As I posted on the car share thread, Sunday midday ko wouldn't have been a problem if both teams were from the city the game was being played in. But as one of them is from a city where the earliest train gets in after midday, then that game should have a later ko, particularly when the away supporters of both other games do not have so far to travel.
As Sheff Utd were due to play Rotherham on the Saturday I can't see any logic in SYP refusing to sanction Sheff Utd v Charlton on the Saturday. Or does logic not come into it ?
Quite simply, the police had already made their plans based on it being a Sheffield derby. They must be run by a bunch of delusional- and now disgruntled- Wendies.
Quite simply, the police had already made their plans based on it being a Sheffield derby. They must be run by a bunch of delusional- and now disgruntled- Wendies.
I'm a huge critic of the overbearing influence of the police on fixtures but we see here that the TV coverage is just as big a problem. If we kicked off at even 13.30 it would be so much easier. The FA have to take the blame for this as it is they who negotiate the TV deals for the Cup. If they had an ounce of care for the customers who make the game what it is they would lay down a simple red line in negotiation: Any kick off time must allow for an away team's fans to reach their destination, and return, by scheduled train. If that means time slots overlap, tough.
Of course that rule should apply in the PL too.
Dream on, of course.
In the FA's defense part of their income comes from the gate receipts of Cup games and the fans are just not turning up, and the ticket prices are being reduced as well. They are entitled, in my view, to move some of the kick off times to generate more broadcast income, especially when the motivation to go to games is so poor in the earlier stages. Imagine how much more they would have made if we'd had 15,000 at The Valley for Oxford all paying £25 each.
When so few of the fans can be bothered to go to these games until the latter stages I think we have less credibility when they make it a little less convenient for us.
Incidentally I will go to Sheff Utd if I get a ticket, but I didn't go to any of the other cup games, so I'm exactly the kind of fan that can't justify complaining.
I'm a huge critic of the overbearing influence of the police on fixtures but we see here that the TV coverage is just as big a problem. If we kicked off at even 13.30 it would be so much easier. The FA have to take the blame for this as it is they who negotiate the TV deals for the Cup. If they had an ounce of care for the customers who make the game what it is they would lay down a simple red line in negotiation: Any kick off time must allow for an away team's fans to reach their destination, and return, by scheduled train. If that means time slots overlap, tough.
Of course that rule should apply in the PL too.
Dream on, of course.
In the FA's defense part of their income comes from the gate receipts of Cup games and the fans are just not turning up, and the ticket prices are being reduced as well. They are entitled, in my view, to move some of the kick off times to generate more broadcast income, especially when the motivation to go to games is so poor in the earlier stages. Imagine how much more they would have made if we'd had 15,000 at The Valley for Oxford all paying £25 each.
When so few of the fans can be bothered to go to these games until the latter stages I think we have less credibility when they make it a little less convenient for us.
Incidentally I will go to Sheff Utd if I get a ticket, but I didn't go to any of the other cup games, so I'm exactly the kind of fan that can't justify complaining.
An average price of £25 is unachievable without adult tickets being at least £35, but in any event the 10 per cent pool after expenses and VAT is divided up between all the clubs as well as the FA itself.
And I thought that cup games were given priority?...... as Pico stated above
Where does he say that Ken, re cup priority? I need to have my facts straight if I am to call plod. Which I rather fancy doing...
Certainly the case with lower leagues,( amateur) I thought that was the protocol? at professional league, I thought you had to give priority....... see: To add some clarity - FA Rule 8.14 clearly states that Bishop Auckland's FA Cup game on the 17th August 2013 does take precedence over a Evo-Stick league fixture as for the FA Vase too.
As Sheff Utd were due to play Rotherham on the Saturday I can't see any logic in SYP refusing to sanction Sheff Utd v Charlton on the Saturday. Or does logic not come into it ?
Would expect a bigger crowd for Sheff U v Charlton than Sheff U v Rotherham . Think Rotherham had a reduced allocation, so provided we sell all our tickets, there will be more away fans for our game. The uptake of tickets in home sections will also be greater for the cup game. Having said this, I doubt the increased crowd is sufficient for the game to need to be played on a different day, this is however only my opinion.
Had Barnsley been at home to any other team, then our game may have been ok'ed by the police to played on the Saturday.
I am curious as to the motivation in the past to subsidise, why was it a good thing then and not now? The only reason I can see in this case is to mitigate the ridiculous start time, but would it actually help? It's not the cost its the inconvenience.
We would never have taken the numbers we did to Port Vale, Blackburn or Middlesbrough without free coaches. That was the club's objective. Nottingham Forest was limited capacity anyway, but Charlton were flush at the time and against the PL revenues to come it didn't cost that much. Ditto in the last season in the PL the board wanted to encourage people to go, so there were subsidised coaches to Man City and Everton, among others. But the cost of those was minimal.
And a fat lot of good having 3 or 4 thousand away fans did at places like Boro and Ewood!
I am curious as to the motivation in the past to subsidise, why was it a good thing then and not now? The only reason I can see in this case is to mitigate the ridiculous start time, but would it actually help? It's not the cost its the inconvenience.
We would never have taken the numbers we did to Port Vale, Blackburn or Middlesbrough without free coaches. That was the club's objective. Nottingham Forest was limited capacity anyway, but Charlton were flush at the time and against the PL revenues to come it didn't cost that much. Ditto in the last season in the PL the board wanted to encourage people to go, so there were subsidised coaches to Man City and Everton, among others. But the cost of those was minimal.
And a fat lot of good having 3 or 4 thousand away fans did at places like Boro and Ewood!
It was a lot more than 3-4,000 and it had apparently worked at Port Vale and Nottingham Forest. It also created a lot of goodwill between the club and fans.
