Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 15:41:09 GMT
Tinpot Tonbridge fans on their forum talking about enforced visits to the Gallagher due to their games postponed suggesting they would have put loads of cash our way and it being used to fight the 3g ban.
Rediculous doesn't do them justice inconsistent half wits wouldn't you say voice of reason?
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Feb 9, 2014 16:14:42 GMT
I asked Tommy Warrilow about it the other week once Frannie Collin had secured the game against Hampton and Richmond. He was happy to pay the entrance fee to see a game of football.
|
|
|
|
Post by islandstone on Feb 9, 2014 17:01:22 GMT
Tinpot Tonbridge fans on their forum talking about enforced visits to the Gallagher due to their games postponed suggesting they would have put loads of cash our way and it being used to fight the 3g ban. Rediculous doesn't do them justice inconsistent half wits wouldn't you say voice of reason? They love it. |
|
|
|
Post by stainese on Feb 9, 2014 17:42:46 GMT
Tinpot Tonbridge fans on their forum talking about enforced visits to the Gallagher due to their games postponed suggesting they would have put loads of cash our way and it being used to fight the 3g ban. Rediculous doesn't do them justice inconsistent half wits wouldn't you say voice of reason? They do not have to come, But they want to see a match. And a trip to Maidstone is not wasted by a postponement . If they are so anti 3G And anti Maidstone sure they can find another game to go to, or live without football for 1 or 2 or 3 weeks whatever . |
|
|
|
Post by michaelclarke on Feb 9, 2014 17:56:18 GMT
Not one gripe on the TAFC forum goes by without some bright spark telling us that 'Maidstone knew the rules but went ahead anyway'. Could somebody please tell these cave-people that when 'the rules' lead to match postponements and fixture pile-ups, with the added risk of injuries and suspensions meaning an increased chance of 'must-win' games ending in defeat, then 'the rules', as they stand, simply suck! And that's not even mentioning loss of revenue, or the increased possibility of having to beg our friends at the Conference for the season to be extended in order to clear the fixture backlog. If you hate something that is flawed and that flaw can be eliminated, then you go all-out to get it changed. Unless you're a TAFC fan, in which case you accept that the rules are the rules, you're powerless to do anything about it and so you lash out at those who are enterprising enough to attempt to force change. I'd tell the TAFC people myself but this piece is probably too long for their attention-span.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 18:04:30 GMT
Not one gripe on the TAFC forum goes by without some bright spark telling us that 'Maidstone knew the rules but went ahead anyway'. Could somebody please tell these cave-people that when 'the rules' lead to match postponements and fixture pile-ups, with the added risk of injuries and suspensions meaning an increased chance of 'must-win' games ending in defeat, then 'the rules', as they stand, simply suck! And that's not even mentioning loss of revenue, or the increased possibility of having to beg our friends at the Conference for the season to be extended in order to clear the fixture backlog. If you hate something that is flawed and that flaw can be eliminated, then you go all-out to get it changed. Unless you're a TAFC fan, in which case you accept that the rules are the rules, you're powerless to do anything about it and so you lash out at those who are enterprising enough to attempt to force change. I'd tell the TAFC people myself but this piece is probably too long for their attention-span. Agree and for all that spout we knew the rules blah blah they obviously dont know them because the rules state 'no artificial surfaces without the written permission of the board.' If it was an outright ban then why not say matches on grass only! |
|
