Swindon AdvertiserNINE MONTHS OF MAYHEM: An absurd and brilliant season (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

NINE MONTHS OF MAYHEM: An absurd and brilliant season

Swindon Advertiser: NINE MONTHS OF MAYHEM: An absurd and brilliant season NINE MONTHS OF MAYHEM: An absurd and brilliant season

ON THE banks of Lake Garda in July last year, perhaps the most bizarre season in Swindon’s recent history laid its roots.

With seven players acquired over the summer - in the shape of Gary Roberts, James Collins, Andy Williams, Tommy Miller, Troy Archibald-Henville, Jay McEveley and Alan Navarro - manager Paolo Di Canio had used the financial clout offered to him by the backing of Andrew Black to put down the foundations for a second successive promotion challenge.

“I know the new signings that we have brought in know about the size of the club and they are excited to play in front of the Swindon fans,” said Di Canio. “It is going to be an exciting season.” He was not wrong.

AUGUST

In the sweltering Italian heat, the squad bonded. That’s what 14 days of near isolation can do to you.

They came back a team, and a team ready to prove themselves in League One.

Before they could embark on their league campaign, however, a first-round Capital One Cup tie, on TV at home to Brighton, had to be negotiated.

The Championship side, who ended up finishing fourth in the second tier before losing out in the play-offs, were torn to pieces as, in fairytale fashion, former Seagulls man Navarro scored twice against his former club.

He could barely believe his own achievements, saying after the game: “I’ve never scored two goals in a game and it was a bit of a shock. I probably had no energy to celebrate it towards the end.”

The victory set the tone for a stunning start to the season and, though a goalless draw at Hartlepool had Di Canio refusing to speak to the media after the match, August was closed out with wins over Crawley and MK Dons - meaning the Robins had not conceded a goal in 360 minutes of league football.

And then, in the second round of the Capital One Cup, delirium.

Swindon were not expected to do anything special when they went to Premier League Stoke City. The Potters put out a strong starting XI, and could call on the old heads of Peter Crouch and Jon Walters from the bench.

It didn’t matter one jot. James Collins netted a last-minute winner, in extra time, to sneak a 4-3 win. It was a remarkable hat-trick in remarkable circumstances.

“Tonight on a personal level is a great highlight for me, scoring a hat-trick at a Premiership ground in front of all the Swindon fans, showing them what I can do,” said the striker.

Town were on a roll and, with John Bostock, Giles Coke and Darren Ward all added to the squad before the end of the transfer window, what could possibly go wrong?

SEPTEMBER

As it turned out, the answer to that question was ‘quite a lot’ and ‘all at once’.

Confidence was high when the Town travelling brigade marched up the M6 to Preston. But within 23 minutes at Deepdale Swindon’s world was turned on its head and Di Canio was once again making national news.

Like him or loath him, it’s impossible to deny that hauling off your goalkeeper after a quarter of a game is not normal managerial technique.

Foderingham was incensed as he stormed down the touchline, kicking an innocent water bottle into the crowd and eventually going to sit with the fans.

Town lost 4-1, and Di Canio said of his keeper in the immediate aftermath: “He was one of the worst players I have ever seen in a football match.” Hardly a ringing endorsement - and worries of a rift between the player and his manager began to grow.

To Foderingham’s credit, he quickly quelled the storms by issuing an apology. “I was frustrated with myself in the heat of the moment and the disappointment of being substituted so early in the game,” he said.

The incident was shelved, but normal service couldn’t resume. Ward had a shocker on his debut in the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy, as Oxford nicked a last-gasp winner at the Kassam Stadium, before Dean Cox scored Leyton Orient’s goal in their 1-0 win at the County Ground.

A 2-2 draw at Carlisle followed, a game for which many Swindon supporters were late due to monster jams on the motorway, and it seemed the Town steamtrain was going off the rails.

Normal order was restored, however, when the Robins visited Portsmouth and dominated from the off.

Matt Ritchie netted against his boyhood club and Williams finally got off ther mark for the club after a nine-game wait.

Ritchie said: “I’m like a big kid still and it’s the best feeling in the world when you score and I couldn’t hold my emotions.”

The winger was on fire once again the following Saturday, scoring twice against Bournemouth in a 4-0 victory ahead of the much-awaited return of Charlie Austin to Wiltshire.

Austin’s Burnley were sent packing in the third round of the Capital One Cup and, when Simon Ferry scored the winner in Shropshire against Shrewsbury, everything seemed rosey at Town.

