IMPORTANT - South Stand Display vs Cardiff

[BobbyC]

[Kid in the Riot]

Be a nice gesture if the club could at least refund S82 the £500 wasted on trying to put a well-meaning display for fellow fans. Dozens of supporters contributed only for the display to be thwarted at the eleventh hour.

[Harry]

Hi everyone,

I want to bring some clarity to this.

Firstly, the club statement in the Bristol Post is not entirely on the money - I won't go so far as to say "fake news", but we are disappointed that a statement of this type has been put into the newspaper, when such publicity, we feel, was not really necessary.  We have always had very good dialogue from Mark Kelly, so we do not understand why a response could not have been given to us through our regular mode of contact, rather than going through the press.

To challenge some of the points in the article, firstly, we have NEVER given the impression to the club that the display was going to be a poppy, so we are disappointed that the club statement reflects that as their understanding.
The article also states that the Head of Security, The EFL and A&S Police all agreed it would be antagonistic.  This is also not true, as far as we were aware, we had the agreement from the police that the displaying of a St George Cross was not in any way antagonistic and would be allowable, as long as it was not held during the minutes silence, to which we agreed we would only hold the card up when the team's emerged from the tunnel.

We feel it is important to correct those errors in the Bristol Post article.

On Friday evening, as the final pieces were being placed, the Head of Security pulled us up on the display and said it needs to be removed.  Contact was made with the Police Liaison Officer, who agreed that the display was ok.  The Head of Security continued to disagree, but we understood that they were to have discussions and have a final call on Saturday morning.  We advised the Head of Security that having spent nyon all Friday afternoon and evening setting this up, none of us were going to be available to remove/change the display on Saturday morning (what with the early kick off).

We were advised at around 9am on Saturday morning that the club had made the decision to pull the St George.  I left my house earlier than desired to check what was happening, and when I arrived at the stadium at 10:05, I discovered around 50 stewards making the changes.
Prior to the changes being made, it was our intention to station people at each entrance to inform fans to hold the card up ONLY when the teams emerged from the tunnel.  As the display was changed by the club we decided not to communicate the display to any fans, probably a reason why there were so many gaps in the eventual display.

All in all, we feel very disappointed that the time, effort and money put into this ended up in such a way.  We did not, and do not, feel the presence of a St George Cross is in any way defamatory or antagonistic toward the opposition - we had even contacted the Cardiff Supporters Trust, who had no issue with it.

We have today been contacted by The Sun, who are keen to run a story which would portray the club in a negative light.  This is NOT what we want, we are only trying to achieve positive outcomes for the club and it's supporters.  We have 'politely' told The Sun that we are not interested.  We just wish the club had also not deemed it necessary to go through such public channels to register it's disappointment, and to bend the truth to their advantage.

This is now the final word on the matter from Section 82.  We now wish to move on and we will continue to work with Mark Kelly and the club to find ways of enhancing the match-day experience of our supporters.

[Spoons]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi everyone,

I want to bring some clarity to this.

Firstly, the club statement in the Bristol Post is not entirely on the money - I won't go so far as to say "fake news", but we are disappointed that a statement of this type has been put into the newspaper, when such publicity, we feel, was not really necessary.  We have always had very good dialogue from Mark Kelly, so we do not understand why a response could not have been given to us through our regular mode of contact, rather than going through the press.

To challenge some of the points in the article, firstly, we have NEVER given the impression to the club that the display was going to be a poppy, so we are disappointed that the club statement reflects that as their understanding.
The article also states that the Head of Security, The EFL and A&S Police all agreed it would be antagonistic.  This is also not true, as far as we were aware, we had the agreement from the police that the displaying of a St George Cross was not in any way antagonistic and would be allowable, as long as it was not held during the minutes silence, to which we agreed we would only hold the card up when the team's emerged from the tunnel.

We feel it is important to correct those errors in the Bristol Post article.

On Friday evening, as the final pieces were being placed, the Head of Security pulled us up on the display and said it needs to be removed.  Contact was made with the Police Liaison Officer, who agreed that the display was ok.  The Head of Security continued to disagree, but we understood that they were to have discussions and have a final call on Saturday morning.  We advised the Head of Security that having spent nyon all Friday afternoon and evening setting this up, none of us were going to be available to remove/change the display on Saturday morning (what with the early kick off).

