same experience as me which suggests that the Club's Communications were not as good as they should have been.
How can the club communicate something they didn't know? Would you prefer they made things up, just in case?
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
No, you cannot dismiss it in such glib and facile fashion. It's absolutely right and correct that we ask the pertinent questions to get to the bottom of the story before we fall into the degenerative habits of a tabloid newspaper by 'monstering' one individual as the architect of all our woes before we are in full possession of all the facts.
imo hats off to the club the fella at the window i was at told me to wait until the inspection to by a ticket they did this to numerous people saving loads of incovience
Very simply that we would have known far earlier what his concerns were, and therefore had time to try to do something about them.
It's not about whether Paddy or you or Kavanagh agreed with Durso's decision or not. it's about the failure of any of you to spot the difficulties that D'Urso might raise.
This is my bit (Seth) I messed up the quoting.
A referee inspected the pitch on Friday, short of having telepathic powers regarding D'urso, then the conversation with the Friday ref would be a method of 'difficulty spotting' and ascertaining concerns which I believe is what happened. Personally I wouldn't criticise the club for not foreseeing the issues that D'urso would raise, after all look at the Ipswich v Leicester game...in my view D'urso enjoyed the power he could wield, and he exercised it with extravagent relish as he pocketed his (half) match fee!
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
No, you cannot dismiss it in such glib and facile fashion. It's absolutely right and correct that we ask the pertinent questions to get to the bottom of the story before we fall into the degenerative habits of a tabloid newspaper by 'monstering' one individual as the architect of all our woes before we are in full possession of all the facts.
Totally agree. The club has made certain mistakes today although the referee has dropped the biggest bollock. All we can ask is that the club learns from what happened today. It has nothing to do with " critisising the club at every opportunity" as off_it said. We are entitled to ask why.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I would just like to thank Airman Brown for coming on here and explaining the FACTS. Well played.
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
Are we to believe that this was an act of god? Were the weather conditions really extreme after the club said the game would go ahead on Friday? Are we really to believe that a Referee made a wrong decision and that the game should have gone ahead?
If none of the above are true then I don't see how this is different from what happened last winter when I (well my Dad) drove over a hundred miles before the game at Walsall was called off late. There was a lot of criticism of Walsall at the time.
I don't like to criticise for no reason but if you don't point out when you are unhappy about something it makes the praise seem shallow when the club do something that we are pleased about or proud of.
I don't know who is responsible but I didn't think the game would go ahead based on the conditions, clearly many others thought the same. There were several other games in London called off today, all of them announced before ours. Despite the fact that we thought it would be a wasted journey we still drove up the the Ground and fully expected to be driving home having seen no football. If we were able to accurately predict that I do have to wonder why the club didn't even mention the pitch inspection until two hours before kickoff?
As for fans always complaining, If we fans never complained we'd still be playing at Selhurst Park.
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
No, you cannot dismiss it in such glib and facile fashion. It's absolutely right and correct that we ask the pertinent questions to get to the bottom of the story before we fall into the degenerative habits of a tabloid newspaper by 'monstering' one individual as the architect of all our woes before we are in full possession of all the facts.
Totally agree. The club has made certain mistakes today although the referee has dropped the biggest bollock. All we can ask is that the club learns from what happened today. It has nothing to do with " critisising the club at every opportunity" as off_it said. We are entitled to ask why.
Funny how you two have jumped on what I said and have seemingly taken it as a direct criticism of people asking questions.
For the record, I completely agree there is nothing wrong with asking questions, ensuring that the facts are known and then seeing it there is anything that can be done differently should we find ourselves in a similar position. That's absolutely right and correct.
What I don't like are the knee-jerk reactions of some people that somehow, instantly, this is all the clubs fault and that they have fucked up royally. That just seems to be some peoples default setting, even when it plainly isn't true
Also, for the record, my comments weren't directed at any one poster in particular - and certainly wasn't singling either of you out. Hope that's clear.
Still don't understand what mistakes the club made, as far as I'm aware CAFC do not employ a mind reader or anyone that can predict the future, a shame I agree!
The club get told the pitch is fine, the club believe the pitch to be fine yet somehow they should have let people know the match may not be goin ahead, despite having no way to know that, fair.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]D'Urso may well have small knob complex or something, hence his need to be the centre of attention and ruin the day of 15,000 plus people, but you too had the same experience as me which suggests that the Club's Communications were not as good as they should have been.
