Peter Fletcher and stewards (merged)

[blue b4 the moon]

My view would be to aim for what is achievable. The club sacking Fletcher or him resigning is highly, highly unlikely to happen. It isn't unreasonable to think that the club think he is doing a good job and will support him in the same way that he backs the stewards.

Getting supporters around a table with Fletcher and others from the clubs management is - or at least - should be achievable.

Going into any meeting you will need to demonstrate that you have plenty of support and that you are speaking on behalf of a sizeable number of supporters. Perhaps you could consider writing an open letter to the club voicing your concerns and asking for a meeting and encourage as many supporters to sign it as possible.

And I hope you won't mind me saying is that while this is clearly and understandably a very emotive issue and feelings are running high, I'd avoid personal abuse on this forum or anywhere else where the club may read it. It potentially weakens your position and could give the club a reason not to engage with you.

amanda.jacks@fsf.org.uk

Good post.

Achievable is what we should be looking at. That way other parties don't need to sack/admit being a fuckwit.

 

[jrb]

Unfortunately in the eyes of the fans Peter Fletcher can do no right anymore.

He has had numerous opportunities to change his behaviour and his ways towards the fans, but it seems he is unable to do this, and he is stuck in his rigid(ex police) ways.

Even if he did change at this late stage, it would come across as a climb-down on his and the clubs behalf. I don't think either would allow this to happen.

The best outcome would be for Peter Fletcher to stand aside and to let a younger and a more approachable person at City takeover. Someone who understands the fans and is able to talk to them about any matter that arises on a one to one basis.

The fan experience extends to all corners of City, and that includes the Stadium Security & Safety Manager.

 

[The FSF]

You'll have to make a very good case to the club to persuade them that Fletchers position is untenable, and as I said in my previous post, you should consider he not only has the backing of his employer but that they think he's doing a good job.

 

[jrb]

You'll have to make a very good case to the club to persuade them that Fletchers position is untenable, and as I said in my previous post, you should consider he not only has the backing of his employer but that they think he's doing a good job.

Regardless if Peter Fletcher is doing a good job or not, the club will always back him in public. Behind closed doors it could be a totally different matter. Obviously I don't know, but I'm sure at some stage Peter Fletcher has been asked to explain his actions, considering the amount of negative publicity he is generating.(from City fans)

Our owners (and probably Cookie) won't like hearing or reading about all of these complaints, regardless of Peter Fletchers track record over the years at City.

Point taken though.

 

[pride in battle]

You'll have to make a very good case to the club to persuade them that Fletchers position is untenable, and as I said in my previous post, you should consider he not only has the backing of his employer but that they think he's doing a good job.

They might have THOUGHT he was doing a good job but after the comments on here they just might be having second thoughts.

 

[Eccles Blue]

This post may cause some rises in blood pressure and I apologise in advance:

Carrying on from the lady from the FSF's post: the other thing we have to consider is that City have over 25,000 season ticket holders (not sure of correct figures but I assume it is around that) and if they are only getting complaints from, say, 250 of those, that is 1% and the other 99% are either having no problems with the no smoking and the ejection of people who have not been smoking but are accused of it, then City are not going to sack an individual for that. They may reprimand him, put him on a warning or a final warning letter but they are not going to risk him taking them to an Employment Tribunal for 1% of the fans. Especially as maybe .9% of that 1% are ejected for smoking which is banned under the rules.

I can understand where you may be coming from but an ET could cost the club a heck of a lot of money if they are found to have sacked someone without proper procedures being followed.

After all I am sure that none of you, especially if you work in the service industry, would like to be sacked for being rude to a client/customer on 1 occasion, you would surely want to have the procedures followed by your employer.

As I say, I am now expecting rising blood pressure from some but we do have employment laws for a reason.

*Retires quietly to a corner wearing full camouflage gear*

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

This post may cause some rises in blood pressure and I apologise in advance:

Carrying on from the lady from the FSF's post: the other thing we have to consider is that City have over 25,000 season ticket holders (not sure of correct figures but I assume it is around that) and if they are only getting complaints from, say, 250 of those, that is 1% and the other 99% are either having no problems with the no smoking and the ejection of people who have not been smoking but are accused of it, then City are not going to sack an individual for that. They may reprimand him, put him on a warning or a final warning letter but they are not going to risk him taking them to an Employment Tribunal for 1% of the fans. Especially as maybe .9% of that 1% are ejected for smoking which is banned under the rules.

I can understand where you may be coming from but an ET could cost the club a heck of a lot of money if they are found to have sacked someone without proper procedures being followed.

After all I am sure that none of you, especially if you work in the service industry, would like to be sacked for being rude to a client/customer on 1 occasion, you would surely want to have the procedures followed by your employer.

As I say, I am now expecting rising blood pressure from some but we do have employment laws for a reason.

*Retires quietly to a corner wearing full camouflage gear*

it's not just once though, it's continuous.

 

[fudgecity]

Thankyou non 'tabbers' , so a bit of give and take and nobody will die. Except us lot who smoke but love city like all of us.

 

[Eccles Blue]

But JoeMercersWay is it continuous from the same people or is it continuous from more than, for the sake of argument, 5% of the fans who attend every week? That is all I am saying. And the fact that employment law/procedures have to be followed. Just saying sack him is not going to work.

 

[whp.blue]

I doubt anyone on here would own up but I bet for every smoker on here who complains there is probably 10 fans moaning to the stewards about people smoking in the toilets.

I have crossed swords with fletcher in the past and in my opinion the guy is a bombastic bully who abuses his power

I got him to back down by Fighting fire with fire

good luck with the idea of getting a meeting to discuss any of his short comings

my advice for what it is worth is complain to the club directly about any breaches of H& S etc which is fletchers area of responsibilty tell the club you will take it up with the licensing authority and put pressure on fletcher directly if you find a breach try to get as many people as possible to complain and really ramp up the pressure

that is your best chance of getting rid of this fuckwit

failing that have a serious word his son who is a match going blue who probably posts on here to boot
ps his son is a ghinger