Curzon Boycott

mickthered · 13th December 2007, 12:44

Looks like a boycott of the game is being organised

The game has been moved back to a lunch time KO so that the game can be shown live on internet tv

Quote:

When our club representatives discussed the new NPL TV deal with League officials over the summer we received assurances that no game would be moved for TV without the agreement of both participating clubs. The League also circulated all clubs in November with reassurances that Saturday games would not be televised live.

Looks like the league have now gone back on what they said

In a statement issued by the board none of them will be in attendance at the game and it also looks like there will be plenty of others also missing the game

ladybarnred · 13th December 2007, 14:28

FCUM!
http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/news0082f...erboycott.html

Brad · 22nd December 2007, 02:38

Fucking hell, it's one endlessly power trip...

The game would have been frozen off anyway, all of this is needless

northroad1878 · 24th December 2007, 11:28

Balls, Brad. Grow some. Many MUFC fans have always stood up for ourselves.

Brad · 24th December 2007, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by northroad1878

Balls, Brad. Grow some. Many MUFC fans have always stood up for ourselves.

You stood up against the might of TV Channel In-Vision, trying to get people to actually watch some lower non-league football. Bravo

All over a couple of hours moved kick off time. The game they suggest you go to instead, the reserves, kicks off at 2pm!!! You gunna boycott that one too?

UnitedRoadRed · 24th December 2007, 18:32

It's about principles Brad, something the MUFC board seemed devoid of when they bent over and received Glazer.

I'm guessing you weren't a member of Shareholders United, didn't march down Sir Matt Busby Way and were genuinely pleased with the Glazers taking over?

Brad · 24th December 2007, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnitedRoadRed

It's about principles Brad, something the MUFC board seemed devoid of when they bent over and received Glazer.

I'm guessing you weren't a member of Shareholders United, didn't march down Sir Matt Busby Way and were genuinely pleased with the Glazers taking over?

The principle of what exactly? Local derby, perhaps some supporters can't get to the game to see it, broadcast on the internet via a small media outlet. It has to be moved because we can't show games at 3pm in this country... a 2 hour difference. So you boycott the game, and are all advised to go watch the reserves instead, who kick off at 2pm. Don't you see the farce of this?

“We all recognise that TV has a major part to play in the game of football, but the balance has swung way too far in the TV companies favour" is the quote. So if this is recognised, where precisely do we move the games too? 12.45 gives fans plenty of time to get home, and it's still on a Saturday

As it goes, I wasn't a member of Shareholders United at the time, no. I am now though. Genuinely pleased? That how you've pigeon holed me eh because I dare to question the great FCUM view of the world? Pathetic

mickthered · 24th December 2007, 18:57

Think you will find that there is no problem with games being moved for the usual police grounds or having to move games etc

Difference here is that the game has been moved against the wishes of both clubs just to try and make someone a bit richer The clubs were told no Saturday games would be moved

Looks like invision are trying to get in a position where they can show live football at three O'clock

Said they would help FCUMTV with Channel M nothing materialised and channel M has now stopped the coverage citing problems with the league now guess who is selling rights to Channel M yes invision

Seems that invision have more power then the league and are now trying to control it
It should have been left to the league to issue statements but it seems the only people doing this are invision and are making it up as they go along

As for the ressies at two no problem there as you will find out that all games in that league ko at two and always have done

UnitedRoadRed · 24th December 2007, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Cantona

The principle of what exactly? Local derby, perhaps some supporters can't get to the game to see it, broadcast on the internet via a small media outlet. It has to be moved because we can't show games at 3pm in this country... a 2 hour difference. So you boycott the game, and are all advised to go watch the reserves instead, who kick off at 2pm. Don't you see the farce of this?