OCTOBER

Behind the scenes, however, that was far from the case. An error of judgement in the way tribunal fees for Archibald-Henville and Collins would have to be paid led to Swindon exceeding the 65 per cent of turnover wage cap and landed the club in a transfer embargo.

With majority shareholder Black, already funding a £4.5million shortfall between revenue and expenditure, unwilling to pump in the necessary funds to give Di Canio the flexibility in the transfer market he craved, the Italian went public with the news.

The local media were expecting a regular post-match chat after Collins’ first-minute goal defeated Bury at Gigg Lane, instead we were delivered an eye-opening description of life in the trenches.

Di Canio said: "If they let me work like they did last year it’s okay. I have to know and I have to be honest with the fans. You will know the day that we get the answer. It’s not the end of the world but we have to be honest and clear."

Chairman Jeremy Wray moved to calm the waters, saying: “It sounds very dramatic but there are several clubs under embargo throughout the bottom two leagues.”

Di Canio’s various embargo rants would dominate the back pages of the Advertiser for the following month.

In the boardroom, the dynamic was changing. Black, having fallen out with Wray over Di Canio’s expenditure and his ability to manipulate a watertight new contract in his favour over the summer, decided to act.

After the 2-2 draw with Coventry on October 13, the Advertiser learnt that Wray was to be stood down with former diplomat Sir William Patey stepping in, at the behest of Black.

The news broke on the morning of Monday, October 15. It was explosive.

Fans were confused and bemused in equal measure. Wray, though soft in allowing Di Canio almost endless funds, was a communicator. He had the respect of the supporters.

On the day his departure was formally confirmed, Wray spoke at length to the Adver from his offices in Ramsbury.

He said: “(I felt) surprise and disappointment initially, but he (Black) made it clear what he wanted to do and ultimately he is the major shareholder of this club.

“I know he likes to stay in the background and I respect that but people should recognise that he has put a huge amount of money into this club and he has his own views of how it should move forward.

“In this particular instance I didn’t agree but he’s focused on that.”

Patey was brought in to steady the ship and shore up the books, but he lost touch with the supporters at a rapid rate.

On the pitch, a draw against Scunthorpe and a defeat at Crewe were hardly awe-inspiring and it seemed Swindon would rely on a victory over Aston Villa at the end of the month to secure the unbudgeted revenue necessary to propel them out of embargo...

...Di Canio appeared to be of the same opinion. He branded the trip to Stevenage unimportant three days before Villa came to Town, not that it mattered. The Robins decimated the then second-placed side 4-0, with Miles Storey scoring his first professional goal.

An extraordinary week for the young man from the West Midlands got even more ridiculous when he came off the bench to score twice against the Villains.

“I couldn’t really believe the second one to be honest,” he said. “You see people just flick it in with their heel all the time but it was just reactions.”

Town lost 3-2 but a sell-out crowd were entertained.

NOVEMBER

The next fixture at the County Ground could barely have felt more different.

A paltry 6,400 witnessed Swindon get dumped out of the FA Cup at the first hurdle at the hands of non-league Macclesfield, as an experiment which saw Archibald-Henville playing in central midfield totally backfired.

With Di Canio continuing to voice his disapproval at Black’s apparent inaction and the fans frustrated by the nature of their FA Cup exit, a boost was desperately needed.

In an email received by the Advertiser on November 4, Black intimated that he was trying to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion and - two days later - that came to pass as Patey confirmed the lifting of the embargo on a BBC Wiltshire fans’ phone-in.

Black had released £500,000 of funds originally earmarked for spending in January, in the form of equity, to take Town’s wage bill back below 65 per cent of turnover.

Di Canio finally allowed himself to be happy. He said: “I can now bring a challenge into the dressing room and the extra quality to help people improve. I can smile now.”

Swindon responded to the Italian’s new optimistic outlook with a 2-0 battering of Walsall, before the new recruits Di Canio promised arrived the following week in the shape of Danny Hollands and Chris Martin.

Both made their debuts off the bench against Yeovil the next weekend, as Town ran rampant in a 4-1 win to move third in the league table.

Two successive 1-0 defeats, to Brentford and Notts County, took the gloss off a fairly successful month for the Robins, and there was also the bad news that McEveley would require surgery on an ongoing knee problem.

DECEMBER

After Danny Hollands’ own goal salvaged a draw for Doncaster at the County Ground, Swindon clicked into gear over the festive season.

