Views From The Sieve

The Independent Dagenham and Redbridge forum

Banning orders

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge

Re: Banning orders

Postby ARNU » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:18 pm

Steveo... Do you still intend to fly your flag or Do you think " point made " now ? How do you react to those that think your actions have been provocative and that it's your fault Glynns pulled out ? ( not so sure that's the reason but that's what he's said)

I'm coming from the position that the flags were funny for the first 5 minutes but the joke ( I doubt it was one now) has really worn off.
Manners are not a weakness.
User avatar
ARNU
 
Posts: 2949
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: Banning orders

Postby steeevooo » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:23 pm

Alan wrote:Cheers Steveo. You may not disguise the fact, but, again, I don’t mind being corrected, you also haven’t mentioned it in this thread and some might think it gives background that was missing.


Alan - that is also quite possibly true (I haven't trawled back through this thread to see whether I had mentioned it or not), I've no problem with you raising that though.

TomMc wrote:Yeah I get that (I agree, there's better ways to go about it than it sounds like Thommo did) but if it is about the flags, and it's been highlighted that Glyn's still considering his position (and that the flags was one of the sticking points), something like this could be time-critical, hence Thommo trying to talk to you?

Has he had any previous conversations with you about the flags that needed a follow-up? Like the email stuff etc?


Tom - Whether Glyn is still considering his position is debatable - the official statement put out by our club made it pretty clear that that isn't going to happen. Regardless, Thommo has had plenty of opportunity since the severity of the mess began to be apparent (at least internally) to contact me - and had he done so then I would have engaged with him if he was willing to discuss in a proper manner. To be honest, even if he had approached me on Saturday civilly and asked if I could have a chat with him in private for a few minutes then I would have been more amenable to it, but the fact that he approached me, interrupted my conversation and was acting in a thoroughly aggressive/accusatory manner made me decline - I sensed that it was only going to end in an argument in public. Since Saturday he has equally had plenty of opportunity to make contact, but has clearly decided not to.

CharlieC wrote:Just thought I'd point out that stickers have also been made with Thommo's face and a North Korean flag. Thommo was wrong to behave in that way, but both sides are as bad as each other IMO.


Charlie - You know as well as I do that those stickers have nothing to do with me whatsoever. To clarify for anyone else - I have never been involved in the creation, distribution or usage of said stickers, and trying to pin them on either myself or the other co-owner of the NK Daggers flag is completely false.

ARNU wrote:Steveo... Do you still intend to fly your flag or Do you think " point made " now ? How do you react to those that think your actions have been provocative and that it's your fault Glynns pulled out ? ( not so sure that's the reason but that's what he's said)

I'm coming from the position that the flags were funny for the first 5 minutes but the joke ( I doubt it was one now) has really worn off.


ARNU - Honestly...I am leaning towards the point of view that the NK Daggers flag, at this present moment in time, has run its course for the foreseeable. Regarding how I react to those that think it's my fault that Glyn has pulled out - I would give my opinion as to why Glyn has pulled out, but that's not allowed on this forum :wink: :wink: Needless to say that I don't believe that flags are the sole reason.

[Edited to correct a sentence that made no sense pre-edit]
steeevooo
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:41 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby CharlieC » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:02 pm

You may not be involved in those stickers Steve, but the fact is, the stickers and flags are seen as being a part of the same 'regime' by the club and Thommo. No excuses at all for the behaviour of ST on Saturday, but the stickers made can shed some light as to why he is so hostile towards certain fans (which by the way is wrong and unprofessional, but any professionalism goes out the window once he has had a few beers).

My main point is, both sides in this debacle have shown themselves to be petty and disrespectful at times. One thing I will say though is that whilst the 'flag side' seem to have made an effort to put the situation behind them following the club's financial troubles, I don't see ST trying to make amends at all.
CharlieC
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:04 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby Voice of reason » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:05 pm

ARNU wrote:Steveo... Do you still intend to fly your flag or Do you think " point made " now ? How do you react to those that think your actions have been provocative and that it's your fault Glynns pulled out ? ( not so sure that's the reason but that's what he's said)

I'm coming from the position that the flags were funny for the first 5 minutes but the joke ( I doubt it was one now) has really worn off.

