Tony Tony Tony. What have you done.

[Mooney#16]

I could go into a big rant but his position is untenable. Resign your post effective immediately Tony Smith. You serve yourself not the league, it's fans or UK hockey in general.

Hey Belfast stiffed you. Man up. Your small fry. Take your medicine and get on with it but trying to win a league across the board table. Shameful.

 

[wildthing74]

Sheffield have acted like they are above the league their whole existence that's why I have such a strong 'dislike' for that organisation. Nothing in yesterday's announcement surprised me in the slightest.Ofcourse you can have 2 free points Tony WD

 

[James]

TWO POINT TONY OUT

 

[DevilDom]

Huge conflict of interests highlighted by this debacle. If the league has any integrity at all Tony Smith cannot continue as Chairman.

 

[drainage]

Quite why he didn't see the stupidity of the press release I do not know ..... He's either stupid or arrogant

How can a chairman ask for sanctions on team on behalf of another team ? Oh when his request is as an owner!! Next we will have turkeys voting for Christmas !

Been questioned for a long time this highlights in epic fashion why people aren't happy

 

[Devilhawks12]

Does anyone have a link to tony smiths statement?

 

[Sliput]

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/ice-hock ... witterfeed

 

[Devilhawks12]

Thanks for that! What a chump, the guys gotta go!

 

[Skippy]

Might be an unpopular suggestion but I do think the Giants should have been docked some points.

The financial sanction of £100 each for the 190 fans effected is comparably sod all compared to the amount the ownership of the Giants and the arena would of made from the 1D gig.

They made a financial decision between the two events and choose not Hockey outside of a league process that they knew about purely for financial gain.

Not saying the points should of gone to the Steelers just that the Giants should of suffered a league standing consequence for the decision rather than just a small financial punishment.

 

[DevilDom]

Might be an unpopular suggestion but I do think the Giants should have been docked some points.

The financial sanction of £100 each for the 190 fans effected is comparably sod all compared to the amount the ownership of the Giants and the arena would of made from the 1D gig.

They made a financial decision between the two events and choose not Hockey outside of a league process that they knew about purely for financial gain.

Not saying the points should of gone to the Steelers just that the Giants should of suffered a league standing consequence for the decision rather than just a small financial punishment.

That's a lot more sensible suggestion than what Tony Smith was advocating. I agree with the Giants having to pay the Steelers travel costs and compensating fans however it was Mr Smith using the situation to try and gain an advantage for his team that left a sour taste.

 

[Mooney#16]

Precisely. Belfast are as guilty as sin of putting profit first and if Tony had kept on statement that he was demanding compensation for his fans and even potentially giving Belfast a points penalty no one would have had an issue. Problem was as soon as he uses his chairmanship to try to advantage his own team he has crossed a line. Punish the guilty party by all means but to think it appropriate to advantage his own side and let it go public like that. Ridiculous and just strips the man of any credibility in the role as EIHL chairman.

Simmsey et al have swallowed the Belfast tried to disrespect the league and we tried to make them pay line but as with most things Steelers they can't look beyond their own club and see why it's drawn such a reaction. Your owner, the league chairman tried to influence the league table. Of course people were going to be ticked at that.

 

[ShirebrookSteeler]

The league is run by a committee of the 10 owners and the chairman has no power over that of any other member. The position is symbolic more than anything and is only used for press releases and such

As a panther fan wrote on steeltalk

Similar to the above, I do not believe the Chairman has any special rights within the boardroom.
Likely a poison Chalice, .... 10 straws, TS drew the short one.

Perhaps another one where one drop-down page on the eihl website could enlighten the fans more as to its structure, establishment, protocols etc to quieten down the conspiracists.

Perhaps the only thing you would say is that TS/Steelers 'seem' to have more open issues?

 

[Mooney#16]

I've no doubt his chairmanship carries no power but he does hold the role and as such the figure head for the league. He has to be able to separate himself from the two roles. But to have an official statement coming out to say the issue is resolved that in effect is ratified by him as chairman and then have a story come out in the Sheffield local rag quoting him as saying he wanted the two points. It's just woeful execution of media process and renders his position untenable. We know the role isn't independent but to be so in your face about it to the media and fans of the other 9 teams in the league. It's crass to say the least.