How can the club communicate something they didn't know? Would you prefer they made things up, just in case?
The Club would have known that the referee would inspect the pitch and surrounding areas or are you suggesting that D'Urso did so without permission?!
My point is that I and others telephoned to ask if the match was still on and furthermore also specifically mentioned firstly, that other matches within 10 miles of The Valley had been postponed, and secondly that we had a fair distance to travel. We were brusqely told that the match was DEFINITELY ON. NO MENTION WHATSOEVER was made of a pending inspection by the referee.
I would have no problem if something along the lines of "we are confident the match will go ahead but the referee has still to carry out an inspection" had been said. As I posted earlier in the thread it would have then been my (and others)decision whether or not to travel. The phrase DEFINITELY ON implies that the game will be played and the Club got that wrong and gave incomplete information. That is fact ,certainly as far as my telephone conversation was concerned.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I would just like to thank Airman Brown for coming on here and explaining the FACTS. Well played.
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
Are we to believe that this was an act of god? Were the weather conditions really extreme after the club said the game would go ahead on Friday? Are we really to believe that a Referee made a wrong decision and that the game should have gone ahead?
If none of the above are true then I don't see how this is different from what happened last winter when I (well my Dad) drove over a hundred miles before the game at Walsall was called off late. There was a lot of criticism of Walsall at the time.
I don't like to criticise for no reason but if you don't point out when you are unhappy about something it makes the praise seem shallow when the club do something that we are pleased about or proud of.
I don't know who is responsible but I didn't think the game would go ahead based on the conditions, clearly many others thought the same. There were several other games in London called off today, all of them announced before ours. Despite the fact that we thought it would be a wasted journey we still drove up the the Ground and fully expected to be driving home having seen no football. If we were able to accurately predict that I do have to wonder why the club didn't even mention the pitch inspection until two hours before kickoff?
As for fans always complaining, If we fans never complained we'd still be playing at Selhurst Park.
See my previous post clarifying my comments, which has obviously crossed with yours.
Nothing wrong with questioning, or complaining when necessary, but if the various individuals who were there, have seen the pitch, etc, think the decision was a crap one then that works for me.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]I think the truth of the matter from reading between the lines of Airman's post is that we are just fans and thus should take it or leave it.
And I really don't get how anyone could possibly come to this conclusion!!
He said something to the effect that fans should not pursue the matter privately and that the only enquiry likely would be against the Club criticising the referee.
In other words there is sweet fa you can do about it!
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The Club would have known that the referee would inspect the pitch and surrounding areas or are you suggesting that D'Urso did so without permission?!
As explaine by the club they believed the pitch to be playable, added to the fact the ref arrived late I really dont see what you would have liked the club to do differently? Should they have made up a story about a pitch inspection that they knew nothing about!
Surely the only thing the club may have got wrong was the call to deem the pitch OK, then again I suppose that's down to who you trust more, the club or the bellend who couldnt even arrive on time,
I know who gets my vote!
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]I think the truth of the matter from reading between the lines of Airman's post is that we are just fans and thus should take it or leave it.
And I really don't get how anyone could possibly come to this conclusion!!
He said something to the effect that fans should not pursue the matter privately and that the only enquiry likely would be against the Club criticising the referee.
In other words there is sweet fa you can do about it!
Actually Len, I think he was quite rightly keen to distance himself (and the club, in a semi-official capacity) from any suggestions that fans ring up D'Urso or, heaven forbid, go round his house - as had been the inference when some other people were mentioning the "192.com" website.
An organised fan group on the other hand making a formal approach to the league/referees association, etc, would probably be more appropriate. If we had a joned up supporters club then that would be a start, but we don't. One for the Fans Forum - if such a thing actually exists.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]He said something to the effect that fans should not pursue the matter privately and that the only enquiry likely would be against the Club criticising the referee.
I read that to be in reply to people posting the refs personal home phone number, I can't really disagree with him, nothing good can be got from people doing that
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The Club would have known that the referee would inspect the pitch and surrounding areas or are you suggesting that D'Urso did so without permission?!
As explaine by the club they believed the pitch to be playable, added to the fact the ref arrived late I really dont see what you would have liked the club to do differently? Should they have made up a story about a pitch inspection that they knew nothing about!
