Search results

And it's not Paul's job to decide what to do. It's Derek Chapman's or Tony Bloom's.

There seems to be a few people on this thread who are seeking some sort of retribution, following what happened. My question to Insider isn't asking for that. All I've asked is whether the Club will make a statement, in response to a specific recommendation of the Independent Football Ombudsman.

Done - but the forensics are still here.

But the Club HAVE made a statement - earlier today - and it's an inadequate one:- http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?235821-Exclusion-of-fan-after-Palace-game

With respect, it's not just between the Club and this one individual. The IFO has made three recommendations. Two of them relate to the individual. The third is a general one:- "The IFO recommends that in cases which are regarded as likely to be serious enough to warrant lengthy bans...

This is a very odd stance for the Club to adopt. When a business organisation (or a public organisation) participates in a scheme that has an Ombudsman making a judgement on the organisation's handling of an individual case, it is expected that the organisation will respond to the Ombudsman's...

Because a good few 1900 Club members have signed up to this and the Club won't want to alienate them. Not everyone buys into the "premium customer" bollocks, but some do.

But it's not. And it was never intended to be. And it's too late to change this.

Therein lies the fundamental problem. As I read it, the 1901 Club was originally imagined by the Club to be a relatively small area of the stadium, where premium "customers" would pay premium prices for a classy matchday experience. They would be encouraged to bring guests and the guests...

Blimey! Some people seem to be interested in my opinion on this. So here it is ... The Report is a public document issued by the Independent Football Ombudsman. It is critical of the Club. The Club should therefore make a public statement. Any further action should await that public statement.