We were advised at around 9am on Saturday morning that the club had made the decision to pull the St George.  I left my house earlier than desired to check what was happening, and when I arrived at the stadium at 10:05, I discovered around 50 stewards making the changes.
Prior to the changes being made, it was our intention to station people at each entrance to inform fans to hold the card up ONLY when the teams emerged from the tunnel.  As the display was changed by the club we decided not to communicate the display to any fans, probably a reason why there were so many gaps in the eventual display.

All in all, we feel very disappointed that the time, effort and money put into this ended up in such a way.  We did not, and do not, feel the presence of a St George Cross is in any way defamatory or antagonistic toward the opposition - we had even contacted the Cardiff Supporters Trust, who had no issue with it.

We have today been contacted by The Sun, who are keen to run a story which would portray the club in a negative light.  This is NOT what we want, we are only trying to achieve positive outcomes for the club and it's supporters.  We have 'politely' told The Sun that we are not interested.  We just wish the club had also not deemed it necessary to go through such public channels to register it's disappointment, and to bend the truth to their advantage.

This is now the final word on the matter from Section 82.  We now wish to move on and we will continue to work with Mark Kelly and the club to find ways of enhancing the match-day experience of our supporters.

Don't lower your standards to the sun please! 

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, Spoons said:

Don't lower your standards to the sun please! 

We've made it VERY clear we will not be running our club's name through the dirt.

[City fan 1982]

17 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi everyone,

I want to bring some clarity to this.

Firstly, the club statement in the Bristol Post is not entirely on the money - I won't go so far as to say "fake news", but we are disappointed that a statement of this type has been put into the newspaper, when such publicity, we feel, was not really necessary.  We have always had very good dialogue from Mark Kelly, so we do not understand why a response could not have been given to us through our regular mode of contact, rather than going through the press.

To challenge some of the points in the article, firstly, we have NEVER given the impression to the club that the display was going to be a poppy, so we are disappointed that the club statement reflects that as their understanding.
The article also states that the Head of Security, The EFL and A&S Police all agreed it would be antagonistic.  This is also not true, as far as we were aware, we had the agreement from the police that the displaying of a St George Cross was not in any way antagonistic and would be allowable, as long as it was not held during the minutes silence, to which we agreed we would only hold the card up when the team's emerged from the tunnel.

We feel it is important to correct those errors in the Bristol Post article.

On Friday evening, as the final pieces were being placed, the Head of Security pulled us up on the display and said it needs to be removed.  Contact was made with the Police Liaison Officer, who agreed that the display was ok.  The Head of Security continued to disagree, but we understood that they were to have discussions and have a final call on Saturday morning.  We advised the Head of Security that having spent nyon all Friday afternoon and evening setting this up, none of us were going to be available to remove/change the display on Saturday morning (what with the early kick off).

We were advised at around 9am on Saturday morning that the club had made the decision to pull the St George.  I left my house earlier than desired to check what was happening, and when I arrived at the stadium at 10:05, I discovered around 50 stewards making the changes.
Prior to the changes being made, it was our intention to station people at each entrance to inform fans to hold the card up ONLY when the teams emerged from the tunnel.  As the display was changed by the club we decided not to communicate the display to any fans, probably a reason why there were so many gaps in the eventual display.

All in all, we feel very disappointed that the time, effort and money put into this ended up in such a way.  We did not, and do not, feel the presence of a St George Cross is in any way defamatory or antagonistic toward the opposition - we had even contacted the Cardiff Supporters Trust, who had no issue with it.

We have today been contacted by The Sun, who are keen to run a story which would portray the club in a negative light.  This is NOT what we want, we are only trying to achieve positive outcomes for the club and it's supporters.  We have 'politely' told The Sun that we are not interested.  We just wish the club had also not deemed it necessary to go through such public channels to register it's disappointment, and to bend the truth to their advantage.

This is now the final word on the matter from Section 82.  We now wish to move on and we will continue to work with Mark Kelly and the club to find ways of enhancing the match-day experience of our supporters.

Wouldnt have blamed you if you went to the sun , the club were very shoddy in this whole episode. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

That explains a lot, that

21 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi everyone,

I want to bring some clarity to this.