No one exempts Belfast there behaviour. I have major issues with how it's actually the arena teams that stunt positive growth of the top flight and this is a prime example of that. I back Belfast having to be hit with all possible penalties.

But Tony has really scored an own goal personally on this one. He got to emotional about it and blew his own legs off in the process.

 

[drainage]

Might be an unpopular suggestion but I do think the Giants should have been docked some points.

The financial sanction of £100 each for the 190 fans effected is comparably sod all compared to the amount the ownership of the Giants and the arena would of made from the 1D gig.

They made a financial decision between the two events and choose not Hockey outside of a league process that they knew about purely for financial gain.

Not saying the points should of gone to the Steelers just that the Giants should of suffered a league standing consequence for the decision rather than just a small financial punishment.

I am not sure that's what Smith wanted but a deduction rather than awarding the other team seems better .....Agree financially it's not a massive penalty but also it was a double header so they did get to see some hockey. , 100 probably is half flight and half hotel costs for a double header so seems fair

 

[drainage]

The league is run by a committee of the 10 owners and the chairman has no power over that of any other member. The position is symbolic more than anything and is only used for press releases and such

As a panther fan wrote on steeltalk

Similar to the above, I do not believe the Chairman has any special rights within the boardroom.
Likely a poison Chalice, .... 10 straws, TS drew the short one.

Perhaps another one where one drop-down page on the eihl website could enlighten the fans more as to its structure, establishment, protocols etc to quieten down the conspiracists.

Perhaps the only thing you would say is that TS/Steelers 'seem' to have more open issues?

I think you miss the point the issue is a chairman can ask for sanctions on team for a team in favour of a team he owns ..... You cannot deny that rankles to many

You will always have people question someone trying to represent two positions in one meeting

How would you feel if Todd Kelman was chairman and representing Devils ? I am fairly sure you wouldn't be jumping for joy ...... We need an independent chairman

 

[Devil_Abroad]

The EIHL is run by all the clubs so such a silly request was never going to be voted through. It is naive to think they can justify bring given the points and that's about the size of it.

I'm all for the league being open but washing everything in the public domain can lead people to think it an unprofessional organisation and fans crying foul all over all forms of social media leading to clubs trying to defend the indefensible.

There must be discussions that should remain in the boardroom. Only when decisions are taken should they then be justified by a press release explaining why they were taken.

Maybe they should think about a non voting neutral Chairman as a media facing figurehead but this is how the owners like it at present. Hopefully they are learning about what works and what doesn't and things will keep getting better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ASHIPP]

Steelers v Giants...now here is a bitter rivalrly....on every level.

Fan compensation is perfectly understandable. Suggestion of points deduction most definitely perceived as a conflict of interest by many.

The reasoning behind the cancellation of that game might be more complex than a huge compenation payout from 1D organisation.

 

[devils2001uk]

I agree that Belfast should of docked points 5-0 as Belfast didn't complete there fixture

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[dave]

I agree that Belfast should of docked points 5-0 as Belfast didn't complete there fixture

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I think they did not as the fixture is not forfited just postponed. What we do know have though is a rule/precident for if it happens again. The video with Todd does state it is a once in 15 year case.

One questionnot asked is if one team has one vote and one rep, Tony Smith is there as Sheffield and then Chairman hat so what is David Simms role as Seth Bennet is the media man. Is it a case of 10 reps and he is Sheffields and Tony gets an 11th casting vote? or can clubs take more than one person to a board meeting but only get one vote?

 

[Gazza272]

Might be an unpopular suggestion but I do think the Giants should have been docked some points.

The financial sanction of £100 each for the 190 fans effected is comparably sod all compared to the amount the ownership of the Giants and the arena would of made from the 1D gig.

They made a financial decision between the two events and choose not Hockey outside of a league process that they knew about purely for financial gain.

Not saying the points should of gone to the Steelers just that the Giants should of suffered a league standing consequence for the decision rather than just a small financial punishment.

But I don't think you can Punish the Giants as a business for another business call. I think you have a reasoned suggestion. But if the Odyssey Trust didn't own the Giants but still owned the arena and this call was made would you be able to make the same suggestion?