[azul]

Cartman, on 23 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

have we had a sub 1000 attendance for any first team game at the Proact?

this could be the first

should let ST holders in for free, then fiver for adults and quid a kid

our Australian overseas player at my cricket club wants to go to a game whilst here and this is the only option, so I may end up going under duress

Ticket sales are starting to take off, 53 seats sold so far and a whole week to go

To get as many as 1000 may not be too unrealsitic

[Sammy Spireite]

Cartman, on 23 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

have we had a sub 1000 attendance for any first team game at the Proact?

this could be the first

should let ST holders in for free, then fiver for adults and quid a kid

our Australian overseas player at my cricket club wants to go to a game whilst here and this is the only option, so I may end up going under duress

I guess technically the Derbyshire Senior Cup is a first team game, so probably yes but sure they were £3 entry?

[Westbars Spireite]

Cartman, on 23 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

have we had a sub 1000 attendance for any first team game at the Proact?

this could be the first

should let ST holders in for free, then fiver for adults and quid a kid

our Australian overseas player at my cricket club wants to go to a game whilst here and this is the only option, so I may end up going under duress

Take him to Matlock or Staveley instead.

[Cartman]

Westbars Spireite, on 23 August 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Take him to Matlock or Staveley instead.

That's where we will be on Saturday, do they play football when a cricket match is on? That would be entertaining!

[BodieUK]

azul, on 19 August 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

Add a free pint and pint I'd be there

Wonder if our beloved CEO will pay for the stewarding costs out of his own pocket. After all it was his idea

Very rare of me to stick up for CT but in the programme notes from last week, he claimed to have voted against having B-Team squads in the JPT.

I won't be attending the game though.

This post has been edited by BodieUK: 23 August 2016 - 01:29 PM

[Mr Mercury]

BodieUK, on 23 August 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Very rare of me to stick up for CT but in the programme notes from last week, he claimed to have voted against having B-Team squads in the JPT.

I won't be attending the game though.

I'm pretty sure there was an article on the clubs website when this was being discussed that seemingly implied although initially opposed to the idea after hearing the presentation and amount of other clubs for the idea CT then voted for it.

[Sammy Spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 23 August 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure there was an article on the clubs website when this was being discussed that seemingly implied although initially opposed to the idea after hearing the presentation and amount of other clubs for the idea CT then voted for it.

yep, and there was a quote somewhere that only 5 clubs voted against it, and we didn't feature on any of the suggested lists. Irrelevant now anyway, as it got passed.

[azul]

Mr Mercury, on 23 August 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure there was an article on the clubs website when this was being discussed that seemingly implied although initially opposed to the idea after hearing the presentation and amount of other clubs for the idea CT then voted for it.

Definitely implies it here.......

http://www.chesterfi...ed-3141089.aspx

Then again what chance does anyone have of interpreting his mumbling bumbling murmurings.

He probably can't remember what he voted for anyway

This post has been edited by azul: 23 August 2016 - 02:55 PM

[BodieUK]

I don't have a programme from the Swindon game but i'm sure that's where I read it - I have a look at a mate's programme at half time.

Does someone have the Swindon programme and can they refer to CT's comments?

[Westbars Spireite]

Cartman, on 23 August 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

That's where we will be on Saturday, do they play football when a cricket match is on? That would be entertaining!

No, Matlock Town will be away I think. We've had a game moved to a Sunday to avoid a clash in the past.

[azul]

Westbars Spireite, on 23 August 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

No, Matlock Town will be away I think. We've had a game moved to a Sunday to avoid a clash in the past.

Playing home tonight and errrrr possibly Monday against Ilkeston

[Sammy Spireite]

BodieUK, on 23 August 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

I don't have a programme from the Swindon game but i'm sure that's where I read it - I have a look at a mate's programme at half time.

Does someone have the Swindon programme and can they refer to CT's comments?

i think you're are right, that's what the notes said, sure its wrong, though, but no proof either way.

A bit like the story emerging that Jesus actually had a wife and 2 kids, yet most Christians refuse to believe it as there is no proof......

This post has been edited by Sammy Spireite: 23 August 2016 - 03:56 PM

[frearsghost]

azul, on 23 August 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

Ticket sales are starting to take off, 53 seats sold so far and a whole week to go

To get as many as 1000 may not be too unrealsitic

I see the ticket office is describing the ELF Trophy as a match again Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Trades Description Act? Surely the game should be advertised as Chesterfield v Wolverhampton Wanderers Academy. Small point but it does seem to matter in the interests of accuracy.

P.S. A a rider to my post. Will the big notice board by the wall next to the road that advertises the next game, also say Wolverhampton Wanderers? Should be interesting. I mean, I wouldn't want the club to get done for misleading the passing public, those who don't follow footy that closely but might fancy turning up to see Wolverhampton Wanderers in the mistaken belief they will see the first team.

This post has been edited by frearsghost: 23 August 2016 - 06:10 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

frearsghost, on 23 August 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

I see the ticket office is describing the ELF Trophy as a match again Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Trades Description Act? Surely the game should be advertised as Chesterfield v Wolverhampton Wanderers Academy. Small point but it does seem to matter in the interests of accuracy.

If you lived under a rock it's possible to be hoodwinked into buying tickets for something you're not expecting.

I just hope we play as weaker side as possible and make three changes after a minute.

Is it fourteen quid? Anyone willing to pay that for this game is a sandwich short of a picnic. Anyone owning up?

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 23 August 2016 - 05:16 PM

[moondog]

BodieUK, on 23 August 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Very rare of me to stick up for CT but in the programme notes from last week, he claimed to have voted against having B-Team squads in the JPT.

I won't be attending the game though.

I tbink he's making it up, if he'd voted against the press release would have said so at the time instead on implying the opposite

[BodieUK]

Now i'm puzzled. Were we "in" or "out" then??

After 'initially' not accepting the new structure?

This post has been edited by BodieUK: 23 August 2016 - 06:07 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Does our CEO actually remember how he voted?

All totally tongue-in-cheek, of course, but in my head there's the image of someone slumped against the bar, raising the club credit card aloft to order another round, then looking up in bleary eyed bewilderment in the vague realisation he's just agreed or disagreed with summat.

Couldn't possibly happen, of course, because CFC 'doesn't make mistakes'...

[Somerset Spireite]

BodieUK, on 23 August 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Very rare of me to stick up for CT but in the programme notes from last week, he claimed to have voted against having B-Team squads in the JPT.

I won't be attending the game though.

If that's the case I think someone is in danger of trying to rewrite history. There was no doubt in the original coverage that "we" had voted for the proposals after initially "almost" voting the other way (allegedly).

[Mr Mercury]

Somerset Spireite, on 23 August 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

If that's the case I think someone is in danger of trying to rewrite history. There was no doubt in the original coverage that "we" had voted for the proposals after initially "almost" voting the other way (allegedly).

It doesn't take long for the next head scratching, bewildering, "what the hell is our CEO doing" moment does it?

[Tha Knows...]

Westbars asks a good question here. Will anyone own up and say they are paying to watch wolves boys?