Raffa De Vita nabbed both in a 2-0 victory at Oldham before league leaders Tranmere were slaughtered 5-0 on the Friday night before Christmas on home turf.

Hollands, De Vita, Williams and Ritchie shared the goals, to leave Di Canio beaming.

He said: “I was sure we would win this game but not in this manner, and we created another six clear chances. Even a person that knows nothing about football can understand tonight.”

With the Boxing Day trip to Leyton Orient and the subsequent visit to Colchester called off due to unplayable pitches, much to the annoyance of Di Canio, the Robins enjoyed a relatively quiet December.

The decible level became unbearable in the new year.

JANUARY

Five second-half goals against Portsmouth, and four from substitute Collins, started 2013 off with a bang from a Swindon perspective, but in the background a series of events had been triggered which would leave the club teetering on the edge of insolvency.

On January 4, Black formally told the Town board that he wanted to sell up his 98 per cent stake in the club. And he wanted out quick.

Swindon had until February to find a new buyer and exchange contracts on the ownership of the club else it would be placed into administration. Sources close to the Robins told the Advertiser that the Football League would consider demoting or even expelling the club for repeated financial infringements should they been entered into administration.

The Robins managed to beat Carlisle 4-0 and draw 1-1 at Bournemouth before this news eventually reared its head on January 17.

Patey: "Andrew has made it clear he’s looking for new investors. That’s why there’s been a great deal of activity in the last few weeks. We’ve had some positive talks and we’re encouraged by the discussions."

He also suggested he was unable to commit to avoiding the dreaded A-word.

Discussions began with as many as seven interested parties, many of whom fell away due to the ridiculously fast nature of the takeover required by the outgoing Black.

Two foreign parties, one of whom the Advertiser learnt had ties to a club in Italy, were spoken to but opted not to pursue the opporunity.

On the pitch, Di Canio tried to keep up morale by buying pizzas for around 60 volunteers who worked into the night shovelling snow off the County Ground pitch in order to allow the visit of Shrewsbury to take place. It worked, and the Robins won 2-0.

But the battle to secure new owners was not reaping dividends.

In the end it was left to Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd - a newco formed with the sole purpose of transferring the shares in the club - to take control.

But the transfer of shares was not as simple as said. With due diligence being neglected, McCrory and his backers were left with a snap decision on Tuesday, January 29 of whether or not to involve themselves in the club.

Financial restructruing specialists Begbie Traynor had already been brought in to oversee the process of administration and a memo had been sent around all the Football League clubs offering the entire Town squad at half their market value.

As Swindon were drawing 0-0 with Orient in London, a meeting was taking place elsewhere which would decide the future of the football club.

In the end an initial agreement was reached with McCrory and the following day it was announced that contracts had been exchanged.

But the drama had only just begun.

On the afternoon of January 30, Ritchie was told to travel to Bournemouth to sign for Swindon’s promotion rivals. He had trained with his teammates earlier in the day and the move took the entire squad by surprise.

Di Canio was fuming. The following day, in a press conference held ahead of the trip to Crawley, he cut a more relaxed figure. In reality his faux persona that day was him keeping up his end of a bargain which would see Bradley Wright-Phillips, Danny Green and Marlon Pack arrive in Wiltshire in return.

The same afternoon, chief executive Nick Watkins tried to explain the very real need to sell Ritchie to cover overheads and prevent insolvency.

He said: “(If Ritchie had not been sold) then I think the dogs of administration would be straining at the leash right now.

“There is now a short period of time between the transaction and the Football League agreeing to the owners and directors tests.

“During that time there is a requirement to fund the club and it was agreed between the current shareholders and the prospective new shareholders that the way to achieve that was to accept an offer from AFC Bournemouth for Matt Ritchie.”

The fans were livid. And when the three proposed new signings were blocked by a Football League embargo created by Black removing a sum of money held in an escrow account in order to satisfy the authorities that Town had the necessary funds to support their overspend, so did Di Canio.

FEBRUARY

On Friday, February 1, at 7pm, the Adver received a statement from the Italian in which he revealed he was considering his position at the County Ground.

It read: “It is with great regret that I issue this statement but unfortunately, the events of the last few days have left me with no alternative other than to consider my position.”

He claimed Ritchie was sold behind his back and that he had suffered a number of broken promises.