Surely the only thing the club may have got wrong was the call to deem the pitch OK, then again I suppose that's down to who you trust more, the club or the bellend who couldnt even arrive on time,
I know who gets my vote!
As I said above I would have liked to have been told that the referee had still not inspected the pitch!
The Club would have known that and should have mentioned the fact rather than keep using the phrase DEFINITELY ON.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]I think the truth of the matter from reading between the lines of Airman's post is that we are just fans and thus should take it or leave it.
And I really don't get how anyone could possibly come to this conclusion!!
He said something to the effect that fans should not pursue the matter privately and that the only enquiry likely would be against the Club criticising the referee.
In other words there is sweet fa you can do about it!
Actually Len, I think he was quite rightly keen to distance himself (and the club, in a semi-official capacity) from any suggestions that fans ring up D'Urso or, heaven forbid, go round his house - as had been the inference when some other people were mentioning the "192.com" website.
An organised fan group on the other hand making a formal approach to the league/referees association, etc, would probably be more appropriate. If we had a joned up supporters club then that would be a start, but we don't. One for the Fans Forum - if such a thing actually exists.
That was my take anyway.
Fair dos.
On rereading it you could place that interpretation on it too.
Len, until a game is called off it's on. It's either on or off, so it's either definitely on or definitely off.
It was definitely on until such time as it was called off. My understanding is that not until after 10.30am - after D'Urso's arrivial was there any question of it being called off - everybody who had seen it seems to be of the view that it was definitely playable.
As soon as D'Urso expressed concerns the club put something on the website, which was then updated at least twice - I know because I read the updates.
As soon as the club knew they conveyed the information. Not really sure what else someone on the phone could have been expected to have told you at 10am, or whenever you called.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]Len, until a game is called off it's on. It's either on or off, so it's either definitely on or definitely off.
It was definitely on until such time as it was called off. My understanding is that not until after 10.30am - after D'Urso's arrivial was there any question of it being called off - everybody who had seen it seems to be of the view that it was definitely playable.
As soon as D'Urso expressed concerns the club put something on the website, which was then updated at least twice - I know because I read the updates.
As soon as the club knew they conveyed the information. Not really sure what else someone on the phone could have been expected to have told you at 10am, or whenever you called.
But hey, it's all water under the bridge now.
So you are saying that the Club was unaware that D'urso would carry out an inspection?
Len if you were told the game was on in a rude manner then you are right to be aggrieved, however i don't believe you are suggesting that because of that the club is rotten to the core or anything like that.
It was a totally reasonable assumption by all to expect the game to go ahead especially given the inspection and feedback by Fridays ref, and for the phone lady not to be aware of developments in the melee of events this morning is understandable, if rather misjudged.
However from all that have gleaned today it is Andrew D'urso who is responsible for ruining the day for so many, most folk at the club were hoping and realistically expecting that we could all enjoy a good day out at the footie...the ref ruined all that, and I am sorry you (and others) have been victim of the friendly fire so to speak.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]So you are saying that the Club was unaware that D'urso would carry out an inspection?
YES! Exactly, now you're getting it!
Until D'Urso arrived there was no question of the pitch being unplayable, therefore no pitch inspection.
The pitch has already been inspected, in accordance with the rules, and be deemed fit for play.
As I said earlier, the ONLY way the club could have told you more when you called, would have been to make stuff up.
Well I frankly find it incredible that the Club did not have any inkling at all that the referee would carry out an inspection before the match if what you say is correct.
That leads to the question WHY didn't the Club know D'Urso would inspect the pitch?
Len, every referee inspects every pitch before a game - that's the way it works. What do you want, a statement on the website before every match saying that the game is on but as the ref hasn't arrived yet the match is only provisionally on?
Of course I'm being a bit disingenuous here and today's situation was "not the norm", but as I said before, a game is either definitely on or it's definitely off.
Just about everyone who saw it didn't think there would be any problem - except the one man that held all of the power.
But here's a question. What exactly was the "safety issue" for a linesman? He wont be going in for aerial challenges, he wont be getting tackled whilst on the run, he wont be trying to play a reverse pass as a centre half clatters him from behind. So what exactly was the problem - worried that he might slip over and bruise his bot bot - or maybe hurt his pride?
As much as we all love to cast someone as a pantomime villian because it stops us having to think too much, equally there are people that absolutely love to play that role. And I believe that Mr D'Urso is currently appearing as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the "Billericay Players" production of "Robin Hood" this year. (Google it if you don't believe me.)