Firstly, the club statement in the Bristol Post is not entirely on the money - I won't go so far as to say "fake news", but we are disappointed that a statement of this type has been put into the newspaper, when such publicity, we feel, was not really necessary.  We have always had very good dialogue from Mark Kelly, so we do not understand why a response could not have been given to us through our regular mode of contact, rather than going through the press.

To challenge some of the points in the article, firstly, we have NEVER given the impression to the club that the display was going to be a poppy, so we are disappointed that the club statement reflects that as their understanding.
The article also states that the Head of Security, The EFL and A&S Police all agreed it would be antagonistic.  This is also not true, as far as we were aware, we had the agreement from the police that the displaying of a St George Cross was not in any way antagonistic and would be allowable, as long as it was not held during the minutes silence, to which we agreed we would only hold the card up when the team's emerged from the tunnel.

We feel it is important to correct those errors in the Bristol Post article.

On Friday evening, as the final pieces were being placed, the Head of Security pulled us up on the display and said it needs to be removed.  Contact was made with the Police Liaison Officer, who agreed that the display was ok.  The Head of Security continued to disagree, but we understood that they were to have discussions and have a final call on Saturday morning.  We advised the Head of Security that having spent nyon all Friday afternoon and evening setting this up, none of us were going to be available to remove/change the display on Saturday morning (what with the early kick off).

We were advised at around 9am on Saturday morning that the club had made the decision to pull the St George.  I left my house earlier than desired to check what was happening, and when I arrived at the stadium at 10:05, I discovered around 50 stewards making the changes.
Prior to the changes being made, it was our intention to station people at each entrance to inform fans to hold the card up ONLY when the teams emerged from the tunnel.  As the display was changed by the club we decided not to communicate the display to any fans, probably a reason why there were so many gaps in the eventual display.

All in all, we feel very disappointed that the time, effort and money put into this ended up in such a way.  We did not, and do not, feel the presence of a St George Cross is in any way defamatory or antagonistic toward the opposition - we had even contacted the Cardiff Supporters Trust, who had no issue with it.

We have today been contacted by The Sun, who are keen to run a story which would portray the club in a negative light.  This is NOT what we want, we are only trying to achieve positive outcomes for the club and it's supporters.  We have 'politely' told The Sun that we are not interested.  We just wish the club had also not deemed it necessary to go through such public channels to register it's disappointment, and to bend the truth to their advantage.

This is now the final word on the matter from Section 82.  We now wish to move on and we will continue to work with Mark Kelly and the club to find ways of enhancing the match-day experience of our supporters.

That does explain a lot.

One thing I am still slightly puzzled about. You mention police had no issues, however Head of Security latterly had issues.

A missing party mentioned in this, who were mentioned in the article but not in your detailed explanation- the EFL.

Did they have any role at all, or were they no factor, a red herring in the final decision?

[Cider Army]

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi everyone,

I want to bring some clarity to this.

Firstly, the club statement in the Bristol Post is not entirely on the money - I won't go so far as to say "fake news", but we are disappointed that a statement of this type has been put into the newspaper, when such publicity, we feel, was not really necessary.  We have always had very good dialogue from Mark Kelly, so we do not understand why a response could not have been given to us through our regular mode of contact, rather than going through the press.

To challenge some of the points in the article, firstly, we have NEVER given the impression to the club that the display was going to be a poppy, so we are disappointed that the club statement reflects that as their understanding.
The article also states that the Head of Security, The EFL and A&S Police all agreed it would be antagonistic.  This is also not true, as far as we were aware, we had the agreement from the police that the displaying of a St George Cross was not in any way antagonistic and would be allowable, as long as it was not held during the minutes silence, to which we agreed we would only hold the card up when the team's emerged from the tunnel.

We feel it is important to correct those errors in the Bristol Post article.

On Friday evening, as the final pieces were being placed, the Head of Security pulled us up on the display and said it needs to be removed.  Contact was made with the Police Liaison Officer, who agreed that the display was ok.  The Head of Security continued to disagree, but we understood that they were to have discussions and have a final call on Saturday morning.  We advised the Head of Security that having spent nyon all Friday afternoon and evening setting this up, none of us were going to be available to remove/change the display on Saturday morning (what with the early kick off).

We were advised at around 9am on Saturday morning that the club had made the decision to pull the St George.  I left my house earlier than desired to check what was happening, and when I arrived at the stadium at 10:05, I discovered around 50 stewards making the changes.
Prior to the changes being made, it was our intention to station people at each entrance to inform fans to hold the card up ONLY when the teams emerged from the tunnel.  As the display was changed by the club we decided not to communicate the display to any fans, probably a reason why there were so many gaps in the eventual display.

All in all, we feel very disappointed that the time, effort and money put into this ended up in such a way.  We did not, and do not, feel the presence of a St George Cross is in any way defamatory or antagonistic toward the opposition - we had even contacted the Cardiff Supporters Trust, who had no issue with it.

We have today been contacted by The Sun, who are keen to run a story which would portray the club in a negative light.  This is NOT what we want, we are only trying to achieve positive outcomes for the club and it's supporters.  We have 'politely' told The Sun that we are not interested.  We just wish the club had also not deemed it necessary to go through such public channels to register it's disappointment, and to bend the truth to their advantage.

This is now the final word on the matter from Section 82.  We now wish to move on and we will continue to work with Mark Kelly and the club to find ways of enhancing the match-day experience of our supporters.

But the club have already started something ..Its in the press i really hope the sun listen to what youve said...At the end of day the club cock it up for themselves never simple....If it was just left to go ahead we wouldnt be having this thread but instead of how impressive it would of looked..Its pathetic. 

[Sixtyseconds]

Nobody has asked the BIG question.

The elephant in the room.

The Head of Security.

Ain't Welsh is he?

[Harry]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That explains a lot, that

That does explain a lot.

One thing I am still slightly puzzled about. You mention police had no issues, however Head of Security latterly had issues.

A missing party mentioned in this, who were mentioned in the article but not in your detailed explanation- the EFL.

Did they have any role at all, or were they no factor, a red herring in the final decision?

We have no knowledge of what the EFL had to say on the matter.  The Post article is the first we have heard of their involvement.
We are aware that there was a safety representative from the FA in attendance yesterday, so that may well have influenced the decision

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

We have no knowledge of what the EFL had to say on the matter.  The Post article is the first we have heard of their involvement.
We are aware that there was a safety representative from the FA in attendance yesterday, so that may well have influenced the decision

I did wonder about that latter bit. FA safety rep could well have had an influence.

FWIW, it's a crap decision whoever made it, whoever swayed it- I certainly hope those who funded it, you guys will be reimbursed in full.

[Nibor]

16 minutes ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Nobody has asked the BIG question.

The elephant in the room.

The Head of Security.

Ain't Welsh is he?

No, but he did do 30 years in the West Midlands Gestapo.

[freezer]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

We have no knowledge of what the EFL had to say on the matter.  The Post article is the first we have heard of their involvement.
We are aware that there was a safety representative from the FA in attendance yesterday, so that may well have influenced the decision

Thank you for your input and keeping us fans informed. However, as previously  stated. Why the hell would a representation of the English flag be offensive?

[Cider Army]

1 minute ago, Nibor said:

No, but he did do 30 years in the West Midlands Gestapo.

Yep just looked ex officer at west midlands police also worked at walsall football club between 2005- 2011 operations manager.

[Red Rag]

quite mind bogging this situation. Surely there must have been considerable dialogue going on prior to this display happening between the club and section 82 representatives, how on earth would this display happen without such dialogue. can't believe for one minute the club did not know what the image was to be. Let's assume for now the club did not know, if so why not, would you allow 5k to show some unapproved image in your ground? its some amateurish. The guys in section 82 have made such a great difference to the AG experience. They have been kicked in the nuts. When will the club understand that singing and waving flags does not equate to football violence, they seem to associate this with the bad old times. The club needs to fully support section 82 efforts, even donate funds to improve the vibe at AG. I feel for the people who spent such a long time making this happen only for the chant to come back from the Cardiff fans "what the f---zing hell is that" the club screwed these people over. Big apology needed in my opinion. Keep it up guys the fans appreciate your efforts even if the club only seem to play lip service.

[ExiledAjax]

Well I've put a bit more into this pot. Keep it going guys. 

[hoxton casual]

2 hours ago, SyntaxtheRed said:

I think some of the vitriol toward the club on this issue is a massive over-reaction. Can see how altering the display is annoying, but really, the club are not  out to annoy supporters or treat them like mere £ signs. 

Someone at the club, had the notion it might rile up away fans and cause trouble. (not a wholly outrageous concern given the history between the clubs).  They  then made the decision not to risk it. Whether that be correct or not is obviously up for debate but to label it a '**** up' and attacking individual members of staff at BCFC is way over the top.

Lets distinguish who the people I think are angry at. They are not angry at "The Club" LJ, MA, SL. They are really annoyed at the security officers and this weird SAG group who are trying to turn a football match into a croquet match. I am sure all the football minded people such as LJ/MA and SL, are as frustrated at the bureaucracy and health and safety culture. Due to the strict penalties available to the EFL. Look at the ban on Wright! Its ridiculous.

[The Constant Rabbit]

1 hour ago, BobbyC said:

Seems to think he's quite "somebody" doesn't he?

Typical Politically Correct arse-licker rising from a shitty Police Force, who finds himself in a position of power with zero accountability.

This is his moment........"don't you know who I am"

Well, we do now.

 

W anker

[T R]

So this is all down to one bloke and his big ego. Hope the club realise what they have done

[Mr Popodopolous]

To say though, still not impossible that as Harry mentioned someone from FA was there, perhaps they or EFL had an input.

We shall never fully know I guess.

[Mighty Squirrel Kingdom]

Full disclosure: as a half Welsh season ticket holder in the South Stand who doesn't like Cardiff City, I was confused by several aspects of the Section 82 display when I heard about it. The twitter account published a couple of photos of seats on Friday evening without explaining what was going on (I eventually realised there were rolled up bits of paper or card on each seat) and when I arrived at AG yesterday about 20 minutes before kickoff I found a bit of rolled up card stashed behind my seat. At that point I wondered what it was I was supposed to be contributing to and when I started noticing red card here and there I suddenly started thinking 'surely they aren't daft enough to have set up a St George's Cross on a day like today'.

As it was, nobody had any real idea what they were holding up or when they were supposed to be holding it up. I'm afraid that's on Section 82. I saw a photo taken from the Dolman yesterday evening and thought there was something odd about it as there was a red and white check display. I normally have a look at the Evil Post for a laugh but after reading the article about the so-called dispute I thought I'd have a look on here to see what was going on.

Regarding the display of the St George flag in the last home game before Remembrance Sunday against Cardiff, surely somebody involved with Section 82 might have had an inkling that this might not be the best idea. I don't have any particular problem with either the St George cross or the Red Dragon flag (I own both), but as someone who identifies myself as British rather than English, I've always preferred the Union Jack (and yes, I've got one of those as well). The assumption is that all City fans are somehow 'English', which is laughable.

As for the argument that the Cardiff fans were allowed to display their Welsh flags while Section 82 couldn't display the English flag due to 'political correctness', there's a difference between the individual flag here and there and a premeditated and co-ordinated display that *could* be interpreted as crass at best, deliberately antagonistic at worst and clearly made various officials of various organisations (including the club) uncomfortable. Having already been given a b*llocking for letting off flares earlier this season, it's hardly a surprise that the idea of a giant St George flag display organised by a group of self styled 'Ultras' during the last home game before 11/11 against a Welsh team wasn't particularly well received is it?

 

 

[Harry]

33 minutes ago, Mighty Squirrel Kingdom said:

Full disclosure: as a half Welsh season ticket holder in the South Stand who doesn't like Cardiff City, I was confused by several aspects of the Section 82 display when I heard about it. The twitter account published a couple of photos of seats on Friday evening without explaining what was going on (I eventually realised there were rolled up bits of paper or card on each seat) and when I arrived at AG yesterday about 20 minutes before kickoff I found a bit of rolled up card stashed behind my seat. At that point I wondered what it was I was supposed to be contributing to and when I started noticing red card here and there I suddenly started thinking 'surely they aren't daft enough to have set up a St George's Cross on a day like today'.

As it was, nobody had any real idea what they were holding up or when they were supposed to be holding it up. I'm afraid that's on Section 82. I saw a photo taken from the Dolman yesterday evening and thought there was something odd about it as there was a red and white check display. I normally have a look at the Evil Post for a laugh but after reading the article about the so-called dispute I thought I'd have a look on here to see what was going on.

Regarding the display of the St George flag in the last home game before Remembrance Sunday against Cardiff, surely somebody involved with Section 82 might have had an inkling that this might not be the best idea. I don't have any particular problem with either the St George cross or the Red Dragon flag (I own both), but as someone who identifies myself as British rather than English, I've always preferred the Union Jack (and yes, I've got one of those as well). The assumption is that all City fans are somehow 'English', which is laughable.

As for the argument that the Cardiff fans were allowed to display their Welsh flags while Section 82 couldn't display the English flag due to 'political correctness', there's a difference between the individual flag here and there and a premeditated and co-ordinated display that *could* be interpreted as crass at best, deliberately antagonistic at worst and clearly made various officials of various organisations (including the club) uncomfortable. Having already been given a b*llocking for letting off flares earlier this season, it's hardly a surprise that the idea of a giant St George flag display organised by a group of self styled 'Ultras' during the last home game before 11/11 against a Welsh team wasn't particularly well received is it?

 

 

That is not on Section 82. As said in Post #371 we took the decision to NOT inform fans when to display the card, once the club had changed things. The fact you didn't know what to do with it is not our fault. Had the original display been allowed, you'd have been personally told what to do. 

In the end, it looked poor, and we're glad it did. 

[RedM]

9 hours ago, kivsy said:

Wouldnt have blamed you if you went to the sun , the club were very shoddy in this whole episode. 

No one goes to the Sun who has any dignity or morals, no one. 

[Kid in the Riot]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

We've made it VERY clear we will not be running our club's name through the dirt.

Shame the club decided to try and tarnish the name of S82 in the Post "we are disappointed..." etc.

Extremely disappointed in Mark Kelly who has always come across as a decent fellow. Leads me to think he was put up to it by somebody a bit higher up the food chain...

[Mighty Squirrel Kingdom]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

That is not on Section 82. As said in Post #371 we took the decision to NOT inform fans when to display the card, once the club had changed things. The fact you didn't know what to do with it is not our fault. Had the original display been allowed, you'd have been personally told what to do. 

In the end, it looked poor, and we're glad it did. 

Again, no idea what I was supposed to do with the piece of card on my seat either before or after the display had been cancelled, so you clearly didn't get the message through either way. And if you'd read and understood my comment, you'd have realised that I wouldn't have participated in it even if I'd been 'personally told what to do'.

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Mighty Squirrel Kingdom said:

Again, no idea what I was supposed to do with the piece of card on my seat either before or after the display had been cancelled, so you clearly didn't get the message through either way. And if you'd read and understood my comment, you'd have realised that I wouldn't have participated in it even if I'd been 'personally told what to do'.

We didn't get the message through because we made the decision NOT to get the message through. The reason you had no idea what to do was therefore intentional on our part, as it was no longer OUR display. We take no responsibility for the display once the club changed it. 

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Shame the club decided to try and tarnish the name of S82 in the Post "we are disappointed..." etc.

Extremely disappointed in Mark Kelly who has always come across as a decent fellow. Leads me to think he was put up to it by somebody a bit higher up the food chain...

I doubt tthe club's intention to tarnish them, its more to do with the post's sensational reporting, just read some of the other stories on there like the shocking video of a mass brawl on ashton road thats just not that bad,

What ever (if they even did) say to the post would of been twisted to make the club look bad, it always is, that comes with having a gashead as the chief editor (which in itself explains all the spelling mistakes),

 

Etherway the club went ott (well head of security did) and should remembrance S82 as a gesture of goodwill, and have a good frank discussion of what they can and can't do in the future, include the EFL and SAG too 

 

[CotswoldRed]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

We've made it VERY clear we will not be running our club's name through the dirt.

It's not running it through the dirt if the truth is printed. 

[CotswoldRed]

As Mr Storr has previously been involved in international events, I would suggest he should no longer be if he considers flags as antagonistic.

 

 

[Mighty Squirrel Kingdom]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

We didn't get the message through because we made the decision NOT to get the message through. The reason you had no idea what to do was therefore intentional on our part, as it was no longer OUR display. We take no responsibility for the display once the club changed it. 

I'm glad you've cleared that up. Have you considered standing for Mayor in 2020?