After the 1-1 draw at Crawley the next day he refused to be drawn on the topic any further, and the same was the case when Collins’ goal earnt a 1-0 victory at Colchester despite only 14 fit Swindon players travelling to Essex.

Perhaps Di Canio had already made up his mind to go.

The fans tried to convince him to stay and an Adver-backed campaign urged him to reconsider leaving during the 1-1 draw with Hartlepool on February 9.

Two days later, however, Di Canio submitted his resignation. He did not take training on the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of that week and only returned to work following a meeting with the incoming board.

McCrory went to Ramsbury to meet the Italian and, with lawyers also involved, discussed how he would rescind any resignation threat. An agreement was struck which would see Di Canio return provided the takeover of the club was completed by 5pm on Monday, February 18.

It wasn’t.

At 6.56pm that evening, the Advertiser received a statement from Di Canio announcing he was to quit Swindon Town.

Part of it read: “"As I had previously stated, there have been a number of broken promises made by the club over the time that I have been manager of Swindon Town.

“Despite these problems, I have delivered everything and more that was asked of me, by achieving promotion last year as champions and competing this season for promotion to the Championship and being just three points from top place a year earlier than expected.”

Di Canio claimed his mind could have been swayed by a phone call from McCrory on the evening of February 18. McCrory claims to have made that call. Regardless, the outcome is typed in bold font in the history books.

The next day, already disrupted by Di Canio’s walk-out, Town were several hours late in their departure for Tranmere for a crucial League One game and then missed their pre-match meal.

Not ones to be too bothered by anything, the Robins went and won the game 3-1, with Roberts scoring from within his own half. Swindon went top of the league.

After the match assistant manager Fabrizio Piccareta and the rest of the coaching staff resigned in a show of solidarity to Di Canio. The search for a new manager was on.

The new board were formally approved by the Football League on February 22, with Jed McCrory becoming chairman, Steve Murrall taking the title of general manager and Gary Hooper and Callum Rice also joining the board.

At a press conference on Monday, February 25, McCrory said: “I agreed to purchase the club with my personal money and also had fantastic discussions with private investors, football fans who had seen the model. They know the drive I have to take things forward and they supported me.

“I didn’t want to be the figurehead, I never want to be a figurehead, I didn’t want to be in the papers, I didn’t want to be in the pictures, I just wanted to help put a football club together.”

Miller and Ward were put in charge of first-team affairs at the request of the players, and started with a meek 1-1 draw against Preston.

A midweek home defeat to relegation fodder Bury left Miller accepting something had to be done to rectify the situation.

He said: “Maybe it needs a different voice, someone from the outside coming in to get a hold of the lads.”

MARCH

After considering Ian Wright and Kevin Blackwell, McCrory plumped for former Aston Villa assistant manager Kevin MacDonald, who took charge of his first game in the 2-1 win at Coventry on March 2.

Meanwhile, former manager Di Canio was considering his options with regards to a potential law suit on the grounds of breach of contract and it emerged that the Italian had returned in the dead of the night to retrieve memorabilia of his time in charge from his old office.

It was a bizarre passage in the club’s history, and the fans were keen to retain a focus on the push for automatic promotion.

That dream stumbled with a draw against Walsall and a defeat at Brentford, before the stabilisers were applied courtesy of two late goals in a 2-0 win at Yeovil.

Town were still third, but with new recruits needed for the run-in, the embargo which remained in place following Black’s exit was still to be lifted.

Some fans misinterpreted its existence as a new set of restrictions brought in by the Football League because of a lack of funds from the new owners.

In reality, McCrory and his investors had to set about filling the £1.2million shortfall to ensure the League’s satisfaction. It is understood Lee Power’s money played a major role, as did his contacts with Spurs in bringing in Massimo Luongo, Nathan Byrne and Dean Parrett - who could come to the club after the embargo was removed with 53 seconds to spare on emergency deadline day.

Adam Rooney’s spectacular overhead kick earnt a point against Notts County and, despite a difficult run-in, Town still had the foundations from which to launch a serious promotion challenge.

It never materialised.

APRIL

Many fans had made their minds up about McCrory, with internet gossip spreading like wildfire and dividing supporters’ opinion.

Equally, MacDonald’s use of Simon Ferry wide on the right and a 4-5-1 formation otherwise did not go down well with the men and women who have followed the club all their lives.

The Scot found life tough, with the shadow of Di Canio stretching across him and casting a frost-bitten shadow.

