Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tupist

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Discussion / Re: The game today v Chesterfield
« on: September 01, 2021, 10:17:56 AM »
Typist I total agree with you the barrier needs to be moved to give away fans more room I believe this is already in hand,if it isn’t it will be

That's good at least future visitors to The Walks will have a better experience.

Just be aware when Grimsby visit!!!!

2
General Discussion / Re: The game today v Chesterfield
« on: September 01, 2021, 10:13:04 AM »
Typist

I used to have one of those a few years back.    :laughcry:

Did she tire you out!!!

3
General Discussion / Re: The game today v Chesterfield
« on: August 31, 2021, 04:44:36 PM »
Could someone attempt to explain the contempt afforded the away supporters by King's Lynn FC? Why did we have to be penned into a corner of the ground with 2/3rds of the shared open end made available to accomodate approximately 100ish Linnets.  Obviously everyone can see a solution, but hey! let's rip the away fans off for 21 quid and show them as much disrespect as possible by giving them a horrible experience..

At least for the return fixture away fans will only have to pay £18 for a good view, a seat with leg room and a humane area to despose of any excess ale.

Sorry to hear of any fans being treated in such a manner,but I do believe some steps are being taken to rectify the situation? Maybe someone from the club could clarify? :dontknow:

Is it fair to say that there is a general apathy toward this subject  amongst your fans with the lack of comments or is it just an acceptance that the away fans lot is not to be a happy one.

On Monday there was alot of kids 6-10 year old in the away end?? probably on their first ever away trip with their fathers (I remember with fondness as I'm sure we all do my first trip with my dad even though it was a 5-1 defeat) and after an afternoon of peering through grown up legs trying to get a glimpse of the pitch and listening to folk moaning about having to pay £21 when some 20 yards away they could have watched the match in relative comfort, their lasting memories of King's Lynn will not be good.

Isn't it time you KL supporters put some pressure on your chairman to get away supporters a better deal after all we are all away supporters at some point. Having read the excellent programme he obviously reads this board.

4
General Discussion / Re: The game today v Chesterfield
« on: August 30, 2021, 10:28:33 PM »
Could someone attempt to explain the contempt afforded the away supporters by King's Lynn FC? Why did we have to be penned into a corner of the ground with 2/3rds of the shared open end made available to accomodate approximately 100ish Linnets.  Obviously everyone can see a solution, but hey! let's rip the away fans off for 21 quid and show them as much disrespect as possible by giving them a horrible experience..

At least for the return fixture away fans will only have to pay £18 for a good view, a seat with leg room and a humane area to despose of any excess ale.

5
General Discussion / Re: 2000 sold
« on: August 16, 2021, 08:54:34 AM »
Yes, think many Lynn fans are used to and prefer buying on the day...can see there being a crowd of around 2700-3000.

Re pricing structure, I guess time will tell...think a few hundred will not be there because of price and maybe a few more because they don't feel the connection and/or don't enjoy the match day experience as much as they used to

As mentioned on another thread 'Bank Holiday Monday'  could prove interesting.

Chesterfield fans are becoming aware that tickets may/willbe at a premium. With a lot of ex Chesterfield folk now residing in Norfolk they are being primed for ticket procurement. It may come as a shock to them having to pay 21 quid though when they were more used to giving the bloke on the gate 2 bob and getting a tanner change!!!

Someone needs to be looking at away allocation urgently, who wants to be chucking away 3/400 £21s away.

6
General Discussion / Re: Southend Tickets.
« on: August 10, 2021, 10:09:14 AM »
What's the chance of all the home sections being sold out?

Wouldn't it be sensible to allocate all the Tennyson Rd end (or even the North Stand) to away fans  when a big following is expected?

Paying £21 to be packed in a corner seems a bit of a rip off and very Borehamwoodesque.


Bank Holiday Monday could prove interesting!!!!

7
General Discussion / Re: Today's stream
« on: April 10, 2021, 12:12:58 PM »
Thank you, link posted on our message board. Cheers

Oh and if you could kidnap Kiwomya for a couple of hours pre kick off it would also be appreciated.

8
General Discussion / Today's stream
« on: April 10, 2021, 10:52:06 AM »
Hi, I had a little flirtation,!! with   some of you a few weeks ago. Anyway seeking help for Derbyshire thickos. A number of people are voicing concern on our .message board that they can't register with this afternoons stream. Any guidance would be appreciated. Cheers

9
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 02:41:52 PM »
Oh the irony. As the thread title says Match Off. One of our players as tested positive today.

Genuinely sorry to hear that.

