Letters From Club - Agreed Behavioural Contracts ????
Comments
-
TalkSPORT interview was interesting for two points:
- TalkSPORT went to the effort of vetting his Twitter;
- Refusal to let him record the discussion.
Although, they can't think of any songs that include C$#T in it - who wants to ring up with a rendition of "Heyyyyyy Roland, Ohh Ahh! I wanna know..."?0 -
Will be featured this evening on BBC London News. 6.30pm
Apparently #Charlton say letter was sent to one individual in relation to behaviour last season. More 6.30pm BBC1 pic.twitter.com/PuiX59UBuh
— Michael Gravesande (@OldBlackHack) August 12, 20161 -
Have they sent a letter to RoJo concerning his foul and abusive language to fans and other team members?9
-
-
After Reza, Sarr and Roger Johnson this incident just proves that this regime will hand out contracts to anyone.23
-
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.3 -
As I have said on other social media sites, I have given 55 years of social, moral and financial investment in Charlton. I believe it gives me the right to call it "my" club.
KM is, in my opinion, not capable of running a football club. Her mistakes and statements prove that. She should be removed from the role of CEO.
RD has a misguided view as to running a club.
Those are my views and I will continue to say them. Notwithstanding the " Big Brother " approach fron the clubs regime.3 -
The notion of a fan being singled out by the club may seem farfetched but having listened to the talk sport interview with 'quinten' I can positively say that I know the fan In question very very well.
And it's because of this that I feel Cliff, Tony etc are complete bullies who quite frankly are wasting their own and the clubs time by chasing this lad up. Anyone who knows 'quieten' will tell you he's harmless.
These 'men' have picked out a supporter who perhaps rants on, uses expletives too frequently yes, but I have absolutely no doubt that if it was not him in particular then the club would not have attempted to issue an ABC.As quinten And the talk sport boys eluded to, the club will be gunning for him from now on, that's their way, to bully. I know 'quieten' cannot live without his Charlton so they'll have to go some to get shot of him.2 -
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.0 -
No I'm not doing itLuckyReds said:
Although, they can't think of any songs that include C$#T in it - who wants to ring up with a rendition of "Heyyyyyy Roland, Ohh Ahh! I wanna know..."?2 - Sponsored links:
-
How would they know? I mean, some of us on social media don't use our real names4
-
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.0 -
Can I suddgest we all draft a letter to rojo and send to the club? Asking him to sign a performance contract.5
-
There's a code of silence that we don't dare speak
There's a wall between and the river's deep
We keep pretending that there's nothing wrong
But there's a code of silence and it can't go on
Is the truth so elusive, so elusive you see
That it ain't enough baby
To bridge the distance between you and me
There's a list of grievance 100 miles long
There's a code of silence and it can't go on
Well you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the promises we made are broken
Beneath the truth we fear to reveal
Now I need to know now darlin'
I need to know what's goin' on so see'mon
Well you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the promises we made are broken
Beneath the truth we fear to reveal
Now I need to know now darlin'
I need to know what's goin' on so see'mon0 -
Much like the fallout from the 'customers' comment, whatever the facts and explanations, this will be trotted out by protesters and the media every single time CAFC are mentioned. The club surely saw that coming? Sending a letter as they did with the (poor) wording left them utterly exposed to the kind of reaction they are now getting, however hard they try to deflect the flak. The media do not like the CAFC owners or Meire much and will be in no mood to let them off the hook when they have such a good story.0
-
Goonerhater said:
Katy is a lawyer and like Socialists are never ever wrong
.....was this meant for the Brexit thread or the PC gone mad thread by any chance?
2 -
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.0 -
colthe3rd said:
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
11 -
0 - Sponsored links:
-
ABC?
Another Bloody Calamity.3 -
“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media7 -
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.1 -
I'm awaiting my letter for bringing the Bagpiper to the game last week!3
-
Right. Because holding hands and singing peace songs a la Greenham Common is likely to force an intransigent, moronic and borderline insane owner to sell the club...colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.2 -
colthe3rd said:
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
1 -
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.1 -
Makes me sad reading that. The fella loves his football club and they are forcing him out.WSS said:“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media5 -
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.0 -
once again, the BBC relies on the club's take
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/370584700