“We all recognise that TV has a major part to play in the game of football, but the balance has swung way too far in the TV companies favour" is the quote. So if this is recognised, where precisely do we move the games too? 12.45 gives fans plenty of time to get home, and it's still on a Saturday

As it goes, I wasn't a member of Shareholders United at the time, no. I am now though. Genuinely pleased? That how you've pigeon holed me eh because I dare to question the great FCUM view of the world? Pathetic

You can't be a member of SU now, it's MUST now.
No, I don't pigeonhole you because of that, I pigeonhole you as a numpty for not understanding the point of the FCUM demo, ergo I wouldn't expect you to understand the objection to the Glazer takeover.

A bit pathetic yourself really for assuming too much.

Brad · 24th December 2007, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnitedRoadRed

You can't be a member of SU now, it's MUST now.
No, I don't pigeonhole you because of that, I pigeonhole you as a numpty for not understanding the point of the FCUM demo, ergo I wouldn't expect you to understand the objection to the Glazer takeover.

A bit pathetic yourself really for assuming too much.

Well done clever clogs, yes it is MUST. Is essentially the same organisation, there are no shares to hold are there

And you underestimate me, I fully understand the point of the demo, I just think it's ridiculous

UnitedRoadRed · 25th December 2007, 00:33

It's about the fundamentals of a league constitution.
Even a local pool league would look to encourage the game to be played and show courtesy to two pubs involved in fixture issues.

Shane Bluck · 26th December 2007, 00:34

FC cannot be bossed about, as the fans own the club...

I love that fact.

ladybarnred · 27th December 2007, 10:14

If Curzon had said "We need a 1pm kick off because we've had to move ground" or the dibble said "We need a 1pm kick off because of manning or safety concerns" no problem.

But 1pm because of an internet TV company?!!!??!? WTF! Get to fuck!

As for the ressies. The fans thought up going there and they always kick off at 2pm.

The only irony I see is someone using joining MUST AFTER the Glazer takeover as a badge of honour to back up a piss weak argument.

Brad · 27th December 2007, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladybarnred

The only irony I see is someone using joining MUST AFTER the Glazer takeover as a badge of honour to back up a piss weak argument.

I wasn't using it as a badge of honour, and my arguement isn't piss weak

And incidently, I know a couple of devout FCUM supporters who think this boycott is a load of bollocks too. It damages Curzon, and people who may actually want to watch this level of grass roots football who can't get to the game. No-one seems to be bothered about the moving of the game to a different time, just because it's done for TV. If they move it to Sunday at 8pm say, fair enough. But a 1pm Sat KO puts no-one out, and it's extremely rare you're moved from 3pm anyway. What are you gunna do if you progress further up the ladder, boycott league games? They'll chuck you out. But of course, you'll have your 'principles' so it's all ok eh

ladybarnred · 27th December 2007, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Cantona

you'll have your 'principles' so it's all ok eh

yep!.... got it in one!

mickthered · 27th December 2007, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Cantona

I wasn't using it as a badge of honour, and my arguement isn't piss weak

And incidently, I know a couple of devout FCUM supporters who think this boycott is a load of bollocks too. It damages Curzon, and people who may actually want to watch this level of grass roots football who can't get to the game. No-one seems to be bothered about the moving of the game to a different time, just because it's done for TV. If they move it to Sunday at 8pm say, fair enough. But a 1pm Sat KO puts no-one out, and it's extremely rare you're moved from 3pm anyway. What are you gunna do if you progress further up the ladder, boycott league games? They'll chuck you out. But of course, you'll have your 'principles' so it's all ok eh

How does it damage Curzon?

Brad · 28th December 2007, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthered

How does it damage Curzon?

It's their home game and you're telling your supporters not to attend, they lose their gate receipts no?

I would have thought this would have been an easy and immediate concept to understand. It doesn't suprise me however that it isn't...

northroad1878 · 28th December 2007, 02:33

What's so hard to understand here, Brad? Moving games for TV is totally at the heart of what the majority of FCers hate about modern football. And that's before the issue of broken promises.