He wasn’t helped by limp performances at Doncaster, MK Dons and Sheffield United, all of which ended in defeats and, combined, meant that Town would have to settle for the play-offs.

On the evening of April 16 a report on local radio erroneously named Power as another new owner of the football club.

Power, who has come to play a major part in player recruitment, is believed to have invested money during the January window but McCrory vehemently denied he was a new owner.

He told the Advertiser: “He is an investor who is putting physical cash in, hard cash to take the club forward, it really is as simple as that. He’s definitely not a new owner, he’s contributing towards the club and he’s going to be a huge part of this club going forward.”

Stevenage and Crewe were beaten to secure a play-off spot, before the Advertiser announced another new face set to join the board.

Stephen Crouch, a chartered accountant, had sent his SRC Taxation accountants in to forensically analyse Town’s books for several weeks prior to the revelations. His involvement, however, has yet to be confirmed by the club.

A bizarre defeat to Scunthorpe on the final day of the campaign was another tasteless blow for the Robins, who threw away the chance to play Yeovil over two legs and instead ended up facing Brentford.

MAY

And so it came to the denouement of a ridiculous campaign. An unadulterated maelstrom of the bizarre, the sublime and the simply unbelievable.

Brentford nicked a draw with a last-minute penalty at the County Ground in the first leg and then bonkers stuff at Griffin Park where Swindon rallied from 3-1 down to equalise in the final minute thanks to Aden Flint’s header.

Despite Byrne’s red card, Town hung on for penalties but Storey missed. Another season in League One beckoned.

A season that promised so much delivered plenty without ever satisfying to its full potential.

The ‘what could have beens’ will linger forever, but it’s over now. It’s over now. Even that short sentence is hard to really understand.

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:19am Wed 15 May 13

Stilloyal says...

So Jed has screwed (not literally) the Swindon ladies team also, money grabbing so & so.
So Jed has screwed (not literally) the Swindon ladies team also, money grabbing so & so. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

9:34am Wed 15 May 13

STFC 67 says...

Anyone who trusts Jed now must have an IQ of less than 1
Cant wait for next season to end already when he will be gone
Anyone who trusts Jed now must have an IQ of less than 1 Cant wait for next season to end already when he will be gone STFC 67
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 15 May 13

Is that you Lovesey says...

Guys I am not saying I trust the board, but the whole board isn't in place yet, things aren't right at the club, I have pals there who are saying there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment and its not the best place to work, but we know what is going to happen, they will cut the playing staff back to kids and a few senior pro's offers on players will be acepted.
Guys I am not saying I trust the board, but the whole board isn't in place yet, things aren't right at the club, I have pals there who are saying there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment and its not the best place to work, but we know what is going to happen, they will cut the playing staff back to kids and a few senior pro's offers on players will be acepted. Is that you Lovesey
  • Score: 0

10:10am Wed 15 May 13

Graham8181 says...

Thank god this horrible horrible season is over. My memories from mid season of us being unbeatable and the best team in the league by a country mile then all gone so suddenly. Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long. It has left such a bitter taste in my mouth about this club, the board, the management. I am trying to banish all thoughts around this season as it makes me so angry and upset at what we through away.
Thank god this horrible horrible season is over. My memories from mid season of us being unbeatable and the best team in the league by a country mile then all gone so suddenly. Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long. It has left such a bitter taste in my mouth about this club, the board, the management. I am trying to banish all thoughts around this season as it makes me so angry and upset at what we through away. Graham8181
  • Score: 0

10:14am Wed 15 May 13

RAYSPARROW says...

It needed saying in detail.
It needed saying in detail. RAYSPARROW
  • Score: 0

10:17am Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Beyond hoping that anyone representing Swindon does well, I'm not going to pretend to have any interest in ladies' football. But it seems we have yet another example of the board saying one thing and doing another. "A virus going through the club" - very strong words from a clearly very angry man.

I stand by what I've said all along. These people are bullshiitters.
Beyond hoping that anyone representing Swindon does well, I'm not going to pretend to have any interest in ladies' football. But it seems we have yet another example of the board saying one thing and doing another. "A virus going through the club" - very strong words from a clearly very angry man. I stand by what I've said all along. These people are bullshiitters. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:35am Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Beyond hoping that anyone representing Swindon does well, I'm not going to pretend to have any interest in ladies' football. But it seems we have yet another example of the board saying one thing and doing another. "A virus going through the club" - very strong words from a clearly very angry man. I stand by what I've said all along. These people are bullshiitters.
Den,

I read that article and read it again. I am still not sure which Chairman, General Manager and Secretary were being referred to. If these were members of Swindon Town Ladies attending meetings with STFITC then it puts a different slant on things.

