Patty the Boxer!

Its old news from the Northampton game, post match boxing duel challenge by S Patt.
But i want to update you..
At the game on Saturday the Response team member who was witness to the incident came up to me and thought i should be made aware. The Response steward officially reported S.Pattison to the club of the incident and stated SP did infact threaten the gentleman to a fight.
SP's response to the Response steward was that he "is a lying [censored]".

So we know that from within the club is where the lies come from.

Mods can you delete this before kessler sees it please.

So Kes was right to "go on and on" as the response the club gave is "allegedly wrong"

It is up to the person who "allegedly" SP offered to fight to come forward, but if a member of the response team did then that's an official complaint and the club needs to be following their official complaints policy.

300 post thread.

289 of them from Kessler.

Lakelandterrier wrote: The Response steward officially reported S.Pattison to the club of the incident and stated SP did infact threaten the gentleman to a fight.

Did he say when he reported it? Nigel Clibbens went on the record at the last CUSG meeting saying that no complaint about the incident has been received. If the response steward made his complaint before that meeting, then Nigel needs to explain why he said that no complaint was received when it appears otherwise.

The initial issue of SP offering a fight - doesn't interest me.

What does is the clubs responce and lies and cover ups.

Keep going Kes

Mullen103 wrote: So Kes was right to "go on and on" as the response the club gave is "allegedly wrong"

Thank you. I keep going on about it because I think fans deserve answers. It was one thing when it was just a fans word against the directors. Now it appears that a member of the response staff also witnessed the incident. Are they lying too? For people who didn't see the incident and don't know what to believe, why should they believe the clubs version of events when multiple independent witnesses seem to confirm that Patt did behave as described?

What really matters to me here is honesty and integrity. As a fan I don't expect the directors at my football club to be perfect. They are human, and if Patt got a bit frustrated and said something in the heat of the moment I could forgive that. But I need to know they have integrity and can be honest about their mistakes. If he did behave as described, just admit it and apologize unreservedly to the fan. I would consider that the end of the matter and I'm sure many others would too. I can forgive someone for saying something silly in anger, I can't forgive them if they are dishonest.

Mullen103 wrote: Keep going Kes

And with that post you've become the most hated person on this message board

CCU wrote:

Kessler wrote:

Lakelandterrier wrote: The Response steward officially reported S.Pattison to the club of the incident and stated SP did infact threaten the gentleman to a fight.

Did he say when he reported it? Nigel Clibbens went on the record at the last CUSG meeting saying that no complaint about the incident has been received. If the response steward made his complaint before that meeting, then Nigel needs to explain why he said that no complaint was received when it appears otherwise.

You can email NC directly about it then...

I wouldn't Kes - I'd do it through cusg as the response is public.

Sorry CCU and more work for you, but as I've seen from some of my own questions/responses - they contradict themselves at least if it's in the minute form you can refer to it - Jon Colmans very good at it.

If you tell the true - you don't need to remember originally what you've put/said.

Kessler wrote:

Lakelandterrier wrote: The Response steward officially reported S.Pattison to the club of the incident and stated SP did infact threaten the gentleman to a fight.

Did he say when he reported it? Nigel Clibbens went on the record at the last CUSG meeting saying that no complaint about the incident has been received. If the response steward made his complaint before that meeting, then Nigel needs to explain why he said that no complaint was received when it appears otherwise.

Reported straight after the game.

Very dishonest statements coming out of the club on every subject going at the moment.

Can't believe a word they say about anything.

CCU wrote: No reason why Kes can’t publish the reply received, as long as state this will be happening...

My preference is to ask at CUSG meetings. I appreciate it's a bit more work for you but I'll try and keep my questions as brief as I can. I think fans deserve answers about what happened that night and we shouldn't let the club sweep it under the carpet. If a response steward reported the incident on the 22nd October, why did Nigel Clibbens say on the 4th November that the club hadn't received a complaint? I didn't see the incident so I can't say for sure what happened, but it now seems that multiple fans and a response steward are all saying that Pattison did in fact challenge a fan to a fight. Are they all lying and Patt is telling the truth?

Like Mullen said I don't particularly care if Patt said something stupid in the heat of the moment. I'm sure any football fan can relate to being frustrated during a bad match and saying something stupid in anger, and most would be relatively forgiving if that's all that happened. But it's the feeling that the incident is being covered up that really concerns me. I can forgive someone saying something in anger, I can't forgive dishonesty and lack of integrity and right now I am really struggling to believe or trust anything the club says.

CCU wrote: It’s been raised via CUSG.

If you’re not happy with the response you can further it yourself to those you feel the need to...

The circumstances have "allegedly" changed though with Lakelands disclosure. Therefore its a follow-up question with new "alleged" evidence.

I get your point and if they weren't anything else I'd agree - I think its worth a public follow up question.

CCU wrote: It’s been raised via CUSG.

If you’re not happy with the response you can further it yourself to those you feel the need to...

I know it might mean a bit of extra work for you and I'm sorry CCU, but I do prefer to ask through the meetings. We have new information about the incident we didn't have back then. Clibbens said several times that the club had received no complaint about the incident but from what LakelandTerrier said today it seems that the incident was, so I'm interested in hearing what he has to say about that. I find it concerning that we he told us back then seems to directly contradict what we're being told now about the incident having been reported at the time.

Leaked CCTV footage still.

CCU wrote: Ask him directly then, and tell him you’ll put the response on here...

No, I'll ask at the next meeting.

CCU wrote:

Kessler wrote:

CCU wrote: Ask him directly then, and tell him you’ll put the response on here...

No, I'll ask at the next meeting.

Well it won’t be via this outlet...

With respect CCU I think you're being unfair. I see your point about not asking the same questions over and over again, and I don't intend to do that. I want to ask a question based on new information we have now which we didn't know back then. Lakeland has posted today that apparently a response steward reported the incident straight after the match. At the last meeting Nigel claimed the club hadn't received a complaint, but that appears to contradict what we've now been told. I'd like to hear what Nigel has to say about that. That's not repeating the same question, it's a new question based on new information. Will that be allowed?

At a wild guess because everyone is bloody sick to death of hearing about it.

CCU wrote:

Kessler wrote:

CCU wrote: Ask him directly then, and tell him you’ll put the response on here...

No, I'll ask at the next meeting.

Well it won’t be via this outlet...

I disagree with the filtering of questions - no different to the club/trust on that part. I'd ask you to reconsider.

I take it'll be a question regarding what NC reported and now what Lakeland was "alledgedly" told. I think thats a fair question.

Agree no point asking the same question over and over again, but I think 1 question on that is warranted.

What about this?

In the last CUSG minutes, NC stated that there wasn't a complaint received to the club about the "patty fight incident" however it has been rumoured that an official response officer made a complaint. Could we have a futher comment please on this allegation?

And leave it there

Kessler wrote:

Lakelandterrier wrote: The Response steward officially reported S.Pattison to the club of the incident and stated SP did infact threaten the gentleman to a fight.

Did he say when he reported it? Nigel Clibbens went on the record at the last CUSG meeting saying that no complaint about the incident has been received. If the response steward made his complaint before that meeting, then Nigel needs to explain why he said that no complaint was received when it appears otherwise.

Clibbens is usually precise in the words he uses. Did the steward report the incident or did he lodge a formal complaint?

Mullen103 wrote: I take it'll be a question regarding what NC reported and now what Lakeland was "alledgedly" told. I think thats a fair question.

Yes it's basically asking why Nigel told us the club had received no complaint when it now seems that the incident was reported immediately after the game.

Mullen103 wrote: Agree no point asking the same question over and over again, but I think 1 question on that is warranted.

Yes, it's a fair point about not asking the same question over and over but I don't think it is the same question. It's a different question based on new information we didn't know about at the last meeting. If CCU and the others have concerns about the question in its current form, I recognize that and am more than willing to work together with them on changing the wording so it looks a bit better and they are happy to approve/include it in the list of questions that get sent.

CCU wrote:

Mullen103 wrote: What about this?

In the last CUSG minutes, NC stated that there wasn't a complaint received to the club about the "patty fight incident" however it has been rumoured that an official response officer made a complaint. Could we have a futher comment please on this allegation?

And leave it there

Send to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Do you want me to send it on your behalf Kes, or would you like to do it?

I don't think this board are going to ask it for you, for whatever reason - then let NC know you'll put the answer on here.

That's the best it's going to be, I think.

Then ask a question at the CUSG to the messageboard reps as to why they wouldn't let you follow up your questions? if you want to

CCU wrote: I’ve already answered that...

I didn't like the responce

Mullen103 wrote: Do you want me to send it on your behalf Kes, or would you like to do it?

I don't think this board are going to ask it for you, for whatever reason - then let NC know you'll put the answer on here.

That's the best it's going to be, I think.

Then ask a question at the CUSG to the messageboard reps as to why they wouldn't let you follow up your questions? if you want to

If I'm not allowed to post it as a question on here to the next CUSG meeting then yes, thanks Mullen.

CCU wrote: I’ve already answered that...

I understand why you won't accept questions which have already been answered. But the question I'd like to ask is a different question, it's about what LakelandTerrier has just told us today. That question has not yet been put to CUSG and they have not answered, so will you let me ask that question? I promise I won't ask anything which has already been answered.

Sweet baby jesus and the orphans.

Sent - I'll chase up in about 10 seconds if I don't get a response.

As soon as I've got one, I'll put on here.

Mullen103 wrote: Sent - I'll chase up in about 10 seconds if I don't get a response.

As soon as I've got one, I'll put on here.

Just set it to auto publish silly.

CCU wrote:

Kessler wrote: I understand why you won't accept questions which have already been answered. But the question I'd like to ask is a different question, it's about what LakelandTerrier has just told us today. That question has not yet been put to CUSG and they have not answered, so will you let me ask that question? I promise I won't ask anything which has already been answered.

Re-read Post 26...

I have and you're wrong. You're saying it has been taken to CUSG and answered but it hasn't. The question I want to ask is based on information we didn't even know until today, so how could it possibly have been asked at the last meeting?

He looks more like a shih tzu to me.

CCU wrote: The alleged update is nothing more than hearsay therefore with nothing concrete to add it’s been covered...

The whole point of asking questions is that we're trying to get concrete answers to something we're not sure about. There is always some degree of speculation and rumours at any football club, and I think that fans have the right to ask questions if they hear something which they find concerning. Addressing those questions lets the fans know where they stand, and it gives the club the opportunity to give their side of the story and dispute any speculation they feel is inaccurate.

You don't want me to ask questions which have already been answered, and I've promised that I won't. I'm happy to work with you and the other admins at wording my question in a way that you would be happy to include it, is that something you would be interested in?

Why don’t the interested parties arrange a meeting with Clibbens or maybe even contact the fans representative on the board ie CUOSC.

I see this thread has reopned the concerns but, i thought it worthwhile posting because the response steward approached me before the game started. He was not happy that he was made out to tell lies. The varying levels of distrust/lies that comes from within the club needs to be highlighted again.

FFS.

Just bloody email Clibbens if you're that sodding bothered.

Why does it have go through CUSG?

"I see this thread has reopened the concerns"

I think you starting the thread did that to be fair.

Imagine the look on a Forest Green supporters face who has logged onto the site to see if we fancy our chances on Saturday and they stumble across this thread

thetashkentterror wrote: FFS.

Just bloody email Clibbens if you're that sodding bothered.

Why does it have go through CUSG?

The clue is there CUSG - Carlisle United Supporters Group.

People are there for exactly this.

While i am not conplaining as such, its important that its aired.

Pure And Simple....