Appreciated, thanks

10
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 02:28:02 PM »
Oh the irony. As the thread title says Match Off. One of our players as tested positive today.

11
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 02:00:19 PM »
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Surely the correct thing for the healthy fit footballers who were offered the vaccine to do, would be to question whether there were perhaps more deserving people who could be offered this vaccine ahead of themselves  who in truth shouldn’t be anywhere near a vaccine until maybe September.

I guess now they have received their first dose they will be taking someone else place in 12 weeks when it comes to the booster.


Shame  and head hanging springs to mind.

Give over.


Scenario.
Medical centre 2 hours before closing.

Admin person , ,"oh Tom, Dick, Harry, and Donald ain't turned up, what do we do with the vacine?"
Manager. "I'll go down the list."
Potential client. " Ay up duck (Derbyshire speak to wife ) I've just had e text to go for a jab, I've got to  fill this form out on mi phone"
 Wife "Where is it and How are you getting there.
Patient.  " Dronfield, must be 5 mile, I'll ring for a taxi , oh **** I've just deleted my form"

Times ticking, the vacine will be wasted maybe one call  could solve the problem. Could it be known as initiative.??

All speculative of course.

The main point which our friend Blue and yellow seems to side step, is the spiteful actions (being kind) of an ex director and also crass journalism by the mirror.

12
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 01:24:07 PM »
A fund raising page may have had good intentions, but obviously was not thought all the way through. It put the person who is supposed to have contacted CFC or its players for vaccination in a difficult situation.

So many contradictory stories on the CFC players  being given the jab. Also it looks like this is not the first time CFC players and staff have been offered and received the jab. I read that the CFC players and staff who were given the jabs were contacted directly. If that's the case, how would the Centre have their names?

I also read that these Centres have protocol's to follow for unused jabs which involves making efforts to contact the no shows, and then contact people on lists of who they should call first. It stated that CFC would be at the bottom of the list. Fit 20 year olds are very rarely vulnerable.

Apparently none of CFC's furloughed players or staff were contacted. How would the Centre be able to make the distinction between CFC players/staff that were furloughed and those that were not?

Who would have made the decision to only get the active players vaccinated? CFC? If so, are they qualified to make that decision? Maybe a furloughed players was more vulnerable than an active player? Was that even considered?

Jury is still very much out on this one!

If I was a betting man, I'd put money on no more CFC players or its staff being contacted by the Centre in the future. If that is the case, that in itself speaks volumes.

Of course, that's if it is what happened previously, and nobody with a certain degree of knowledge of  how managing supply chains work, exploited the system.   :dontknow:

Bludy 'L, I only came on here looking for opinions on Alex Kiwomya, a player I rated highly when fit.
When I saw the third post on this thread I had to correct the wrongs this post contained.

Any way, your first paragraph I dont think any right minded person would think this lady had been compromised and she would take any action to do so. It's quite clear from the comments made with the donations made that they have been made, in thanks of work down  by the staff and to stick 2 fingers up to our ex odious director and despicable journalism.

You waffle on about what you have read, well name sources to give credence to what you try to imply. The Mirror, Mail and our local rag  are the only ones to cover it so far (the Telegraph are covering it today apparently) If you are taking things of other social media platforms (I dont). Well enough said.

You ask questions of which CFC,  staff have had the jabs what's it matter someone as benefited rather than waste the vacine and further down the line these will not need doing.

You mention protocols, well isn't that well covered in the press release in my previous post ( made accessible by Admin thanks) However if you want song and verse on protocols I've heard them all from my daughter she's helping out albeit in Poole. One of the main problems is finding replacements for  no shows in the last couple of hours which rules out alot of candidates at the moment ie initial electronic form filling, transport etc.

I don't get your point re supply chain, but no doubt it's a logistical!!  nightmare for some.

Not sure who the jury are, you can have the casting vote.

I did say the fund raising page was probably well intended. To offer someone involved a financial reward, even retrospectively, is just plain crazy in circumstances such as this. Any right minded person should see that.

Obviously CFC can do no wrong and should never be questioned. No answer to the important questions such as how the Centre have the CFC contacts names, and why certain CFC personell were vaccinated before other,  other than "what's it matter"? The answer to that one is "open and honest".

I'm not implying anything. I was just asking questions. When you start going down this route and make accusations of people implying things, it appears very defensive.

Well done to your daughter for helping out in Poole and informing you chapter and verse on the Protocols. That must be very useful.

Theres two sides to the Media reporting but sounds as if people should only take notice of one. CCG was one source quoted in one of the articles.

When I say the jury is out, what I'm saying is that there's certainly enough questions raised to warrant the investigation that is apparently going to be made.

Given the all clear from that then,  it's not a problem.

"Probably well intended" blimey, now that is ill considered. There will be folk running round Chesterfield (socially distanced )slapping their heads Monty Python style screaming  'what crazy thing have we done raising 4 grand  (and rising) in under 24 hours and donating it in someone's good name to the local hospice",  yes totally crazy.

For answers to the 'important questions' I again refer you to the press release from Stubley Medical centre.

Change of tac. If this season gets cancelled and we get chance to visit next season are there any Real Ale outlets within hobbling distance of your ground. Please accept this as a genuine question and not implying some psychological cop out from the above

So even when people are agreement there are still issues. Monty Python indeed. Very dead parrot.

I really can't see that the Centre's statement can be considered as being anymore relevant than the Media that have previously been condemned. After all, the Centre was one of the two parties involved with the vaccinations so their opinion is obviousy coming from one particular viewpoint. I'm not saying they are wrong, that's for the investigation to decide. Two seperate incidences though? As said before you really can't blame people being suspicious.

Although there is obviously a reluctance to answer the questions raised, I'll answer yours.

I've had to do some research on this as I never touch the stuff but the particular type of Beverage you mention is apparently well catered for all over town. The town itself is little more than a 5-10 minute hobbling/stumbling from the football ground.

Or, you can visit our Club bar where apparently you can get a fresh can of Carling, purchased directly from Morrissons prior to the game.

 :scarf:

Thanks for the info, nd I did actually have down as scotch man!!!!


Oh and its 'pining'.
Cheers

13
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 11:59:43 AM »
A fund raising page may have had good intentions, but obviously was not thought all the way through. It put the person who is supposed to have contacted CFC or its players for vaccination in a difficult situation.

So many contradictory stories on the CFC players  being given the jab. Also it looks like this is not the first time CFC players and staff have been offered and received the jab. I read that the CFC players and staff who were given the jabs were contacted directly. If that's the case, how would the Centre have their names?

I also read that these Centres have protocol's to follow for unused jabs which involves making efforts to contact the no shows, and then contact people on lists of who they should call first. It stated that CFC would be at the bottom of the list. Fit 20 year olds are very rarely vulnerable.

Apparently none of CFC's furloughed players or staff were contacted. How would the Centre be able to make the distinction between CFC players/staff that were furloughed and those that were not?

Who would have made the decision to only get the active players vaccinated? CFC? If so, are they qualified to make that decision? Maybe a furloughed players was more vulnerable than an active player? Was that even considered?

Jury is still very much out on this one!

If I was a betting man, I'd put money on no more CFC players or its staff being contacted by the Centre in the future. If that is the case, that in itself speaks volumes.

Of course, that's if it is what happened previously, and nobody with a certain degree of knowledge of  how managing supply chains work, exploited the system.   :dontknow:

Bludy 'L, I only came on here looking for opinions on Alex Kiwomya, a player I rated highly when fit.
When I saw the third post on this thread I had to correct the wrongs this post contained.

Any way, your first paragraph I dont think any right minded person would think this lady had been compromised and she would take any action to do so. It's quite clear from the comments made with the donations made that they have been made, in thanks of work down  by the staff and to stick 2 fingers up to our ex odious director and despicable journalism.

You waffle on about what you have read, well name sources to give credence to what you try to imply. The Mirror, Mail and our local rag  are the only ones to cover it so far (the Telegraph are covering it today apparently) If you are taking things of other social media platforms (I dont). Well enough said.

You ask questions of which CFC,  staff have had the jabs what's it matter someone as benefited rather than waste the vacine and further down the line these will not need doing.

You mention protocols, well isn't that well covered in the press release in my previous post ( made accessible by Admin thanks) However if you want song and verse on protocols I've heard them all from my daughter she's helping out albeit in Poole. One of the main problems is finding replacements for  no shows in the last couple of hours which rules out alot of candidates at the moment ie initial electronic form filling, transport etc.

I don't get your point re supply chain, but no doubt it's a logistical!!  nightmare for some.

Not sure who the jury are, you can have the casting vote.

I did say the fund raising page was probably well intended. To offer someone involved a financial reward, even retrospectively, is just plain crazy in circumstances such as this. Any right minded person should see that.

Obviously CFC can do no wrong and should never be questioned. No answer to the important questions such as how the Centre have the CFC contacts names, and why certain CFC personell were vaccinated before other,  other than "what's it matter"? The answer to that one is "open and honest".

I'm not implying anything. I was just asking questions. When you start going down this route and make accusations of people implying things, it appears very defensive.