I actually agree with you Arnu
Can't remember the last time as you normally lob hand grenades in but you have hit the spot here
Voice of reason
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:15 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby Mike the Dagger » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:10 pm

CharlieC wrote:You may not be involved in those stickers Steve, but the fact is, the stickers and flags are seen as being a part of the same 'regime' by the club and Thommo. No excuses at all for the behaviour of ST on Saturday, but the stickers made can shed some light as to why he is so hostile towards certain fans (which by the way is wrong and unprofessional, but any professionalism goes out the window once he has had a few beers).

My main point is, both sides in this debacle have shown themselves to be petty and disrespectful at times. One thing I will say though is that whilst the 'flag side' seem to have made an effort to put the situation behind them following the club's financial troubles, I don't see ST trying to make amends at all.


The supporters club have said "We note the comments on the club statement about a viscous campaign against the managing director. We are not aware of any such campaign..." yet we all know the NK flag was aimed straight at Steve Thompson, and have seen the stickers and social media posts with his face on the NK flag.

Out of interest, how have the "flag side" tried to put the situation behind the exactly?
Last edited by Mike the Dagger on Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby TomMc » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:12 pm

CharlieC wrote:You may not be involved in those stickers Steve, but the fact is, the stickers and flags are seen as being a part of the same 'regime' by the club and Thommo. No excuses at all for the behaviour of ST on Saturday, but the stickers made can shed some light as to why he is so hostile towards certain fans (which by the way is wrong and unprofessional, but any professionalism goes out the window once he has had a few beers).

My main point is, both sides in this debacle have shown themselves to be petty and disrespectful at times. One thing I will say though is that whilst the 'flag side' seem to have made an effort to put the situation behind them following the club's financial troubles, I don't see ST trying to make amends at all.


This is the thing, you read through the beginning of this thread and it's framed as though "Thommo's had a few drinks, tried to (irrationally) pick an argument with a fan minding his own business, who refuses to engage so Thommo bans him".

But over the rest of this thread you find out that the person Thommo spoke to is the owner of the flag that is deliberately mocking (and/or provoking) him and that someone spoke to him at almost the same time as the incident occurred and they didn't think he was drunk. It's all not quite a clear-cut as it first looks.

With regards to the "flag" side making an effort and ST not, Steveo can you clarify at all whether Thommo's reached out to you since the "fake" email stuff came about, and if he asked for your help in debunking the accusation about it being sent to 21 clubs?
TomMc
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:38 pm

Re: Banning orders

Postby dagger4eva » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:43 pm

I’m sorry Tom but regardless of who SteveO is / isn’t – that doesn’t give Thompson grounds to ban him from “his clubhouse” just because he wouldn’t converse with him at the very split second Thompson demanded.

Thompson has had his authority questioned and undermined on a number of occasions recently, probably starting back with Burnett, then the Tamplin saga and now with the flags.
Make no mistake, Thompson has almost certainly marked the card of SteveO and everyone else who has taken part in any of the above and will do all he can to retain his very well paid position, even if it’s at the expense of losing a few dozen supporters.

SteveO and the other flag owners are very reasonable people. If Thompson/Glyn/The Club has issued a statement or a plea or called a meeting to formally request the end of the flags, setting out the almost certain consequences if they weren't, and to try draw a line under proceedings once and for all – I am CERTAIN they would’ve obliged and the flags wouldn’t have been seen again for dust.

As a few people, including Alan have pointed out – questions need answering from him and the board as to why the hell they’ve put the future of this club at risk TWICE in under 2 years, both off the back of promises. Part owners or not – that is unforgiveable!

Frankly, it's a mess BUT its one that needs to be cleared up once and for all ASAP.
dagger4eva
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Banning orders

Postby Mike the Dagger » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:50 pm

dagger4eva wrote:SteveO and the other flag owners are very reasonable people. If Thompson/Glyn/The Club has issued a statement or a plea or called a meeting to formally request the end of the flags, setting out the almost certain consequences if they weren't, and to try draw a line under proceedings once and for all – I am CERTAIN they would’ve obliged and the flags wouldn’t have been seen again for dust.


But there was a meeting between Bennett and Hopkin, the flag owners, and the Supporters Club. They were asked face to face to get rid of them.

DiggerDagger.com wrote:"Following the previous discussion of the flags Glyn and I had a meeting with representatives from the Supporters Club and the owners of the Trump and North Korea flags to try to resolve our differences. Glyn asked that the offending flags no longer be displayed at away games, and stated that they were banned at home matches by him."


Despite this the flags were still taken to away games, including ones on the TV.
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby ARNU » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:15 pm

Voice of reason wrote:I actually agree with you Arnu
Can't remember the last time as you normally lob hand grenades in but you have hit the spot here


Thing is VoR I'm just a normal bloke really. Bit of a wind up on here mainly because it's so easy but this current situation is sillier than anything I could make up.

The club could have stopped all this quite early on. Banned the flags and the people waving them if they were really that bothered. I'm not convinced they are the reason for glyn doing one though. A usefull scapegoat it seems. But they probably have run their course with that one now. Nobodies really laughing are they ?
Manners are not a weakness.
User avatar
ARNU
 
Posts: 2949
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: Banning orders

Postby davei » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:37 pm

it would appear from comments made this is not the first time alcohol has been an issue when interacting with fans for mr. Thompson. If that is in fact the case. (I was not there, just going by what others have said) he should be relieved of his duties immediately until he seeks and takes counselling through someone like AA.

That said, he should be fired not only for this incident but for the overall position the club currently finds itself in. If this is what stability looks like, geez in-stability cannot be any worse.
davei
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:17 pm

Re: Banning orders

Postby Mike the Dagger » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:24 pm

Mike the Dagger wrote:
dagger4eva wrote:SteveO and the other flag owners are very reasonable people. If Thompson/Glyn/The Club has issued a statement or a plea or called a meeting to formally request the end of the flags, setting out the almost certain consequences if they weren't, and to try draw a line under proceedings once and for all – I am CERTAIN they would’ve obliged and the flags wouldn’t have been seen again for dust.


But there was a meeting between Bennett and Hopkin, the flag owners, and the Supporters Club. They were asked face to face to get rid of them.

DiggerDagger.com wrote:"Following the previous discussion of the flags Glyn and I had a meeting with representatives from the Supporters Club and the owners of the Trump and North Korea flags to try to resolve our differences. Glyn asked that the offending flags no longer be displayed at away games, and stated that they were banned at home matches by him."


Despite this the flags were still taken to away games, including ones on the TV.


No response to this one then?

Did I win the internet?
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby ThatRoundThing » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:15 pm

Mike the Dagger a genuine few questions to you whilst you are awaiting answers to questions you have asked.
On Feb 06 you put up a link to a piece you wrote on your opinion on recent events which resulted in replies that it was a fair reflection of what had been going on. Responses to your opinion piece were also fairly well received.
By Feb 08 your piece was no longer available to be viewed by members of the forum. You were asked on the same thread where has your opinion piece gone but you have omitted to answer.

Were you asked by any board member to remove it? Have you still belief in what you wrote? Are you likely to repost it anytime soon?
By the way another recent link you posted Twohundredpercent in my opinion was another balanced and well written article.
User avatar
ThatRoundThing
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:40 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby Mike the Dagger » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:26 pm

ThatRoundThing wrote:Mike the Dagger a genuine few questions to you whilst you are awaiting answers to questions you have asked.
On Feb 06 you put up a link to a piece you wrote on your opinion on recent events which resulted in replies that it was a fair reflection of what had been going on. Responses to your opinion piece were also fairly well received.
By Feb 08 your piece was no longer available to be viewed by members of the forum. You were asked on the same thread where has your opinion piece gone but you have omitted to answer.

Were you asked by any board member to remove it? Have you still belief in what you wrote? Are you likely to repost it anytime soon?
By the way another recent link you posted Twohundredpercent in my opinion was another balanced and well written article.


I was asked to remove it, but not by a board member. Let the guessing games commence!

I do still believe most of what I wrote is correct and at some point in the future I will write another item with the facts as I have them now. It kicked off a decent debate though and got people talking to me. so nothing lost.
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby ThatRoundThing » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:35 pm

Thanks for your reply. I may live in hope that there is still light at the end of the tunnel and am encouraged that there seems to be some element of constructive ideas filtering through on various threads which may be the start of the majority of us pulling in the same direction and leaving blame and sniping behind us all.
User avatar
ThatRoundThing
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:40 am

Re: Banning orders

Postby TomMc » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:43 pm

TomMc wrote:With regards to the "flag" side making an effort and ST not, Steveo can you clarify at all whether Thommo's reached out to you since the "fake" email stuff came about, and if he asked for your help in debunking the accusation about it being sent to 21 clubs?


Steveo - you able to clarify this point too please?
TomMc
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss all things Dagenham and Redbridge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Daggernewbie, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Gravy, NBDag, nomis, VIEW FROM THE STAND and 20 guests

cron