Personally, I'm not an advocate of free travel and I agree that the branding around it was a bit cheesy.
However, slagging off what were the good intentions of the then board and claiming - falsely - that we always lose when there is any kind of intervention (just like we "always lose" Football for a Fiver games, which we don't), as seems to be the retrospective view of a minority, not to mention rubbishing the organisation, which was a mammoth exercise shouldered by very few people, seems a bit sad.
There are many people who benefited from what the club did and valued it as what it was, a great gesture that created a memorable event. Why that bothers people who don't share that view, I have no idea.
My point AB is not about the many good club innovations that you were involved in, it was more of a tongue in cheek (as are most of my comments) to the performances of the players at Boro and Blackburn, that's why I specifically mentioned those. A lot of small and new Prem clubs do well away from home. When you first get in the Prem and suddenly your ground is sold out and the newbies are the ones who start all the moaning and groaning players like the relief of playing away and without the expectation of 25K "Home" fans. So when you suddenly have maybe 5K away fans turning up and making a lot of noise instead of the usual 1,000 the players can feel the pressure and freeze, like at Boro and Ewood. It's a bit different these days because there is little expectation home or away!
My point AB is not about the many good club innovations that you were involved in, it was more of a tongue in cheek (as are most of my comments) to the performances of the players at Boro and Blackburn, that's why I specifically mentioned those. A lot of small and new Prem clubs do well away from home. When you first get in the Prem and suddenly your ground is sold out and the newbies are the ones who start all the moaning and groaning players like the relief of playing away and without the expectation of 25K "Home" fans. So when you suddenly have maybe 5K away fans turning up and making a lot of noise instead of the usual 1,000 the players can feel the pressure and freeze, like at Boro and Ewood. It's a bit different these days because there is little expectation home or away!
I wasn't particularly aiming that comment at you, but at some of the wider sneering on here about past "operations" generally, including complaints that some coaches didn't get to Blackburn until just before kick-off. There were 79 coaches that day and the vast majority arrived in good time. The club had TWO staff overseeing 4,000 coach travelling fans. There was f*** all Wendy and I could do on the day to manage arrival times, especially given we had a man having a heart attack on one of the coaches. Yet all we seem to get on here is people complaining about something they didn't pay for. It's hardly surprising that across 79 coaches not everyone had an ideal journey, but you'd think that was the main feature of the day for everyone. Neither is it a revelation that some people don't like travelling on coaches.
We'd been in the Premier League since 2000 when we went to Boro and Blackburn. I'm not really persuaded the numbers made much difference either way, but I don't think the club should be attacked for trying to do something for supporters. If we sell out against Sheff United, it's hardly going to make a difference to the players how the fans got there. The expectation will be the same.
Operation Ewood was, logistically, a remarkable event from what I experienced. The number of coaches was amazing and it is such a shame that the day was ruined by the match.
wasn't Op Ewood the game we won 1-0 when Pitcher scored or am I getting all confused?
No it was the one where we got hammered, 4-0? Well that's the one I went on. 2006/7 season. Thatcher got sent off, and we gave Alan Ball a bloomin good send off. You went, I saw you at a service station stop.
12.00 o'clock kick off is a bloody disgrace. I am going to have to get up early on Sunday, probably 10.00ish be down the club for Eleven. Celebrate until five ish home for Sunday roast sleep till nine Mr Selfridge until ten then bed all because of that silly kick off time. And will have sobered up by the time I start work at Eight on Monday. What makes it worse is that I can then look forward to paying out over two ton for semi final tickets. Roland had better not even dream of putting up season ticket prices.
Comments
On that basis there are grounds for legitimate complaint, both to the FA and to South Yorkshire Police
When so few of the fans can be bothered to go to these games until the latter stages I think we have less credibility when they make it a little less convenient for us.
Incidentally I will go to Sheff Utd if I get a ticket, but I didn't go to any of the other cup games, so I'm exactly the kind of fan that can't justify complaining.
see: To add some clarity - FA Rule 8.14 clearly states that Bishop Auckland's FA Cup game on the 17th August 2013 does take precedence over a Evo-Stick league fixture as for the FA Vase too.
Had Barnsley been at home to any other team, then our game may have been ok'ed by the police to played on the Saturday.
Personally, I'm not an advocate of free travel and I agree that the branding around it was a bit cheesy.
However, slagging off what were the good intentions of the then board and claiming - falsely - that we always lose when there is any kind of intervention (just like we "always lose" Football for a Fiver games, which we don't), as seems to be the retrospective view of a minority, not to mention rubbishing the organisation, which was a mammoth exercise shouldered by very few people, seems a bit sad.
There are many people who benefited from what the club did and valued it as what it was, a great gesture that created a memorable event. Why that bothers people who don't share that view, I have no idea.
A lot of small and new Prem clubs do well away from home. When you first get in the Prem and suddenly your ground is sold out and the newbies are the ones who start all the moaning and groaning players like the relief of playing away and without the expectation of 25K "Home" fans. So when you suddenly have maybe 5K away fans turning up and making a lot of noise instead of the usual 1,000 the players can feel the pressure and freeze, like at Boro and Ewood.
It's a bit different these days because there is little expectation home or away!
We'd been in the Premier League since 2000 when we went to Boro and Blackburn. I'm not really persuaded the numbers made much difference either way, but I don't think the club should be attacked for trying to do something for supporters. If we sell out against Sheff United, it's hardly going to make a difference to the players how the fans got there. The expectation will be the same.
Pitcher got his famous "Dalglish" 'phone call from Sweaty Balmer the next day.
What makes it worse is that I can then look forward to paying out over two ton for semi final tickets. Roland had better not even dream of putting up season ticket prices.