|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 24, 2015 16:08:59 GMT
So was it a simple case of not being invited or actually banned from attending? As far as the loan why bring that up again when it's already been discussed at length on the forums?
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Feb 24, 2015 16:43:03 GMT
However, one would surely assume, that a decision to personally exclude somebody from an event was indeed a personal matter? It's all good and well saying that it's a club event, but if you own the club, that's still ultimately your decision. So let me get this right. You are saying that even if it is a club event that the Chairman can ban who he wants on a personal basis as he owns the club and he has no responsibility for the wider reputation of the club? i.e. it is his personal fiefdom to do with what he wants, effectively its nothing to do with anyone else, even the fans.... So if he wants to ban you from the club or club events for something you posted on this forum he should be able to do that without referring to the BoD, justifying why he is banning you or taking account of the wider impact on the reputation of the club? |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Feb 24, 2015 16:50:06 GMT
So was it a simple case of not being invited or actually banned from attending? As far as the loan why bring that up again when it's already been discussed at length on the forums? As the OP stated "It has now been confirmed by the Dunford family (Peter Dunford) that they were told their presence was not welcome at the recent valentines ball." I guess that means they were de facto banned . Its a forum where people can ask questions. Doesn't mean to say they are mischief making. Just asking questions, BrianSS has responded so it looks like it works. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Feb 24, 2015 16:50:08 GMT
However, one would surely assume, that a decision to personally exclude somebody from an event was indeed a personal matter? It's all good and well saying that it's a club event, but if you own the club, that's still ultimately your decision. So let me get this right. You are saying that even if it is a club event that the Chairman can ban who he wants on a personal basis as he owns the club and he has no responsibility for the wider reputation of the club? i.e. it is his personal fiefdom to do with what he wants, effectively its nothing to do with anyone else, even the fans.... So if he wants to ban you from the club or club events for something you posted on this forum he should be able to do that without referring to the BoD, justifying why he is banning you or taking account of the wider impact on the reputation of the club? I never said he shouldn't have to refer to the BoD (I should have mentioned that). But ultimately yes, in the real world that is what happens! Of course you'd hope that if he were to do so, he'd have good reason to - but that's my point; perhaps he has? Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Feb 24, 2015 18:03:09 GMT
This is just stirring old porridge.
We're about to go top of the league ( I hope) maybe this coukd wait or better even ask him yourself !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 18:31:13 GMT
Hi Not an excuse but it would be wrong of me to discuss financial implications of the club before this has been discussed at the AGM next , Tuesday. For those who are not shareholders,there is always an open session afterwards where all fans can come in and ask questions. As expected BSS has given more or less exactly the answer that was given for the OP's earlier thread regarding Financial Restructuring. How many times does he have to say that 'he can't discuss the clubs financial implications' |
|