I do have an interest in ladies football as I have daughters that are involved and there is extra funding available to clubs when girls are brought on board. I am a bit confused however as to how additional funds would go the STFC as STFITC already have girls involved with them.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Beyond hoping that anyone representing Swindon does well, I'm not going to pretend to have any interest in ladies' football. But it seems we have yet another example of the board saying one thing and doing another. "A virus going through the club" - very strong words from a clearly very angry man. I stand by what I've said all along. These people are bullshiitters.[/p][/quote]Den, I read that article and read it again. I am still not sure which Chairman, General Manager and Secretary were being referred to. If these were members of Swindon Town Ladies attending meetings with STFITC then it puts a different slant on things. I do have an interest in ladies football as I have daughters that are involved and there is extra funding available to clubs when girls are brought on board. I am a bit confused however as to how additional funds would go the STFC as STFITC already have girls involved with them. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford.
Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg.
We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne.
But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out.
Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans.
Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :-
"The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken"
What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken.
Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans.
However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken.
How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans,
Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came.
The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point.
The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides.
In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

10:43am Wed 15 May 13

peatmoorred says...

In the artical it says we have a shortfall of £1.2m when the concerts happen jed has said it's worth £1.8m profit per year so surely that covers the shortfall plus £600k profit ? I don't like jed one bit he gives it large on twitter but if you ask him a serious question either on there and as the supporters club and trust have found face to face he ignores the question .. I have no proof but my feelings are that players will be sold which will raise a few million and he will walk out taking the money with him. The concerts (if they happen) will prob some how end up in his pocket too even after leaving .

As for the ladies football he has realised there is money to be made and will have that too.. I was seriously thinking of getting a season ticket for the 1st time but I won't I am not lining his pockets I will still go to games but pay on the day that way if things go tits up I haven't wasted a lot of money to me on lining his pockets
In the artical it says we have a shortfall of £1.2m when the concerts happen jed has said it's worth £1.8m profit per year so surely that covers the shortfall plus £600k profit ? I don't like jed one bit he gives it large on twitter but if you ask him a serious question either on there and as the supporters club and trust have found face to face he ignores the question .. I have no proof but my feelings are that players will be sold which will raise a few million and he will walk out taking the money with him. The concerts (if they happen) will prob some how end up in his pocket too even after leaving . As for the ladies football he has realised there is money to be made and will have that too.. I was seriously thinking of getting a season ticket for the 1st time but I won't I am not lining his pockets I will still go to games but pay on the day that way if things go tits up I haven't wasted a lot of money to me on lining his pockets peatmoorred
  • Score: 0

10:54am Wed 15 May 13

Graham8181 says...

2 brilliant posts. I remember when it was the penalties saying to my dad I hope we win the toss and penalties are taken our end but then they just started taking them the brentford end. Couldn't believe it. So unfair. Storey was bricking it when he took it. Robbed again by the referee. No one ever is on swindons side.
2 brilliant posts. I remember when it was the penalties saying to my dad I hope we win the toss and penalties are taken our end but then they just started taking them the brentford end. Couldn't believe it. So unfair. Storey was bricking it when he took it. Robbed again by the referee. No one ever is on swindons side. Graham8181
  • Score: 0

11:03am Wed 15 May 13

chrystovski says...

Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion. chrystovski
  • Score: 0

11:07am Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

peatmoorred wrote:
In the artical it says we have a shortfall of £1.2m when the concerts happen jed has said it's worth £1.8m profit per year so surely that covers the shortfall plus £600k profit ? I don't like jed one bit he gives it large on twitter but if you ask him a serious question either on there and as the supporters club and trust have found face to face he ignores the question .. I have no proof but my feelings are that players will be sold which will raise a few million and he will walk out taking the money with him. The concerts (if they happen) will prob some how end up in his pocket too even after leaving . As for the ladies football he has realised there is money to be made and will have that too.. I was seriously thinking of getting a season ticket for the 1st time but I won't I am not lining his pockets I will still go to games but pay on the day that way if things go tits up I haven't wasted a lot of money to me on lining his pockets
These are pretty serious allegations and not based on fact in any way.

