By the end of today

[OlvisIII]

I would like to see an explanation by the club as to why they appealed against the suspension. There is not one fan on this board that argued that Freddy would get off, hard facts show that it was always going to be upheld. Instead of missing a trivial league cup game and two league matches, he is now missing four league. Whatever the reasons are for this I think the club owe the fans an explanation as to why this abysmal decision occurred.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Agree 100%

 

[* ORM *]

Have you phoned or e-mailed the club with your demand, or are you just assuming they'll read it here and respond to it ?

 

[Squirrel and G man]

To show the club you mean business why not take a couple of hostages before you issue your demand and deadline to them?

 

[hexagon_sun]

I fully expect the club to remain tight-lipped about the whole saga. There will be no explanation.

 

[Southendsleeper]

We gambled...we lost.

If we'd won we'd have had Eastwood back for some important games (Col U).

I dont think anyone thought the FA would throw the book at us.

 

[OlvisIII]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Aug. 24 2005,10:08)]Have you phoned or e-mailed the club with your demand, or are you just assuming they'll read it here and respond to it ?

Wouldn't it be a matter of courtesy to let the fans know why this blunder has been made? Even it is to admit that they gambled and made a mistake, because whoever made the decision, it was rediculous. It has cost the blues one of their better players for two league games, potentially affecting six points. There would be no club without the fans and although a lot of what goes on they have a right to secrecy, I just feel that they should respond. If it makes you feel better ORM I will e-mail the club as well.

 

[C'mon you Blues]

I'm convinced it's to do with his agent or maybe a clause in his contract about televised games. The club will not elucidate, that's for sure

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (OlvisIII @ Aug. 24 2005,11:49)]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Aug. 24 2005,10:08)]Have you phoned or e-mailed the club with your demand, or are you just assuming they'll read it here and respond to it ?

Wouldn't it be a matter of courtesy to let the fans know why this blunder has been made?  Even it is to admit that they gambled and made a mistake, because whoever made the decision, it was rediculous.  It has cost the blues one of their better players for two league games, potentially affecting six points.  There would be no club without the fans and although a lot of what goes on they have a right to secrecy, I just feel that they should respond.  If it makes you feel better ORM I will e-mail the club as well.

I don't think many will disagree with your request for an explanation (even though I doubt there will be one... unless it's a token explanation to keep us happy).

ORM's reaction was due to the fact that many people post messages on this board directed at the club, or complaining about issues regarding the club, without taking issue directly with SUFC itself. They then expect results.

This would be the perfect place to post a copy of your request to the club and any eventual outcome.

Good luck. We'd all like to know what went on.

 

[OlvisIII]

I have written the following e-mail to the club.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing responding to the red card appeal that Southend made after the events of Saturday. Myself and other fans are somewhat baffled that an appeal was made having seen the incident, especially when Steve Tilson openly criticised Freddy for his actions. Many of us believed it was to get him involved with the League Cup game to give Goater more time to recover from injury, but Freddy was only a substitute and Goater played the whole game. Now the club have lost Freddy for four league games, instead of two league games and an unimportant cup tie. This seems madness to myself and many of the supporters.

I appreciate that a lot of what occurs at the club remains behind closed doors due to the nature of the game, but I wondered whether there would be some kind of press release explaining the motives behind recent events.

I would like to finish by showing my support for the club. I have been impressed over the last two years about how efficiently the club has been managed both on and off the pitch, but just wanted to find out more about an appeal that has caused so much confusion for the supporters.

Regards

I'll let people know if I get a response.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (OlvisIII @ Aug. 24 2005,11:07)]Myself and other fans are baffled...

 

 

  

What is wrong with the British?  Why do we think that the personal pronouns (I, you, he etc.) are somehow impolite and abrupt; and so why do we then revert to reflexive pronouns... as if referring back  to ourselves, rather than simply being who we are, is somehow less confrontational?

Here endeth today's sociological and grammatical debate.

Matt

 

[McNasty]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Aug. 24 2005,11:16)]

Quote[/b] (OlvisIII @ Aug. 24 2005,11:07)]Myself and other fans are baffled...