Len hell no the club did not expect it. No one else is really blaming the club. My day was wrecked today even tho I live next door but I got over it and walked to Greenwich instead
Comments
Very simply that we would have known far earlier what his concerns were, and therefore had time to try to do something about them.
You yourself said the real queastion was why he failed to turn up until 10.30am (or possibly later). Yet you then say that nothing could have been achieved by him turning up earlier (whether the day before or several hours earlier on Sunday morning.) You can't have it both ways.
It still seems strange to me that the club apaprently failed to identidy the areas which - rightly or wrongly - D'Urso and at least one of his linos singled out as a problem. And we're talking about a problem which experienced officials thought was serious enough to prevent the match going ahead.
It's not about whether Paddy or you or Kavanagh agreed with Durso's decision or not. it's about the failure of any of you to spot the difficulties that D'Urso might raise.
I don't want to knock the club. I would love to believe that we were simply scuppered by an egomaniacal ref who gets his kicks from sending 15,000 people home disappointed. But I doubt even Andy D'Urso is motivated by such misanthropy.
I never thought the game would go ahead at any time over the last week, and said so repeatedly on CL. Then I was lulled into believing that the club knew more about the weather conditions than the Met Office by a gung-ho report on the OS on Friday. Which, of course, has turned out to have been quite misleading.
It's a shame that some fans seem to be intent on criticising "the club" at every opportunity , but that's life I guess.
How can the club communicate something they didn't know? Would you prefer they made things up, just in case?
No, you cannot dismiss it in such glib and facile fashion. It's absolutely right and correct that we ask the pertinent questions to get to the bottom of the story before we fall into the degenerative habits of a tabloid newspaper by 'monstering' one individual as the architect of all our woes before we are in full possession of all the facts.
And I really don't get how anyone could possibly come to this conclusion!!
Totally agree. The club has made certain mistakes today although the referee has dropped the biggest bollock. All we can ask is that the club learns from what happened today. It has nothing to do with " critisising the club at every opportunity" as off_it said. We are entitled to ask why.
Are we to believe that this was an act of god? Were the weather conditions really extreme after the club said the game would go ahead on Friday? Are we really to believe that a Referee made a wrong decision and that the game should have gone ahead?
If none of the above are true then I don't see how this is different from what happened last winter when I (well my Dad) drove over a hundred miles before the game at Walsall was called off late. There was a lot of criticism of Walsall at the time.
I don't like to criticise for no reason but if you don't point out when you are unhappy about something it makes the praise seem shallow when the club do something that we are pleased about or proud of.
I don't know who is responsible but I didn't think the game would go ahead based on the conditions, clearly many others thought the same. There were several other games in London called off today, all of them announced before ours. Despite the fact that we thought it would be a wasted journey we still drove up the the Ground and fully expected to be driving home having seen no football. If we were able to accurately predict that I do have to wonder why the club didn't even mention the pitch inspection until two hours before kickoff?
As for fans always complaining, If we fans never complained we'd still be playing at Selhurst Park.
Funny how you two have jumped on what I said and have seemingly taken it as a direct criticism of people asking questions.
For the record, I completely agree there is nothing wrong with asking questions, ensuring that the facts are known and then seeing it there is anything that can be done differently should we find ourselves in a similar position. That's absolutely right and correct.
What I don't like are the knee-jerk reactions of some people that somehow, instantly, this is all the clubs fault and that they have fucked up royally. That just seems to be some peoples default setting, even when it plainly isn't true
Also, for the record, my comments weren't directed at any one poster in particular - and certainly wasn't singling either of you out. Hope that's clear.
The club get told the pitch is fine, the club believe the pitch to be fine yet somehow they should have let people know the match may not be goin ahead, despite having no way to know that, fair.
The Club would have known that the referee would inspect the pitch and surrounding areas or are you suggesting that D'Urso did so without permission?!
My point is that I and others telephoned to ask if the match was still on and furthermore also specifically mentioned firstly, that other matches within 10 miles of The Valley had been postponed, and secondly that we had a fair distance to travel. We were brusqely told that the match was DEFINITELY ON. NO MENTION WHATSOEVER was made of a pending inspection by the referee.