And with respect to Curzon, we don't owe them a living, good club as they are. And they've had an FC windfall already anyway.

Stop arguing the toss.

Frosty · 28th December 2007, 03:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by northroad1878

What's so hard to understand here, Brad? Moving games for TV is totally at the heart of what the majority of FCers hate about modern football. And that's before the issue of broken promises.

That's what most football fans hate about the modern game too.

Brad · 28th December 2007, 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by northroad1878

What's so hard to understand here, Brad? Moving games for TV is totally at the heart of what the majority of FCers hate about modern football. And that's before the issue of broken promises.

And with respect to Curzon, we don't owe them a living, good club as they are. And they've had an FC windfall already anyway.

Stop arguing the toss.

You don't owe them a living, but you are doing them out of a ruputed £10,000 which they should otherwise be recieving. That's a bloody fortune for a Unibond first division North side, I'm sure you'll agree

Presumably FCUM supporters want to see games viewable at 3pm in England, despite the damage that may do to attendences down the football league ladder then?

Moving games to ridiculous times that put supporters completely out, I don't like either. But this is ridiculous. And there are FCUM supporters who feel exactly the same way as me on this, so telling me I'm arguing the toss or talking complete garbage is a bit patronising to them frankly

fredthered · 28th December 2007, 06:16

Well I am going to interject here.

Firstly, though I disagree with moving the time of the kick off just for the internet company, I think the only people who will suffer will be Curzon Ashton.

What precisely are the internet company going to lose ? If anything they are going to gain because more FC United fans will be watching the game on the net, as opposed to being there in the flesh.

I agree a strong protest should be made, but this is not the way to do it. We've had people arguing the toss about logos for Unibond on the shirt, now its "we dont like the way the TV companies run the league".

FC need to get into the real world here. They CHOSE to enter the league, in fact it was a target set BY THE CLUB that they should get there. That means we go in on their terms, not ours. Who the hell are we to walk in and decide how they run their league or try and alter the way they organise their TV schedule. If we didnt want any of this ( which we knew could happen ) then why the hell did the board set Margy a target of putting us in the position whereby our principles could / would be compromised.

If the fans really do want to make a protest and make a visible gesture of defiance then the best thing would be to be there en masse with the banners which we are renowned for, and let the whole world see it. Sing songs with so many swear words in them the TV company wont dare ever show an FC United game again.

I am all for standing up for our rights, but not when WE put ourselves in the position where they could be abused.

I am afraid I do have to agree with Brad on this one. This boycott is ill conceived, badly planned and most of all not the way to get the message across. All it will do is give those that hate FC a superb chance to say "hey we told you you're support was fading".

We should be encouraging people to be there so they ARENT watching it on the net and also so that we can show the world for the first time what a cracking support we have.

This internet company dont give a toss how many FC fans dont turn up. Remember this is a league where they may get at best 200 people for a game. They are used to seeing empty stands and terraces. Whos going to tell any difference between FC United v Curzon Ashton and a game between Newcastle Blue Star v Radcliffe Borough when the stands are empty...

mickthered · 28th December 2007, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

Well I am going to interject here.

Firstly, though I disagree with moving the time of the kick off just for the internet company, I think the only people who will suffer will be Curzon Ashton.

What precisely are the internet company going to lose ? If anything they are going to gain because more FC United fans will be watching the game on the net, as opposed to being there in the flesh.

I agree a strong protest should be made, but this is not the way to do it. We've had people arguing the toss about logos for Unibond on the shirt, now its "we don't like the way the TV companies run the league".

FC need to get into the real world here. They CHOSE to enter the league, in fact it was a target set BY THE CLUB that they should get there. That means we go in on their terms, not ours. Who the hell are we to walk in and decide how they run their league or try and alter the way they organise their TV schedule. If we didn't want any of this ( which we knew could happen ) then why the hell did the board set Margy a target of putting us in the position whereby our principles could / would be compromised.

