• Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

Clonefan32

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2008
16,495
11,715
113
I explained it before that he probably would have done himself a favor if he would have said that Stephens would be closed "for the duration of the pandemic" rather than "indefinitely". That would make a lot of the people up in arms at this time a lot more secure that this wasn't a convenient attempt to close Stephens for good.
This is a difference without a distinction.
 

Clonefan32

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2008
16,495
11,715
113
It is not me who is stuck on the idea that we might still have fans - that is the express wishes of the athletic department as stated in at least two emails to fans over the past week. So when Pollard says on one day that we're aiming for fans then on the next day repeatedly references "the decision" not to have fans and the consequences that stem from that decision - when no such decision had been announced - that is not transparent messaging, it is confusing at best and a lie at worst.

Generally Pollard has been open and transparent throughout this process, which is why the past week has seemed so out of character. There were numerous other ways to bring up the concern about Stephens - a concern I'm certain most would have understood - that didn't involve being so abrupt and so petty.
I'm going to guess Jamie has a pretty good grip by now on whether or not we are having fans.

Plus, his letter discusses the possibilities if we don't have fans. What's wrong with that? If we do have fans then maybe some of the things he discussed wont happen. But why not at least put out the probable ramifications now so that people can understand those ramifications when generating their opinions on this topic? Because it's obvious the public perception has a big bearing on what happens--let them know the likely outcomes so they can have an informed opinion.

This fixation on "but what if we do have fans" is silly. Great. Then maybe some of those things don't get cut. What's your point?
 

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
2,978
2,941
113
Ankeny
I'm going to guess Jamie has a pretty good grip by now on whether or not we are having fans.

Plus, his letter discusses the possibilities if we don't have fans. What's wrong with that? If we do have fans then maybe some of the things he discussed wont happen. But why not at least put out the probable ramifications now so that people can understand those ramifications when generating their opinions on this topic? Because it's obvious the public perception has a big bearing on what happens--let them know the likely outcomes so they can have an informed opinion.

This fixation on "but what if we do have fans" is silly. Great. Then maybe some of those things don't get cut. What's your point?
This is turning into Groundhog Day. Every morning you post something like this as if we haven't talked about this extensively already numerous times.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Pollard did not lay out his plan for the hypothetical of what might happen without fans all season. He said it as if it were a done deal, which his own communications before that email, and his own statements after that email, have contradicted.

Why does it matter? I don't know...maybe because I prefer not to be lied to? Because I prefer people not pick public fights and whip up public sentiment against people on false pretenses?
 

CycloneErik

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2008
91,880
29,631
113
Jamerica
rememberingdoria.wordpress.com

Clonefan32

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2008
16,495
11,715
113
This is turning into Groundhog Day. Every morning you post something like this as if we haven't talked about this extensively already numerous times.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Pollard did not lay out his plan for the hypothetical of what might happen without fans all season. He said it as if it were a done deal, which his own communications before that email, and his own statements after that email, have contradicted.

Why does it matter? I don't know...maybe because I prefer not to be lied to? Because I prefer people not pick public fights and whip up public sentiment against people on false pretenses?
I guess I'll just leave it at trusting Jamie Pollard more than Trice on understanding the financial situation and the likelihood of fans.
 

Clonefan32

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2008
16,495
11,715
113
Just because you cannot see nuance doesn't mean it isn't there.
It's funny that the other poster is so concerned about Jamie Pollard lying to him, yet you want him to commit to C.Y. only being closed through the pandemic. Of course he's going to say indefinitely because he has no real clue how long the financial impact of this is going to last. He said it's closed indefinitely because it is going to be closed indefinitely, because we have no real idea when we can get out of this financial hole.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron