Response from the club re Behavioural Contracts
Comments
-
They reference a video of his behaviour which he saw and felt the need to apologise for.Stu_of_Kunming said: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.
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.
1 -
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.0 -
Sorry, but looking at the letter issued (and the Club have not denied it's accuracy, the content of the statement does not reflect that letter.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
The letter stated that the regime had identified that certain comments placed on social media websites by yourself have been not particularly constructive. Whilst we recognize that everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion it is not helpful when inflammatory comments are posted on such websites. The recipient was then told 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 or people representing the club in the future on any social media websites, or carrying out any other form of behavior that could be deemed to be of an anti-social nature.
If the situation had been as described in the statement, I cannot see a circumstance where that would not be mentioned in the letter of 2nd August.
The fact that it was not would incline me to believe, as a naturally suspicious individual, that the statement has been "sexed up", and is likely to be the truth in the same way as the letter was grammatically correct.5 -
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:So how does that statement relate to the letter, the letter is dated before the Bury game!
0 -
Because they were being bullied and indirectly threatened and could not probably think of their rights etc. on the spot.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.0 -
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.
4 -
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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.
They clearly said the guy will only get the season ticket if he hums to the tune they want him to.
"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"
12 -
I think what's key here though is context. Put me in a sterile meeting room with a couple of official looking folks and make us all sit back and watch me shout and swear at a football match and I'd probably feel pretty humiliated and apologise. Wouldn't mean I'd necessarily done anything wrong but they have taken the behaviour into a different context.Swisdom said:
They reference a video of his behaviour which he saw and felt the need to apologise for.Stu_of_Kunming said: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.
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.
Secondly, if this story was coming out of a well run club, it would still remain a bit of a non-event. Unfortunately, our club seems intent on going to war with its own fans, in that context, this becomes a story.7 -
this is social media right ???
well i think
Roland is a deluded cunt
Meire is a bollock sucking piss poor excuse for a CEO who is out of her depth and is also a cunt
Tony Cahones your also a cunt with totally no bollox
Meire is also an ageist but still a cunt
In 50 years of following this club and an ex SHAREHOLDER yes Katy a shareholder---i can honstly say that i have never seen a bunch of spineless jelly fish cunts that are hell ent in running this club into the dirt
I hope you take offence to me calling you cunts its there to offend you. One day hopefully not to far away your reckoning will happen---it wont be the respectable members of CARD but someone from the darkside
13 -
The video was recorded at the Bury game, the Bury game happened after the letter was sent.Swisdom said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:So how does that statement relate to the letter, the letter is dated before the Bury game!
The letter was clearly not sent as a result of the video, but rather social media postings, as the club said.
The letter did not state he had to agree not to swear at games, it clearly made a point about not being critical of the club, over the internet.
The recent club statement has little to do with the letter they sent, the fact they he may have apologised for something somewhat unrelated is also irrelevant.
8 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.WSS said:
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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"
0 -
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, your entire post is based on the club statement.Swisdom said:
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.10 -
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.
4 -
So you agree that posting inflammatory remarks about the club, is enough to be refused a season ticket? Really?Swisdom said:
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.WSS said:
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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"5 -
Presumably he had already paid for his ST, they were holding it ransom subject to the ridiculous conditions they wanted him to agree to. For sure he could've asked for a refund but why should he?Swisdom said:
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.WSS said:
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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"
6 -
“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”5 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:
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.Swisdom said:
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.
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.
3 -
No. But that apparently wasn't the case.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So you agree that posting inflammatory remarks about the club, is enough to be refused a season ticket? Really?Swisdom said:
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.WSS said:
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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"
So do you agree that posting inflammatory and abusive remarks about an individual you employ, is acceptable?
0 -
5 minutes too long?Swisdom said:Stu_of_Kunming said:
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.Swisdom said:
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.
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.3 -
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 !2 -
Sponsored links:
-
It clearly was the case, read the letter, it's right there in plain English.Swisdom said:
No. But that apparently wasn't the case.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So you agree that posting inflammatory remarks about the club, is enough to be refused a season ticket? Really?Swisdom said:
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.WSS said:
Mate - it doesn't relate to the letter sent.Swisdom said:
And I quoteWSS said:
But that's not true is it? It wasn't about apologising for actions at all. He was told that he would only receive his season ticket if he signed a contract saying that he would not say anything derogatory or inflammatory in the future.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.
The club's statement does not relate to the words in the letter sent.
The club also discussed the video footage, after which the individual apologised on several occasions for his behaviour and assured the club that he would not continue to engage in an abusive manner.
He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust who witnessed the individual’s apology.
The meeting ended amicably and, as he appeared sincere in his apology, the club handed the individual his 2016/17 season ticket and he was not asked to sign an Agreed Behavioural Contract.
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"
So do you agree that posting inflammatory and abusive remarks about an individual you employ, is acceptable?
What is the relevance to this thread? Are you suggesting that the lad in question employed CAFC?0 -
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...0 -
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?Swisdom said:Stu_of_Kunming said:
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.Swisdom said:
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.
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.
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?
Oh, and no sensible person will kick Cliff in the bollocks. If you are in business then you know that the behaviour and judgement of employees is only as good as that of its leadership.
6 -
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.16 -
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)PragueAddick said:
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?Swisdom said:Stu_of_Kunming said:
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.Swisdom said:
Fuck all to do with anything. Again. Change the recordcharltonbob said:
Who accepts money from the clubSwisdom said:
I'm not sure who you think I am - but you are wrong. I'm just a fantwiggyaddick said:
Did you order the video footage to be taken like you did behind the west stand after Boro??Swisdom said:
I haven't seen the tweets - or seen the video footage they are talking about but it was obviously suitably vitriolic they felt the need to ask him to stop. Which he agreed to do and apologised. And everyone could and should have just got on with their lives.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Blown out of proportion? Are you kidding me, they are trying to take away the blokes legal right to express himself, it's bollocks.Swisdom said:http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/charlton-statement-3243379.aspx
I don't suppose this will get the same level of social media coverage but at least they have responded swiftly to something. In truth it shouldn't have ever got into the public eye since it was a matter between an individual and the club and was, it sees, resolved.
I think this is hugely damaging for the club and, again, has got blown way out of proportion - the truth is much less glamourous than the letter would have people believe.
I hope the person who got the letter is proud of themself though - they come out of it looking like a wonderful person....
Have you seen the tweets in question? They may not make him look wonderful, but it makes the club look like the bullying fuckwits they are. Your post just makes you look a bit of a bellend.
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.
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?
Maybe it was "Quentin" and maybe not. I don't know.
0 -
I don't think it's right and I abhor bullying. The club felt they had reason to want to discuss it though.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.
0 -
It's in The Guardian so must be true
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media0 -
Of it was sexist, racist, homophobic etc then of course. But it wasn't.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.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.
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.1 -
Careful . You will upset you know who ;-)LenGlover said:It's in The Guardian so must be true
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media1 -
My problems are many fold with this letter
1 - The club has zero right to breach Article 10 of the HRA, so freedom of expression is beyond the remit of the club
2 - If they had issues on social media, report it to Twitter or Facebook to take action, if they have, and both organisations have told them to do one, then this is even more evidence of over reacting.
3 - The club has ambushed the supporter at the meeting with the video, of supposed bad behaviour. You don't call someone in, and then spring something on them, unless your position is so weak, that surprise is all you have.
The sense of paranoia at the Valley is unreal, I won't be back there for a long time, not even picking up a freebie via the SE7 scheme will tempt me back.21
