or the fact that 30 people stand on a hill.
I don't think he's saying they alone got the ball rolling, just that they should also get a mention.
I am saying nobody knows what has caused it. Everybody is saying oh it was NOPM or the hill and I just said well what about the protest as the first Council statement came out just after this which sort of set the ball rolling which you dismissed straight off.
It is all well and good saying people on the hill have done this etc but people turning up outside the council house did give the council a kick to release the first statement in this game of statement tennis, didn't it?
Actually scrap that, people not going to games in Northampton has helped. Using my dad as an example, he doesn't even know about NOPM but refuses to go. As I'm sure the majority of people staying away are doing. NOPM has just been tacked on to the stayaways.
This argument is reminding me of a story that my dad used to tell:
There once was a pond at the bottom of a farm where many creatures used to live. They all loved the pond, but with regards to the actual farm some felt it was too big, some felt the atmosphere wasn't the best, some preferred the old farm where they all used to live and would harp on about it a lot even though they were never going to be able to return there because it was no longer a farm but a motorway. Whatever their feelings and opinions about the farm, they all loved that darn pond.
One day, an evil witch came along and moved the pond 36 miles away to another farm, and cackled something about moving the pond back to original farm if the farmer sold her this farm. Some of the creatures went to find the new location of pond as they just wanted to enjoy being in the pond; some of the creatures didn't want the witch to benefit from them being in the pond, but still loved the pond, so they went and lived on a hill overlooking the new location of the pond and looked on fondly; some refused to go to the new location of the pond and grumbled to themselves; some just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be because they were creatures that couldn't walk or fly, such as fish.
All of the creatures wished for the pond to return to the farm, but even though they had this common ground, they would just argue amongst each other about who loved the pond the most. Then some of the creatures protested against the witch; some of the creatures protested against the farmer; some of the creatures didn't protest against either and were abused by other creatures for not caring enough about the pond; some of the creatures didn't know what to do and just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be.
Neither the farmer nor the witch paid any notice to the creatures. The farmer talked about putting a greenhouse where the pond used to be; the witch talked about building a new farm for the pond. The local journalist reported on the situation and called for the farmer and the witch to talk about moving the pond back to the original farm - he was accused of being a witch rent boy for his slightly skewed take on things. The creatures protesting against the farmer and the creatures protesting against the witch also called for the farmer and the witch to hold talks.
One day, the farmer and the witch agreed to talk. The journalist, the witch protesters and the farmer protesters all claimed the victory was independently theirs. They started fighting amongst themselves, even though not one of them had any evidence to prove that they had brought about the talks.
The End
This argument is reminding me of a story that my dad used to tell:
There once was a pond at the bottom of a farm where many creatures used to live. They all loved the pond, but with regards to the actual farm some felt it was too big, some felt the atmosphere wasn't the best, some preferred the old farm where they all used to live and would harp on about it a lot even though they were never going to be able to return there because it was no longer a farm but a motorway. Whatever their feelings and opinions about the farm, they all loved that darn pond.
One day, an evil witch came along and moved the pond 36 miles away to another farm, and cackled something about moving the pond back to original farm if the farmer sold her this farm. Some of the creatures went to find the new location of pond as they just wanted to enjoy being in the pond; some of the creatures didn't want the witch to benefit from them being in the pond, but still loved the pond, so they went and lived on a hill overlooking the new location of the pond and looked on fondly; some refused to go to the new location of the pond and grumbled to themselves; some just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be because they were creatures that couldn't walk or fly, such as fish.
All of the creatures wished for the pond to return to the farm, but even though they had this common ground, they would just argue amongst each other about who loved the pond the most. Then some of the creatures protested against the witch; some of the creatures protested against the farmer; some of the creatures didn't protest against either and were abused by other creatures for not caring enough about the pond; some of the creatures didn't know what to do and just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be.
Neither the farmer nor the witch paid any notice to the creatures. The farmer talked about putting a greenhouse where the pond used to be; the witch talked about building a new farm for the pond. The local journalist reported on the situation and called for the farmer and the witch to talk about moving the pond back to the original farm - he was accused of being a witch rent boy for his slightly skewed take on things. The creatures protesting against the farmer and the creatures protesting against the witch also called for the farmer and the witch to hold talks.
