Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Response from the club re Behavioural Contracts

24

Comments

  • The video that was recorded after the letter was sent? That video?

    Have you even read the letter?

    You really need to have a little independent thought, don't just believe what the club say, they have a history for this sort of thing.

    They reference a video of his behaviour which he saw and felt the need to apologise for.

    It's not just blind belief of the club - they felt they had evidence, asked him to discuss - which he did - and he apologised.

    If he didn't and the website is incorrect then I am sure the individual would have said something by now.

    Nobody comes out of this story covered in glory but the media attention this has got is massively skewed.
  • Swisdom said:

    I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fan
    Who accepts money from the club
  • So how does that statement relate to the letter, the letter is dated before the Bury game!

    I don't get the point you are making. The incidents presumably happened last season. The guy has requested a season ticket and the club wanted to discuss.
  • Swisdom said:

    I'm not praising the club - they had to respond because it was all getting out of hand.

    The person in question obviously had to answer for their behaviour, did so, apologised and it all ended amicably. That should have been the end of it.

    Because they were being bullied and indirectly threatened and could not probably think of their rights etc. on the spot.
  • Who accepts money from the club
    Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the record

  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2016
    WSS said:

    Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.

    It doesn't mention anything about having to come in to discuss past actions and having to apologise for them. They don't even say that what happened broke any rules. The letter is a threat. A scare tactic.

    They're shitbags and they know it hence the backpedalling in the statement to paint "Quentin" as the bad guy. They took a chance and it backfired.

    "I need to advise you that the granting of your season ticket will be 'conditional' and subject to you signing an 'Agreed Behavioral Contract' (ABC) which will request that you refrain from posting derogatory or inflammatory comments regarding the Club"

    He didn't have to attend the meeting. He could just turn up every week and buy a ticket. Of course it's a threat - because in their eyes his behaviour was unacceptable.

  • He didn't have to attend the meeting. He could just turn up every week and buy a ticket. Of course it's a threat - because in their eyes his behaviour was unacceptable.

    Let me try and think why he attended the meeting.

    This is a tough one.

  • It clearly clouds your judgment, you are taking the sides of the club, whilst, by your own admission having seen almost NONE of the evidence, you entire post is based on the club statement.


    I've read the letter which is dated before the Bury game. This relates to incidents before the Bury game. I was told the "shit was going to hit the fan" whilst I was on the train to Bury so I know the behaviour does NOT solely relate to incidents at the Bury game.

    Whether my company are working for CAFC, CACT or EMMAUS is irrelevant. My thoughts are my own and my judgement is not being clouded by anything. The club are far from perfect right now but Cliff doesn't need to be kicked in the bollocks just yet - he's been part of the club for about 5 minutes.

  • So you agree that posting inflammatory remarks about the club, is enough to be refused a season ticket? Really?
    No. But that apparently wasn't the case.

    So do you agree that posting inflammatory and abusive remarks about an individual you employ, is acceptable?
  • Swisdom said:



    I've read the letter which is dated before the Bury game. This relates to incidents before the Bury game. I was told the "shit was going to hit the fan" whilst I was on the train to Bury so I know the behaviour does NOT solely relate to incidents at the Bury game.

    Whether my company are working for CAFC, CACT or EMMAUS is irrelevant. My thoughts are my own and my judgement is not being clouded by anything. The club are far from perfect right now but Cliff doesn't need to be kicked in the bollocks just yet - he's been part of the club for about 5 minutes.

    5 minutes too long?
  • edited August 2016




    I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fan

    Who accepts money from the club

    Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the record



    Apologies if you don't work for the club ...............................................................









    but you do so my statement is true. That record is still spinning !
  • Sponsored links:


  • Swisdom said:

    No. But that apparently wasn't the case.

    So do you agree that posting inflammatory and abusive remarks about an individual you employ, is acceptable?
    It clearly was the case, read the letter, it's right there in plain English.

    What is the relevance to this thread? Are you suggesting that the lad in question employed CAFC?
  • Telegraph article seems to suggest the Club's truth is different from that of the supporter http://telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/12/charlton-athletic-fan-can-only-get-season-ticket-if-he-signs-beh/.

    Just saying...
  • That's an interesting statement. I am not sure what to understand from it. Could you clarify? Was it a fan, predicting an uptick in protests with a less generally acceptable tone? Or was it (as is more usual from you) some kind of ITK comment based on your contacts within the club?

    If the latter, I think you owe it to your fellow fans to explain what kind of shit the club are planning to hit the fan, and what basis it has for throwing said shit around on its customers?
    Ooh - I didn't read it that way. To be clear - a fan said he had heard something that he was going to go to the press with and that the shit was going to hit the fan. (in this case "fan" refers to the figure of speech)

    Maybe it was "Quentin" and maybe not. I don't know.

  • edited August 2016
    Fiiiiiish said:

    This lad has been involved with CAFC longer than those who tried to bully him and will continue to be involved after they have gone away. How any "fan" can see it is ok to hold a fan to ransom as a bully, is beyond me.

    If I go to the game on Saturday, see Rojo put in another crap performance and swear at him, then should i expect to be marched up to the witches castle and told off? No, bollocks. Should any fan across this country expect that? No, why would they?!

    Football fans have opinions, they include opinions on a poisonous owner who is bringing the club to the gutter. If you don't like how the fans perceive you, then you have probably engaged in the wrong sport/club and should learn your lesson and leave.

    The day football fans are blackmailed or bullied into not feeling free to justify their opinion is when the sport is dead.

    I don't think it's right and I abhor bullying. The club felt they had reason to want to discuss it though.

  • Swisdom said:

    I don't think it's right and I abhor bullying. The club felt they had reason to want to discuss it though.

    Of it was sexist, racist, homophobic etc then of course. But it wasn't.

    They targetted the guy, have they targetted all the other people who slate KM, RD and the running of the club on twitter and facebook? No, because they sent 1 letter.
  • LenGlover said:
    Careful . You will upset you know who ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!