If the fans really do want to make a protest and make a visible gesture of defiance then the best thing would be to be there en masse with the banners which we are renowned for, and let the whole world see it. Sing songs with so many swear words in them the TV company wont dare ever show an FC United game again.

I am all for standing up for our rights, but not when WE put ourselves in the position where they could be abused.

I am afraid I do have to agree with Brad on this one. This boycott is ill conceived, badly planned and most of all not the way to get the message across. All it will do is give those that hate FC a superb chance to say "hey we told you you're support was fading".

We should be encouraging people to be there so they ARENT watching it on the net and also so that we can show the world for the first time what a cracking support we have.

This internet company dont give a toss how many FC fans dont turn up. Remember this is a league where they may get at best 200 people for a game. They are used to seeing empty stands and terraces. Whos going to tell any difference between FC United v Curzon Ashton and a game between Newcastle Blue Star v Radcliffe Borough when the stands are empty...

I don't know if you have read up on this Fred but this time there is a lot more to this then just moving the game
The club was told that no Saturday 3pm games would be down for a live showing now the league and spinvision have gone against the wishes of BOTH clubs and said the game will be shown live

Both FC and Curzon have said they don't want the game shown live

Spinvision claimed to be helping fcumtv showing games on channel it turned out that they could do nothing now spinvision is showing games on channel M
Looks like they are after trying to break the agreement about showing live football at 3 and using the unibond league as some sort of test case claiming it is low enough down the level not to make any difference

Looking at the statements coming out from spinvision it seems they are running the league and not unibond
As you know other competitions have gone to a vote when it has been known that games could be moved for TV But this time the clubs have been told one thing then the goalposts have been moved without consultation and also against the wishes of of other clubs

ladybarnred · 28th December 2007, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Cantona

You don't owe them a living, but you are doing them out of a ruputed £10,000 which they should otherwise be recieving. That's a bloody fortune for a Unibond first division North side, I'm sure you'll

aaaaaaaawwww! my heart bleeds for them. What with the highest wage bill in the Unibond to pay and a nice new ground off Tameside council.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

I am afraid I do have to agree with Brad on this one. This boycott is ill conceived, badly planned and most of all not the way to get the message across. All it will do is give those that hate FC a superb chance to say "hey we told you you're support was fading".

It's well conceived, and it will be well executed. If we get ANY column inches for having 1,000 fans at a Step 8 game and fuck all at Curzon our point will be made. I can't see "Pissed up Mancs sing loads at Curzon" making the front page.

As for giving our small number of very vocal detractors ammunition (a) fuck 'em (b) they'll do it anyway (c) fuck 'em again. The day I'm arsed about the ramblings of ginger scousers, illiterate coke head cripples and Salford Paedophiles, I'll curl my toes up.

ladybarnred · 28th December 2007, 11:20

nail on head, mick

northroad1878 · 28th December 2007, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

That's what most football fans hate about the modern game too.

It's time they did something then. We are on our fairly small scale.

The slanging match between club, league and media tossers has been unseemly and comes across as rather silly, but do I give two fucks what some dickheads who don't like FC in the first place think? I don't think so. (Comment not aimed at Frosty, btw).

If you don't get FC then you won't get the idea of a boycott. It's up to you if you pay - you don't have to.

I support the club's stance 100%. It's not a black and white issue given that we have enjoyed spreading the financial love around the lower leagues, but we aren't responsible for Curzon or anyone else.

UnitedRoadRed · 28th December 2007, 21:03

Did Unibond TV exist before this season?
If so, had anybody heard of it?

if not, perhaps it's something to do with FC United boosting the profile of football at this level - who had heard of Blackpool Mechanics, Castleton Gabriels et al until a couple of years ago. Other lower league fans moan about FC, but without FC, nobody would have heard of them. Curzon have already had decent money directly and indirectly from FC, with being in the NW Counties with them last season.