One day, the farmer and the witch agreed to talk. The journalist, the witch protesters and the farmer protesters all claimed the victory was independently theirs. They started fighting amongst themselves, even though not one of them had any evidence to prove that they had brought about the talks.
The End
This argument is reminding me of a story that my dad used to tell:
There once was a pond at the bottom of a farm where many creatures used to live. They all loved the pond, but with regards to the actual farm some felt it was too big, some felt the atmosphere wasn't the best, some preferred the old farm where they all used to live and would harp on about it a lot even though they were never going to be able to return there because it was no longer a farm but a motorway. Whatever their feelings and opinions about the farm, they all loved that darn pond.
One day, an evil witch came along and moved the pond 36 miles away to another farm, and cackled something about moving the pond back to original farm if the farmer sold her this farm. Some of the creatures went to find the new location of pond as they just wanted to enjoy being in the pond; some of the creatures didn't want the witch to benefit from them being in the pond, but still loved the pond, so they went and lived on a hill overlooking the new location of the pond and looked on fondly; some refused to go to the new location of the pond and grumbled to themselves; some just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be because they were creatures that couldn't walk or fly, such as fish.
All of the creatures wished for the pond to return to the farm, but even though they had this common ground, they would just argue amongst each other about who loved the pond the most. Then some of the creatures protested against the witch; some of the creatures protested against the farmer; some of the creatures didn't protest against either and were abused by other creatures for not caring enough about the pond; some of the creatures didn't know what to do and just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be.
Neither the farmer nor the witch paid any notice to the creatures. The farmer talked about putting a greenhouse where the pond used to be; the witch talked about building a new farm for the pond. The local journalist reported on the situation and called for the farmer and the witch to talk about moving the pond back to the original farm - he was accused of being a witch rent boy for his slightly skewed take on things. The creatures protesting against the farmer and the creatures protesting against the witch also called for the farmer and the witch to hold talks.
One day, the farmer and the witch agreed to talk. The journalist, the witch protesters and the farmer protesters all claimed the victory was independently theirs. They started fighting amongst themselves, even though not one of them had any evidence to prove that they had brought about the talks.
The End
I think you will find many will not go to a Sisu owned Ricoh either. Maybe we'll find out soon enough...
What evidence suggests that? And yes, I guess we will find out soon enough.
Even at the time I didn't buy that Fisher actually believed what he was saying. He's all bluster and soaking up abuse with a smile, which he's perversely good at. I'd cry and go hide under the stairs after about half an hour of being him.
The only poll I'm aware of is Michaels kcic poll which had only 1/3 of boycotters prepared to go to a Sisu owned Ricoh. I think you underestimate the view of many fans that they will not give Sisu their money.
NOPM has never really been an organised campaign, to many it boils down to not wanting to give unethical bullies like Sisu your money. I think you will find many will not go to a Sisu owned Ricoh either. Maybe we'll find out soon enough...
if Tim Fisher had kept his comment "We have budgeted for smaller crowds in the early stages but the supporters come back after 3/4 matches" how many would be going to sixfields? I know a lot of people were incensed with this comment and are staying awayYes of course 24 people turned up outside the council house and that got the ball rolling not the fact that the crowds at sixfields are half of what Mr Fisher predicted would be the lowest.
Is that the same senior councillor that is allegedly involved in the Bonus for the Binmean at Xmas?My guess is that without the sixfields boycott sisu's cash flow/losses would not have been such a problem so they would have had more time to distress acl. sisu asking for talks suggests they are under some financial pressure and/or are not so sure they can distress acl after all. Equally, it could be that sisu are hearing that some senior councillors are allegedly saying the ricoh should be sold to sisu and are simply testing the water irrespective of whether sixfields is full or empty. And most likely it's a combination of these plus other factors we're not even aware of
I don't agree with this at all.
I reckon to many, it actually boils down to not being arsed to travel 70+ miles to watch 3rd division football in a shed of a ground on a Sunday.....fuck all to do with "Sisu bullies"...
I think you will find many will go to a Sisu owned Ricoh....probably more than went to the Ricoh last season....lets hope we'll find out soon enough.