I would have no problem if something along the lines of "we are confident the match will go ahead but the referee has still to carry out an inspection" had been said. As I posted earlier in the thread it would have then been my (and others)decision whether or not to travel. The phrase DEFINITELY ON implies that the game will be played and the Club got that wrong and gave incomplete information. That is fact ,certainly as far as my telephone conversation was concerned.
See my previous post clarifying my comments, which has obviously crossed with yours.
Nothing wrong with questioning, or complaining when necessary, but if the various individuals who were there, have seen the pitch, etc, think the decision was a crap one then that works for me.
He said something to the effect that fans should not pursue the matter privately and that the only enquiry likely would be against the Club criticising the referee.
In other words there is sweet fa you can do about it!
As explaine by the club they believed the pitch to be playable, added to the fact the ref arrived late I really dont see what you would have liked the club to do differently? Should they have made up a story about a pitch inspection that they knew nothing about!
Surely the only thing the club may have got wrong was the call to deem the pitch OK, then again I suppose that's down to who you trust more, the club or the bellend who couldnt even arrive on time,
I know who gets my vote!
Actually Len, I think he was quite rightly keen to distance himself (and the club, in a semi-official capacity) from any suggestions that fans ring up D'Urso or, heaven forbid, go round his house - as had been the inference when some other people were mentioning the "192.com" website.
An organised fan group on the other hand making a formal approach to the league/referees association, etc, would probably be more appropriate. If we had a joned up supporters club then that would be a start, but we don't. One for the Fans Forum - if such a thing actually exists.
That was my take anyway.
I read that to be in reply to people posting the refs personal home phone number, I can't really disagree with him, nothing good can be got from people doing that
As I said above I would have liked to have been told that the referee had still not inspected the pitch!
The Club would have known that and should have mentioned the fact rather than keep using the phrase DEFINITELY ON.
Fair dos.
On rereading it you could place that interpretation on it too.
It was definitely on until such time as it was called off. My understanding is that not until after 10.30am - after D'Urso's arrivial was there any question of it being called off - everybody who had seen it seems to be of the view that it was definitely playable.
As soon as D'Urso expressed concerns the club put something on the website, which was then updated at least twice - I know because I read the updates.
As soon as the club knew they conveyed the information. Not really sure what else someone on the phone could have been expected to have told you at 10am, or whenever you called.
But hey, it's all water under the bridge now.
Well how would you feel if you'd phoned to be told the match was definitely on by a woman who frankly bordered on the rude?
I love our club and have praised it royally in the past but equally, if it screws up, then I'm entitled to criticise too.
Some of us live a bit further away than you do!
So you are saying that the Club was unaware that D'urso would carry out an inspection?
YES! Exactly, now you're getting it!
Until D'Urso arrived there was no question of the pitch being unplayable, therefore no pitch inspection.
The pitch has already been inspected, in accordance with the rules, and be deemed fit for play.
As I said earlier, the ONLY way the club could have told you more when you called, would have been to make stuff up.
It was a totally reasonable assumption by all to expect the game to go ahead especially given the inspection and feedback by Fridays ref, and for the phone lady not to be aware of developments in the melee of events this morning is understandable, if rather misjudged.
However from all that have gleaned today it is Andrew D'urso who is responsible for ruining the day for so many, most folk at the club were hoping and realistically expecting that we could all enjoy a good day out at the footie...the ref ruined all that, and I am sorry you (and others) have been victim of the friendly fire so to speak.
Well I frankly find it incredible that the Club did not have any inkling at all that the referee would carry out an inspection before the match if what you say is correct.
That leads to the question WHY didn't the Club know D'Urso would inspect the pitch?
Of course I'm being a bit disingenuous here and today's situation was "not the norm", but as I said before, a game is either definitely on or it's definitely off.
Just about everyone who saw it didn't think there would be any problem - except the one man that held all of the power.
But here's a question. What exactly was the "safety issue" for a linesman? He wont be going in for aerial challenges, he wont be getting tackled whilst on the run, he wont be trying to play a reverse pass as a centre half clatters him from behind. So what exactly was the problem - worried that he might slip over and bruise his bot bot - or maybe hurt his pride?
As much as we all love to cast someone as a pantomime villian because it stops us having to think too much, equally there are people that absolutely love to play that role. And I believe that Mr D'Urso is currently appearing as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the "Billericay Players" production of "Robin Hood" this year. (Google it if you don't believe me.)