Has the world gone nuts?

[Alpine Joe]

Gullscorer

this is not a question of law (what he did was perfectly legal, and at no time have I advocated changing the law here)

I doubt anyone would question the dubious economic sense of only offering vegan food to spectators, but yes, it was your very desire to use the law to force the Forest Green Owner to comply with your wishes that I'm taking issue with:

Gullscorer

If I were a FGR supporter I'd organise a rebellion, complain to the league and the FA, sue him for breach of our human rights

After kicking off your initial argument by attempting to bring human rights legislation in on your side, to now come out with 'this is not a question of law' is truly remarkable. If your position is going to flip around that quickly then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you

[happytorq]

To a point Dazza. There's nothing wrong with someone sharing their beliefs and trying to encourage someone to believe the same things. No one should ever force their beliefs on someone else, an alternative should be offered to cater for all beliefs and tastes.

Nobody is forcing their beliefs on anybody.

They're not making you go to the game
They're not making you buy a grassburger (or whatever) if you decide to go.

If enough people hate this idea, their attendance will go down and they'll lose money. That's what having a choice does.

[Gullscorer]

Gullscorer I doubt anyone would question the dubious economic sense of only offering vegan food to spectators, but yes, it was your very desire to use the law to force the Forest Green Owner to comply with your wishes that I'm taking issue with:
Gullscorer After kicking off your initial argument by attempting to bring human rights legislation in on your side, to now come out with 'this is not a question of law' is truly remarkable. If your position is going to flip around that quickly then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you

1. I had absolutely no desire to use the law to force anyone to comply with my wishes. My suggestion was to sue him for recompense for breaching our human rights. Yes it was a rhetorical and hyperbolic suggestion. But there is a big difference between that and using the law in the way you describe; I should have known you would not have it in you to understand the difference.

2. I absolutely stand by what I have regarded from the outset as the real issues here, as I have already explained. If you don't have what it takes to understand what I'm saying, then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you..

Added in 8 hours 58 minutes 38 seconds:

Nobody is forcing their beliefs on anybody.
They're not making you go to the game
They're not making you buy a grassburger (or whatever) if you decide to go.
If enough people hate this idea, their attendance will go down and they'll lose money. That's what having a choice does.

Really? An estimated 2% of people in the country are vegetarians, only 0.25% are Vegans, by the Vegan Society's own figures. So 98% of people going to the game, preferring to eat such things as pasties, meat pies, with milk in their tea or coffee, are offered only Vegan food, take it or leave it. What kind of a choice is that? As I've said, FGR is a football club, not a specialist food shop, and the FGR chairman's first duty must be to the club and its supporters, and not to his extreme minority ideological Vegan beliefs which are shared by just 0.25% of the population. No doubt his wealth gave him a sense of entitlement to do what he did. Well, what he did may have been legal, but, in terms of the potential damage to the club's finances, attendances, and future sustainability, it was morally reprehensible.

[Alpine Joe]

Mornin' Gullscorer


Gullscorer

1. I had absolutely no desire to use the law to force anyone to comply with my wishes. My suggestion was to sue him for recompense for breaching our human rights. .

You can't dream up a fantasyland where you can ignore the consequences of your heavy handed Government enforcement and only believe that the bits you like would exist. So you get awarded some cash to spend on a holiday or to donate to the Mens Liberation Movement (i.e recompensed for having your human rights breached). But that isn't all that happens, you've conveniently forgotten the bit where the law is forcing the other person to comply with your wishes.

"So that's your fine for your first offence under the non provision of meat pies under the Human Rights act Mr.FGR Owner. Comply, or next time the fine will be doubled. There is no shortage of Lefties out there demanding you get hauled before this court time and time again, until we see those meat pies on sale"

Similarly if I get fined for speeding I don't give a fig if the fine goes towards filling in pot holes on the A30, compensating Mrs.Jones and her dog for scaring them when I drove past as 80mph, or goes into the Chief Constable's back pocket. My concern is the money taken off me aimed at compelling me to conform in future, and the knowledge that if I don't conform they'll eventually increase my punishment and lock me up.

Forget your idealist desires and think about the reality and consequences that your dictatorial wishes would bring about.


Gullscorer

2. I absolutely stand by what I have regarded from the outset as the real issues here, as I have already explained. If you don't have what it takes to understand what I'm saying, then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you..

My understanding of what you're saying is that even though it's a multi faceted situation with all sorts of intended and unintended consequences attached to overruling Forest Green's right to provide or not provide what they choose to put on sale, it has to be you and only you who chooses which narrow issues can be mentioned, and you can demand they be dropped from discussion if they no longer suit. e.g You start off by bringing in the Law, then you decree that the Law is no longer to be discussed. Well on a Forum it doesn't work like that.

Gullscorer

The FGR chairman should remember that his first duty is to the club, and not to his extreme minority ideological Vegan beliefs which are shared by just 0.25% of the population

Why must he remember this ??? Why can't he have his own opinion ? Rather than be told by you what is most important. Why can't your opinion be just that - 'an opinion' - that happens to be different than his ? If, for him, doing his bit to convert more people to a vegan diet, and he thinks it'll improve the health of mankind, then let him see that as a more important priority that a club for kicking a ball around once a week. If he see's owning the Football club as the best way to get his message out re sustainable energy or vegan food to the people of Gloucestershire, and that is a more important issue to him that football, so what...why do there have to be Little Hitler's dictating what his first duty is ? Let the man decide for himself....he owns the club not you !

[Gulliball]

For any other club, who might rely on the business, it would be a bigger concern. Dale Vince is using FGR to promote his business interests and personal philosophies, at which sustainability and 'green' issues are central. You can argue that they would be better off as they were five years ago - a small non-league club run sustainably - but part of taking the multi-million pound investment he's provided means embracing what he's doing. If the proposed £100m project involving a new stadium goes ahead then it will be as part of the owner's wider business investment and he wants a successful football league club to be part of this.

Basically it's not just a case of fans not being offered a pasty. It's not a business decision and it's not about demand - it is the philosophy of the owner and why he is investing in the first place. Going two hours without meat is probably something that most people are able to accomplish, especially given advance notice. It's certainly something that most FGR fans have been happy to exchange for millions and millions of pounds of investments.

[gullintwoplaces]

I look at the top of the National League and see Forest Green there, whilst we are struggling. I would quite happily eat tofu sandwiches and wipe my backside on recycled straw at home games to swap places with Forest Green.

[Gullscorer]

Oh dear, I bounce back from a couple of days’ illness and what do I find? Alpine Joe accuses me of dreaming up a fantasy land whilst demonstrating that it’s himself who lives in one, maybe even lives on a different planet: he certainly doesn’t seem to speak the same language as most of us, since he obviously failed to understand my own comments, and he contradicts the same points he himself made in the same post:

Joe you accuse me of having dictatorial wishes whilst ignoring the fact that my complaint is about the dictatorial wishes of the FGR chairman. The issues I raised are simple and straightforward, as most people reading this thread will understand. They will also see that it is you who have failed to answer my points, and indeed have tried to avoid the issues with obfuscations and red herrings.

As for little Hitlers, these are exemplified by the FGR chairman who takes advantage of his legal rights to deny FGR fans a choice in the food they eat at a match which they paid hard-earned money to watch. Owning the club does not give him the moral right to impose his Vegan beliefs by overriding the wishes of 98% of supporters.

The fact that the FGR chairman owns the club and has ploughed money (not to mention potentially hazardous horse/cow manure) into the club is absolutely irrelevent. If he had bought and owned TUFC and taken the same action at Plainmoor with regard to the food choices available for 98% of supporters, with the Gulls team at the top of the table, such action would still be morally reprehensible and cause for the strongest complaint.

I suppose it depends upon where and exactly at what level we place our moral principles, but it seems that is where I and a few posters here must agree to disagree. Moral principles are not to be traded in return for some other particular advantage.

[Dave]

forevertufc And if the owner was Muslim, no doubt he'd have no right to deny a fan a pork pie if that's what he/she wants ?. When will busy bodies stop trying to poke their noses in and dictating to others how they should run there business ?

Exactly the thing that divides and in many cases is the root cause of racism. Should the club ever end up under Muslim ownership, no they wouldn't have the right to ban pork pie's, or enforce any form of Halal catering on the club, regardless of whether any ownership was Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, or the modern love a tree sect, I would expect them to respect the rights of other religions, view points and beliefs to exist and cater for all.

Football isn't a business as such, it's mass spectator sport, for a large percentage of football fans right across the UK football is a way of life, there always going to, go to match's, pay Sky/BT sport subscriptions.

For me the owner of FGR is guilty of forcing to his beliefs on others, and on this subject I fully agree with GS, he owns the club so he can, but it is not right, and owning the club doesn't make it right.

[Alpine Joe]

I'd just like to say that I agree with every word of the post that Gullscorer made today......on the Swindon Town Forum regarding Martin Ling.
It's also good to know that he's bouncing back after a couple of days illness, and we all know that a lot can change in a few days.

I'm sure it was only a couple of days ago that I was reading about a football club owner who thought it was so morally wrong that animals should be killed so that their meat could be put into pies, that he made the decision that his Football Club would no longer help fund this slaughter.

But Gullscorer jumped onto his soapbox with a 'Sod your morals mate, you need whacking over the head with the Human Rights Act to get those meat pies back on sale. Morals bad, legislation good. The chance to eat meet pies is more advantageous that allowing you to act in accordance with your morals', message.

Now compare and contrast:

'Moral principles are not to be traded in return for some other particular advantage'

Yep, that's right...Gullscorer is now arguing for the exact opposite of what he was advocating just a day or two ago. Aha, the slipperiness of a Politician you're thinking, and when I read that the FGR fans used 'hard earned money' to pay for their entry to the match, I too became convinced GS is a Master of Spin, who realises the substance of his argument is pretty thin. The facts are than Gullscorer hasn't the faintest clue whether fans used cash they won on a scratch card, or whether supporters have a cosy public sector job where the concept of hard work is completely alien to them. If GS wanted to be more certain when wishing to apply the 'hard working' tag, then the owner of Forest Green, who left school at 15 with no qualifications and started work as a mechanic... now he has had to work exceptionally hard to build up successful businesses and to work equally hard at making Forest Green a success.

I initially took issue with Gullscorer's desire to hit Forest Green with legislation in order to make them change their catering ways. Then GS tells us that 'Law' is off the menu for debate...then it sneaks back in again today as we learn that the FGR chairman is taking advantage of his 'legal rights'.

And just when you think Gullscorer must be running out of straws to grasp, he's now made a grab for 'morality'. You can imagine the queue at Plainmoor when the 'No more meat pies' announcement is made, expressions of disappointment, complaints of hunger, regret at lack of choice....and there at the back is GS screaming that his morals are outraged !!! WTF ? No meat pies is actually an old fashioned morality tale, well who'd have thunk it

As GS knows, my objection was to him advocating Big Government be brought in to bring it's fist down on the 'veggie food only' idea at Forest Green. What GS additionally wished to spout about morality was of little or no interest to me. However, based on his post above, I reckon he's on dodgy ground with his 'moral' argument as well. But I won't address that at the moment as by tomorrow it could well be a case of 'No, no, this was never anything to do with morality', plus in fairness to GS he's explained that finishing off a bottle of port wine is responsible for his muddled thinking, and clearly the effects haven't worn off yet

[Gullscorer]

Hi Joe, I'm still suffering from a horrible stomach bug which has returned with a vengeance (if it ever went away); I shall post a devastating response to your attempts at discombobulation and spin in a day or two, when hopefully I shall feel better. In the meantime, I must stay off the food (no more pies and pasties, nor any Vegan stuff)! I shall, however, break into another bottle of that Port wine, though I'm told that a bottle of Cola is best for getting rid of stomach bugs. Ugh..

[Dave]

Alpine Joe has the feel of a task leader justifying himself on the apprentice board room. I can hear Lord Sugar, AJ you separate your Vegans from the vegetarians, and if the guy in the middle wants a bleedin meat pie, bleedin sell him one, you didn't that's why you lost this task, AJ your fired.

[Alpine Joe]

I'll take your word for that Forever, as it's not a TV programme I watch. But my understanding is that the purpose of it is to make the most successful commercial decisions ? Working out ways to maximise income etc ?

I'm 100 % certain that Forest Green realise that discontinuing sales of meat pies will lead to a loss of income. No way is it a decision based on commercial considerations. As I said in my post on this thread back on 2nd November:

I doubt anyone would question the dubious economic sense of only offering vegan food to spectators

So I think you, me, Gullscorer, Forest Green, and everyone else can easily agree on that obvious point.

Gullscorer has a devastating 'moral' argument to explain to us soon, which by definition shouldn't include 'you'll make more cash by selling meat pies' so we'll wait to be enlightened.

[PhilGull]

You are assuming that people are going to go hungry on principle. Many, if not all previous meat buyers at Forest Green Rovers home games may just buy the new vegan alternative, not affecting the 'economics' in any way.

[Alpine Joe]

Although it was initially Gullscorer's opening call encouraging European bureaucrats to trample on fundamental and long cherished rights that drew opposition, there's no reason why the separate consideration regarding the commercial implications of discontinuing meat pie sales can't also be held, and be just as interesting

If Gullscorer wasn't too ill to speak for himself, he'd be quickly reminding us that it's not just the veggie food takings that can be considered in isolation.

GS's detailed background analysis of this is extensive, even down to calculating the number of vegetarians and vegans within a Gloucestershire football crowd:

Gullscorer (1st November 2015)

There was a 27% drop in the FGR gate today from the previous home game. The 1561 crowd presumably included 32 vegetarians and Vegans. One wonders how much of this drop is due to the lack of non-Vegan food and drink

To ascertain the full economic impact, we will clearly have to factor in the loss of gate money from militant meat eaters who would rather boycott their teams home games rather than watch the match with no meat pie in hand.


Perhaps the commercial pro's and con's of selling meat pies could best be illustrated with a pie chart =D


*Edit*

It seems that one pie chart may not be enough :-|


“But I didn’t give in. Now no fan says the veggie burger is worse than a meat burger. They even come up to me and thank me, and say I’ve changed their lives.”

There are some supporters, he claims, who go to watch Forest Green just for the food".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88062.html

So now there's the extra revenue brought in from those only there for the veggie burgers ! Let's hope The Maestro is feeling better soon and can guide us back to the right path on this.

[Gullscorer]

Severe gastroenteritis. The veggie salad ready-meal was to blame, not the meat pies.

And a pox upon those (you know who you are) who doubt me or disagree with me..