He's probably thinking of the pay cheque when he smiles! For all we know he may have "feelings" and may go home and cry every night, thinking about what he is doing to us poor fans.
But then again he may just be thinking of that pay cheque. The sweet sweet moneyzzzzzz!
And the creatures were still flip flopping about on the site of the old farm because it took that long to decide the water dried up in the Pond that was moved as well.This argument is reminding me of a story that my dad used to tell:
There once was a pond at the bottom of a farm where many creatures used to live. They all loved the pond, but with regards to the actual farm some felt it was too big, some felt the atmosphere wasn't the best, some preferred the old farm where they all used to live and would harp on about it a lot even though they were never going to be able to return there because it was no longer a farm but a motorway. Whatever their feelings and opinions about the farm, they all loved that darn pond.
One day, an evil witch came along and moved the pond 36 miles away to another farm, and cackled something about moving the pond back to original farm if the farmer sold her this farm. Some of the creatures went to find the new location of pond as they just wanted to enjoy being in the pond; some of the creatures didn't want the witch to benefit from them being in the pond, but still loved the pond, so they went and lived on a hill overlooking the new location of the pond and looked on fondly; some refused to go to the new location of the pond and grumbled to themselves; some just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be because they were creatures that couldn't walk or fly, such as fish.
All of the creatures wished for the pond to return to the farm, but even though they had this common ground, they would just argue amongst each other about who loved the pond the most. Then some of the creatures protested against the witch; some of the creatures protested against the farmer; some of the creatures didn't protest against either and were abused by other creatures for not caring enough about the pond; some of the creatures didn't know what to do and just flipped and flopped in the dry hole where the pond used to be.
Neither the farmer nor the witch paid any notice to the creatures. The farmer talked about putting a greenhouse where the pond used to be; the witch talked about building a new farm for the pond. The local journalist reported on the situation and called for the farmer and the witch to talk about moving the pond back to the original farm - he was accused of being a witch rent boy for his slightly skewed take on things. The creatures protesting against the farmer and the creatures protesting against the witch also called for the farmer and the witch to hold talks.
One day, the farmer and the witch agreed to talk. The journalist, the witch protesters and the farmer protesters all claimed the victory was independently theirs. They started fighting amongst themselves, even though not one of them had any evidence to prove that they had brought about the talks.
The End
The only poll I'm aware of is Michaels kcic poll which had only 1/3 of boycotters prepared to go to a Sisu owned Ricoh. I think you underestimate the view of many fans that they will not give Sisu their money.
This may be slightly controversial but it does make me laugh that all the people who have done nothing are trying to claim credit for something that as of yet, hasn't even happened!
If you stand on the hill - fair feckin play to ya, that is a serious commitment to your cause and I admire every one of you and am you are there.
If you protested at the council house - fair play to ya, you got off your arse and tried to influence something
If you walked the streets tying ribbons everywhere - fair play for making me think of the situation every time I see one.
If you go to six fields - whilst you may be cast as part of the problem, at least you are committed to doing what you think is right.
I go to sixfields but I've also pleaded with Joy Seppala and Tim Fisher to speak to the council. I've sent email after email to Martin Reeves, I've written to the football league, supporters direct and have continuously tried to understand how the situation could be resolved. So I may be a sixfields regular, but I'm still actually trying to influence a move back to coventry.
I don't agree with us being at sixfields
I don't agree with the tactics employed by SISU
I don't agree with the councils stance
But I choose to watch my team, and use other methods to show how I oppose the situation.
But if all you've done is not turn up, what exactly have you done? Can you prove the lack of revenue has caused this? Or given that SISU were only planning for 3000 anyway do you really think another 1000 less has caused this to happen?
You see this isn't about which tactic has worked, it's about a collective effort. Tim Fisher said on Wednesday that whilst he had a different opinion to a lot of fans, the one thing that he's been blown away by is the efforts and commitment of those on the hill who are prepared stand by what they believe and do that for their club.
if all you've done is nothing, what are you actually doing?
if all you've done is nothing, what are you actually doing?
I'm not saying it was the council protest that did anything, I guess we will never know but I just think it's strange how they protest and then starts a statement that day and then a couple of statements later they are talking?
daft post
.....continuously tried to understand how the situation could be resolved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?