However, what FC do appear to have overlooked is Unibond League Rule 8.13 which states "The Competition Secretary reserves the right to amend scheduled fixtures and kick-off times to meet television requirements as necessary." Given that FC signed up to the Unibond League, did they think that this rule could be waivered because they are comparatively Johnny Big Bollocks to the rest in the Unibond?

To solely blame the league in this is like using ignorance as a defence; it isn't a defence and is FC's fault if they didn't appreciate or question the implications of Rule 8.13 - what did they think it meant anyway?

Brad · 28th December 2007, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnitedRoadRed

Did Unibond TV exist before this season?
If so, had anybody heard of it?

if not, perhaps it's something to do with FC United boosting the profile of football at this level - who had heard of Blackpool Mechanics, Castleton Gabriels et al until a couple of years ago. Other lower league fans moan about FC, but without FC, nobody would have heard of them. Curzon have already had decent money directly and indirectly from FC, with being in the NW Counties with them last season.

However, what FC do appear to have overlooked is Unibond League Rule 8.13 which states "The Competition Secretary reserves the right to amend scheduled fixtures and kick-off times to meet television requirements as necessary." Given that FC signed up to the Unibond League, did they think that this rule could be waivered because they are comparatively Johnny Big Bollocks to the rest in the Unibond?

To solely blame the league in this is like using ignorance as a defence; it isn't a defence and is FC's fault if they didn't appreciate or question the implications of Rule 8.13 - what did they think it meant anyway?

That's pretty patronising to those w

13th December 2007, 14:28	#2 (permalink)
ladybarnred Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Glazer wherever you be, You bought Old Trafford, but you can't buy me, I said "Not for sale" and I meant just that, you can't buy me you greedy twat! Posts: 529	FCUM! http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/news0082f...erboycott.html

22nd December 2007, 02:38	#3 (permalink)
Brad GTBTB Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Red Republik Posts: 20,977	Fucking hell, it's one endlessly power trip... The game would have been frozen off anyway, all of this is needless

24th December 2007, 11:28	#4 (permalink)
northroad1878 A bit of a brute Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: A beaut of a Brit Posts: 1,669	Balls, Brad. Grow some. Many MUFC fans have always stood up for ourselves.

24th December 2007, 18:32	#6 (permalink)
UnitedRoadRed Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,350	It's about principles Brad, something the MUFC board seemed devoid of when they bent over and received Glazer. I'm guessing you weren't a member of Shareholders United, didn't march down Sir Matt Busby Way and were genuinely pleased with the Glazers taking over?

24th December 2007, 18:57	#8 (permalink)
mickthered First Team Sub Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,743	Think you will find that there is no problem with games being moved for the usual police grounds or having to move games etc Difference here is that the game has been moved against the wishes of both clubs just to try and make someone a bit richer The clubs were told no Saturday games would be moved Looks like invision are trying to get in a position where they can show live football at three O'clock Said they would help FCUMTV with Channel M nothing materialised and channel M has now stopped the coverage citing problems with the league now guess who is selling rights to Channel M yes invision Seems that invision have more power then the league and are now trying to control it It should have been left to the league to issue statements but it seems the only people doing this are invision and are making it up as they go along As for the ressies at two no problem there as you will find out that all games in that league ko at two and always have done

25th December 2007, 00:33	#11 (permalink)
UnitedRoadRed Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,350	It's about the fundamentals of a league constitution. Even a local pool league would look to encourage the game to be played and show courtesy to two pubs involved in fixture issues.

26th December 2007, 00:34	#12 (permalink)
Shane Bluck Chef and honorary fat bloke in the Warrington Gimp Collective Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Quietly going about my business. Posts: 16,650	FC cannot be bossed about, as the fans own the club... I love that fact.

27th December 2007, 10:14	#13 (permalink)
ladybarnred Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Glazer wherever you be, You bought Old Trafford, but you can't buy me, I said "Not for sale" and I meant just that, you can't buy me you greedy twat! Posts: 529	If Curzon had said "We need a 1pm kick off because we've had to move ground" or the dibble said "We need a 1pm kick off because of manning or safety concerns" no problem. But 1pm because of an internet TV company?!!!??!? WTF! Get to fuck! As for the ressies. The fans thought up going there and they always kick off at 2pm. The only irony I see is someone using joining MUST AFTER the Glazer takeover as a badge of honour to back up a piss weak argument.

28th December 2007, 02:33	#18 (permalink)
northroad1878 A bit of a brute Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: A beaut of a Brit Posts: 1,669	What's so hard to understand here, Brad? Moving games for TV is totally at the heart of what the majority of FCers hate about modern football. And that's before the issue of broken promises. And with respect to Curzon, we don't owe them a living, good club as they are. And they've had an FC windfall already anyway. Stop arguing the toss.

28th December 2007, 06:16	#21 (permalink)
fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: UK Posts: 14,491	Well I am going to interject here. Firstly, though I disagree with moving the time of the kick off just for the internet company, I think the only people who will suffer will be Curzon Ashton. What precisely are the internet company going to lose ? If anything they are going to gain because more FC United fans will be watching the game on the net, as opposed to being there in the flesh. I agree a strong protest should be made, but this is not the way to do it. We've had people arguing the toss about logos for Unibond on the shirt, now its "we dont like the way the TV companies run the league". FC need to get into the real world here. They CHOSE to enter the league, in fact it was a target set BY THE CLUB that they should get there. That means we go in on their terms, not ours. Who the hell are we to walk in and decide how they run their league or try and alter the way they organise their TV schedule. If we didnt want any of this ( which we knew could happen ) then why the hell did the board set Margy a target of putting us in the position whereby our principles could / would be compromised. If the fans really do want to make a protest and make a visible gesture of defiance then the best thing would be to be there en masse with the banners which we are renowned for, and let the whole world see it. Sing songs with so many swear words in them the TV company wont dare ever show an FC United game again. I am all for standing up for our rights, but not when WE put ourselves in the position where they could be abused. I am afraid I do have to agree with Brad on this one. This boycott is ill conceived, badly planned and most of all not the way to get the message across. All it will do is give those that hate FC a superb chance to say "hey we told you you're support was fading". We should be encouraging people to be there so they ARENT watching it on the net and also so that we can show the world for the first time what a cracking support we have. This internet company dont give a toss how many FC fans dont turn up. Remember this is a league where they may get at best 200 people for a game. They are used to seeing empty stands and terraces. Whos going to tell any difference between FC United v Curzon Ashton and a game between Newcastle Blue Star v Radcliffe Borough when the stands are empty...

28th December 2007, 11:20	#24 (permalink)
ladybarnred Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Glazer wherever you be, You bought Old Trafford, but you can't buy me, I said "Not for sale" and I meant just that, you can't buy me you greedy twat! Posts: 529	nail on head, mick

28th December 2007, 21:03	#26 (permalink)
UnitedRoadRed Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,350	Did Unibond TV exist before this season? If so, had anybody heard of it? if not, perhaps it's something to do with FC United boosting the profile of football at this level - who had heard of Blackpool Mechanics, Castleton Gabriels et al until a couple of years ago. Other lower league fans moan about FC, but without FC, nobody would have heard of them. Curzon have already had decent money directly and indirectly from FC, with being in the NW Counties with them last season. However, what FC do appear to have overlooked is Unibond League Rule 8.13 which states "The Competition Secretary reserves the right to amend scheduled fixtures and kick-off times to meet television requirements as necessary." Given that FC signed up to the Unibond League, did they think that this rule could be waivered because they are comparatively Johnny Big Bollocks to the rest in the Unibond? To solely blame the league in this is like using ignorance as a defence; it isn't a defence and is FC's fault if they didn't appreciate or question the implications of Rule 8.13 - what did they think it meant anyway?