Newcastle Vipers do not hold valid Employers and Public li..

THE G.FLAMES WEBSITE HAS THE FOLLOWING:


The Guildford Flames regret to announce that the club will not be
travelling to Newcastle on Sunday, January 2nd for the scheduled
fixture against the Vipers.



On Saturday, January 1st, the Flames were informed by the British
National League; Bob Brahma, Chief of Referees; and Jo Collins of the
Ice Hockey Players Association that the Newcastle Vipers do not hold
valid Employers and Public liability insurance. Despite several hours
of efforts to obtain confirmation to the contrary, the Flames were
unable to obtain such evidence and as a result will not be in Newcastle
for the scheduled match.



If any supporters know of others who may be planning to make that trip,
please inform them of this information.



The Guildford Flames apologise for any inconvenience, but must consider
the best interests of Flames players when arriving at such decisions.



The Flames have full intentions of making the trip at a later date,
when the Newcastle Vipers are able to demonstrate that the above
insurance is in place.
 >> Stay informed about: Newcastle Vipers do not hold valid Employers and Public li.. 

Yeah that the posted on sat evening but please do as i suggested and read
the statement issued by Newcastle Vipers on newcastlevipers.com last night.
Thanks
<benrobertsmith.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104750334.730545.203670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> THE G.FLAMES WEBSITE HAS THE FOLLOWING:
>
>
> The Guildford Flames regret to announce that the club will not be
> travelling to Newcastle on Sunday, January 2nd for the scheduled
> fixture against the Vipers.
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 1st, the Flames were informed by the British
> National League; Bob Brahma, Chief of Referees; and Jo Collins of the
> Ice Hockey Players Association that the Newcastle Vipers do not hold
> valid Employers and Public liability insurance. Despite several hours
> of efforts to obtain confirmation to the contrary, the Flames were
> unable to obtain such evidence and as a result will not be in Newcastle
> for the scheduled match.
>
>
>
> If any supporters know of others who may be planning to make that trip,
> please inform them of this information.
>
>
>
> The Guildford Flames apologise for any inconvenience, but must consider
> the best interests of Flames players when arriving at such decisions.
>
>
>
> The Flames have full intentions of making the trip at a later date,
> when the Newcastle Vipers are able to demonstrate that the above
> insurance is in place.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Newcastle Vipers do not hold valid Employers and Public li.. 

Posting corrected to make sense.

> <benrobertsmith.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote

>>Newcastle Vipers do not hold valid Employers and Public liability
>>insurance so their scheduled match with the Guildford Flames on Sunday
>>2nd January 2005 will not go ahead.

susan gray wrote:
> Yes they do

Interesting that Guildford's point about visual proof has not been
addressed. Newcastle make a point of saying they provided plenty of
verbal confirmation but I'm with Guildford that a piece of paper should
not be difficult to get across, especially if the issue has been raised
by someone in an official capacity, rightly or wrongly.

Of course, by not playing the match Newcastle will miss out on a lot
of revenue which *could* have an impact if a payment is due shortly -
surely all the more reason to get confirmation across although I *hope*
Guildford were not using 'tactics' based on this knowledge.
 >> Stay informed about: Newcastle Vipers do not hold valid Employers and Public li..