 

 

  

What is wrong with the British?  Why do we think that the personal pronouns (I, you, he etc.) are somehow impolite and abrupt; and so why do we then revert to reflexive pronouns... as if referring back  to ourselves, rather than simply being who we are, is somehow less confrontational?

Here endeth today's sociological and grammatical debtate.

Matt

Matt , can you please explain in plain English for us illiterate , illegitimate plebs ?
Ken

 

[OlvisIII]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Aug. 24 2005,11:16)]

Quote[/b] (OlvisIII @ Aug. 24 2005,11:07)]Myself and other fans are baffled...

 

 

  

What is wrong with the British?  Why do we think that the personal pronouns (I, you, he etc.) are somehow impolite and abrupt; and so why do we then revert to reflexive pronouns... as if referring back  to ourselves, rather than simply being who we are, is somehow less confrontational?

Here endeth today's sociological and grammatical debtate.

Matt

And to think I teach literacy to the youth of today!! I can only apologise!!

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Aug. 24 2005,12:16)]

Quote[/b] (OlvisIII @ Aug. 24 2005,11:07)]Myself and other fans are baffled...

 

 

  

What is wrong with the British?  Why do we think that the personal pronouns (I, you, he etc.) are somehow impolite and abrupt; and so why do we then revert to reflexive pronouns... as if referring back  to ourselves, rather than simply being who we are, is somehow less confrontational?

Here endeth today's sociological and grammatical debtate.

Matt

Not as bad as failing to commend a fellow Shrimper on a very good email that represents what many of us feel.

Myself and other fans (MtS aside it seems

) appreciate what you've done, Olvis.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (mcnasty @ Aug. 24 2005,11:22)]Matt , can you please explain in plain English for us illiterate , illegitimate plebs ?
Ken

Sorry Ken.  I was just having a mini-rant.  The British often  use "myself" or "yourself" because they think that the personal pronouns - I, you, he/she, we, they (as subject) or me, you, him/her, us, them (as object) - are somehow rude or abrupt.

Olvis's sentence was wrong because he said "Myself and other fans are baffled".  You wouldn't say "Myself is baffled" - instead it should be "I am baffled" - so it should be "I and other fans are baffled".

I guess it stems from going into shops and restaurants and being greeted by obsequious staff saying things like "Can I get anything for yourselves?"... it's a butchery of the English language that makes me laugh ruefully with resignation, and makes me want to reply: "Yes please - could you get an English grammar book... and read it?!"

Right, time for me to get off my soapbox.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Aug. 24 2005,11:52)]Not as bad as failing to commend a fellow Shrimper on a very good email that represents what many of us feel.

Myself and other fans (MtS aside it seems  

 ) appreciate what you've done, Olvis.

Myself is suitably chastised...

Thanks for the email, Olvis.

Matt

 

[BlueJ]

Wouldn't it be best if the club says nothing about the appeal so as not to get into anymore trouble with the FA?

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Tilly's Prodical Son @ Aug. 24 2005,13:07)]Wouldn't it be best if the club says nothing about the appeal so as not to get into anymore trouble with the FA?

We're not asking them to criticise the FA... just tell us why they appealed.

The reason why I said that we may get a token explanation is because, if the club were up to something more sinister than making a naive appeal, they'll make something up to keep us happy.

Surely you're not suggesting that the FA have turned into a fascist dictatorship where free speech is not allowed?

 

[* ORM *]

Feckin' 'ell MTS. Myself is impressed with Olvis getting off 'is 'arris and doing something and then you, yourself, have to find a fault.

Nice one Olvis. If you don't get a response then we can all get upset. FWIW a response with 'no comment' (or similar) is a response.

 

[Dreams]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Aug. 24 2005,11:54)]Olvis's sentence was wrong because he said "Myself and other fans are baffled".  You wouldn't say "Myself is baffled" - instead it should be "I am baffled" - so it should be "I and other fans are baffled".

Not to correct someone who obviously knows there stuff when referring to grammear but surely Olvis' sentence should have read: "The other fans and I are baffled"

?

Just wondering......could be wrong!

PS Top email bro!!!