Well done to your daughter for helping out in Poole and informing you chapter and verse on the Protocols. That must be very useful.

Theres two sides to the Media reporting but sounds as if people should only take notice of one. CCG was one source quoted in one of the articles.

When I say the jury is out, what I'm saying is that there's certainly enough questions raised to warrant the investigation that is apparently going to be made.

Given the all clear from that then,  it's not a problem.

"Probably well intended" blimey, now that is ill considered. There will be folk running round Chesterfield (socially distanced )slapping their heads Monty Python style screaming  'what crazy thing have we done raising 4 grand  (and rising) in under 24 hours and donating it in someone's good name to the local hospice",  yes totally crazy.

For answers to the 'important questions' I again refer you to the press release from Stubley Medical centre.

Change of tac. If this season gets cancelled and we get chance to visit next season are there any Real Ale outlets within hobbling distance of your ground. Please accept this as a genuine question and not implying some psychological cop out from the above

14
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 06, 2021, 09:25:05 AM »
A fund raising page may have had good intentions, but obviously was not thought all the way through. It put the person who is supposed to have contacted CFC or its players for vaccination in a difficult situation.

So many contradictory stories on the CFC players  being given the jab. Also it looks like this is not the first time CFC players and staff have been offered and received the jab. I read that the CFC players and staff who were given the jabs were contacted directly. If that's the case, how would the Centre have their names?

I also read that these Centres have protocol's to follow for unused jabs which involves making efforts to contact the no shows, and then contact people on lists of who they should call first. It stated that CFC would be at the bottom of the list. Fit 20 year olds are very rarely vulnerable.

Apparently none of CFC's furloughed players or staff were contacted. How would the Centre be able to make the distinction between CFC players/staff that were furloughed and those that were not?

Who would have made the decision to only get the active players vaccinated? CFC? If so, are they qualified to make that decision? Maybe a furloughed players was more vulnerable than an active player? Was that even considered?

Jury is still very much out on this one!

If I was a betting man, I'd put money on no more CFC players or its staff being contacted by the Centre in the future. If that is the case, that in itself speaks volumes.

Of course, that's if it is what happened previously, and nobody with a certain degree of knowledge of  how managing supply chains work, exploited the system.   :dontknow:

Bludy 'L, I only came on here looking for opinions on Alex Kiwomya, a player I rated highly when fit.
When I saw the third post on this thread I had to correct the wrongs this post contained.

Any way, your first paragraph I dont think any right minded person would think this lady had been compromised and she would take any action to do so. It's quite clear from the comments made with the donations made that they have been made, in thanks of work down  by the staff and to stick 2 fingers up to our ex odious director and despicable journalism.

You waffle on about what you have read, well name sources to give credence to what you try to imply. The Mirror, Mail and our local rag  are the only ones to cover it so far (the Telegraph are covering it today apparently) If you are taking things of other social media platforms (I dont). Well enough said.

You ask questions of which CFC,  staff have had the jabs what's it matter someone as benefited rather than waste the vacine and further down the line these will not need doing.

You mention protocols, well isn't that well covered in the press release in my previous post ( made accessible by Admin thanks) However if you want song and verse on protocols I've heard them all from my daughter she's helping out albeit in Poole. One of the main problems is finding replacements for  no shows in the last couple of hours which rules out alot of candidates at the moment ie initial electronic form filling, transport etc.

I don't get your point re supply chain, but no doubt it's a logistical!!  nightmare for some.

Not sure who the jury are, you can have the casting vote.

15
General Discussion / Re: Game off.
« on: February 05, 2021, 09:06:13 PM »
So why did the person call CFC? What's the connection there?

Right place right time. You have to admit that sounds very convieient and hardly surprising that people questioned it.  Was the person at the Centre given the heads up by a CFC official that the squad and staff were available?

And are you saying that the person at the call centre is now going to be financially rewarded via a just giving page?   :dontknow:

https://stubleymedical.co.uk/press-release/

That should answer your questions.

The just giving page was set up by members of the Chesterfield message board to say thanks to the Manager of the centre (not a call centre) and to say sorry for the ill considered journalism.) that caused her to receive abusive calls (from who??, we can speculate) Initial thoughts were to buy flowers etc but now due to the size of generosity of CFC supportes it's to be donated on behalf of the lady in question and the practice to Ashgate hospice. A large charitable concern struggling financially in these times. Unfortunately these good positive stories will not be attractive to the type of press that have caused this unnecessary situation.

Currently just under 3 grand as been raised in 8 hours

Pages: [1] 2
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal