Hearing on FB Chico Jackson from ex players will be speaking to Peter Levey on Radio Humberside at 1.15pm.

I knew you had sent the email off, I didn't know if you had done anything else which is why I asked.

I haven't done anything and have never claimed to do anything or criticise anything you were doing.

I'll not bother in future, I just can't be bothered with you anymore.

It Seems Now The Ball Is Rolling.. Was League Express Informed?? Can Remember Someone Saying It Yesterday

So, you can't be bothered to get involved, fair enough.

As for "not bothering", I don't really understand what you mean, we're trying to achieve something here, or had you not noticed?

Not sure, Total RL was (Martyn Sadler) apparently he mentions it in his column today. I'll look for League Express contact details, thanks.

AUP 1.4. Messages intended to destroy threads or to only increase post counts are prohibited

This is a general anti-trolling provision designed to stop people like you trying to start arguments for the sake of it.

No more warnings.

Where did I say can't be bothered. I said I had not done anything and wasn't trying to pretend otherwise.

I meant 'not bothering' with you. I asked a question, you react.

I've said all along it's a disgrace what has happened but I don't know all the facts. Maybe the agreement was always there to charge and thus far they have not enforced it. Maybe now they are enforcing it which is something the club has to talk to them about. Maybe they talked and the club said no chance and so the pictures were taken down. Perhaps the club have nothing to do with that suite and it was the council which put them up and therefore the club are saying we shouldn't have to pay. There are lots of if's, but's and maybe's.

The Allams could be well within their rights or maybe this is something new and petty. Which quite rightly the club would stand up too and not prejudice their position by talking to the media.

If there is anything I could do now or in the future I would.

Good, then get an email sent to Cllr Geraghty and the other links/emails posted.

And believe me, this isn't something that simply "hasn't been enforced in the past" it's new, and it's spurious.

As mentioned by a couple of people, Paul, the Allams and the guy from City have both said that charging for wall space was not covered by the tenancy agreement one way or the other. Ehab Allam said that previously both City and FC had been given "extras" over and above what was included in the agreement but now they were being charged for anything not specifically covered. Moreover, if charging for wall displays was covered under the agreement I think it's highly unlikely that it wouldn't have been mentioned as part of the defence.

Right fair enough. In which case the club are quite right to stay silent whilst they fight it.

The Links to those meeting minutes are here.
Letter to be written from July Meeting: [urlhttp://www.fcvoices.org.uk/minutes070712.html[/url
No reply received from August Meeting: [urlhttp://www.fcvoices.org.uk/minutes040812.html[/url

[url=http://fcvoices.org.uk/The FC Voices website[/url

Although at the time of those meetings there was no indication that wall space was being charged for. I can't work out if that part of the puzzle is new or not.

Well done Hutchie, top comment from Chico too