by Whistle »
10 Nov 2008 17:45
buggsey I am delighted with your response, I can confirm as i have said I have asked Mr Howe why he has vetoed the proposal, if it is an issue of removing the dead blooms, I will agree to visit the stadium at least once a week for the purpose of disposing of the dead tributes, and if nesessary more often than that. Whilst speaking to some of the ground staff, they confirmed that during their regular walks around the stadium picking up rubbish, they dispose of redundant tributes, so I cannot see that being a problem, however I must wait for Mr Howes response.
This is what I reckon they'll be thinking. By affixing the rings to the stadium (even tho you pay for them) the club will be - or seen to be - in some way responsible for providing this 'service'. The service is, effectively an untended, unsupervised memorial garden of very limited size. People, especially grieving people, can get quite emotional about memorials, tributes, graves etc.
These are the problems the club might anticipate:
- too much demand for this service - please provide more rings!
- arguments about precedence - should a recent bereavement take precedence of someone being remembered 2 /5 /10 years after death?
- Mrs Bereaved Royal puts up her expensive tribute on Saturday. On Sunday before an London Irish match Mr Grieving O'Cockney replaces it with one of his own. "Oi, these rings are for Reading fans only." "no we share all the facilities in the stadium" "yes but these were paid for by Reading fans" "are you saying our dead aren't as worthy as yours?" Etc Etc in the Evening Post.
What you're doing is for the best of motives but it is crossing a line and formally involving the club in something that is difficult for them to manage - the PR dynamite side, rather than the mechanics of putting them in the wall and clearing up afterwards. You might think all of these points are unrealistic. I hope you're right.
Good point above about the Hillsborough memorial. That might be in a different league though.