You and others are accusing before any event has happened. Guilty of something that has not happened yet.

Players could be sold, it is what happens in football. If someone comes in with £2m for Collins or Williams would the club refuse it ? Would you blame the club for taking the money ?

But then Jed is going (note the word Going) to pocket it. As you are so good at predicting the future perhaps you can enter euromillions on Friday, win the Jackpot and buy the club.

COYMR

ps on Twitter, ask R.Branson a serious question about how he runs his companies and see if you get a reply that doesn't end in Off.
[quote][p][bold]peatmoorred[/bold] wrote: In the artical it says we have a shortfall of £1.2m when the concerts happen jed has said it's worth £1.8m profit per year so surely that covers the shortfall plus £600k profit ? I don't like jed one bit he gives it large on twitter but if you ask him a serious question either on there and as the supporters club and trust have found face to face he ignores the question .. I have no proof but my feelings are that players will be sold which will raise a few million and he will walk out taking the money with him. The concerts (if they happen) will prob some how end up in his pocket too even after leaving . As for the ladies football he has realised there is money to be made and will have that too.. I was seriously thinking of getting a season ticket for the 1st time but I won't I am not lining his pockets I will still go to games but pay on the day that way if things go tits up I haven't wasted a lot of money to me on lining his pockets[/p][/quote]These are pretty serious allegations and not based on fact in any way. You and others are accusing before any event has happened. Guilty of something that has not happened yet. Players could be sold, it is what happens in football. If someone comes in with £2m for Collins or Williams would the club refuse it ? Would you blame the club for taking the money ? But then Jed is going (note the word Going) to pocket it. As you are so good at predicting the future perhaps you can enter euromillions on Friday, win the Jackpot and buy the club. COYMR ps on Twitter, ask R.Branson a serious question about how he runs his companies and see if you get a reply that doesn't end in Off. Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

11:16am Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do.

I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do. I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:19am Wed 15 May 13

Cookie43 says...

chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Exactly
Brentford finished above us in table so had home advantage in 2nd leg
The ref will always then give the penalty shoot out in front of home fans
But I have to agree he was shocking on the day and during the game he was a Homer!!
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Exactly Brentford finished above us in table so had home advantage in 2nd leg The ref will always then give the penalty shoot out in front of home fans But I have to agree he was shocking on the day and during the game he was a Homer!! Cookie43
  • Score: 0

11:25am Wed 15 May 13

stfcphil says...

I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR.
Two absolute facts are still at the fore though.
1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and:
2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true.
I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run.
Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff.
The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.
I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR. Two absolute facts are still at the fore though. 1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and: 2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true. I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run. Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff. The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative. stfcphil
  • Score: 0

11:27am Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it:

"When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken."

There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this.

They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)
Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it: "When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken." There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this. They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.) Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 15 May 13

stfcphil says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it:

"When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken."

There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this.

They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)
So when you've chased them out of town, what happens next ?
We are not in a very strong position ...
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it: "When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken." There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this. They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)[/p][/quote]So when you've chased them out of town, what happens next ? We are not in a very strong position ... stfcphil
  • Score: 0

11:47am Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Just reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post that Leeds United may make a bid for Nathan Thompson if their own full back Byram moves on.
Just reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post that Leeds United may make a bid for Nathan Thompson if their own full back Byram moves on. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Wed 15 May 13

themoonraker says...

stfcphil wrote:
I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR.
Two absolute facts are still at the fore though.
1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and:
2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true.
I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run.
Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff.
The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.
The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in.
I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives.
Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club.
Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving.
Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past.
Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club.
Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.?
I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour.
No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me?
[quote][p][bold]stfcphil[/bold] wrote: I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR. Two absolute facts are still at the fore though. 1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and: 2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true. I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run. Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff. The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.[/p][/quote]The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in. I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives. Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club. Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving. Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past. Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club. Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.? I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour. No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me? themoonraker
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Wed 15 May 13

stfcphil says...

themoonraker wrote:
stfcphil wrote:
I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR.
Two absolute facts are still at the fore though.
1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and:
2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true.
I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run.
Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff.
The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.
The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in.
I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives.
Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club.
Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving.
Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past.
Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club.
Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.?
I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour.
No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me?
I think among the true representation of fans Moonraker, many would agree with us. Unfortunately, this forum is not a true representation of fans. Some have very valid views and opinions, but there are many who just use it as a means to vent their own frustration and vitriol rather than be logical or constructive. However, if that is therapeutic for them, who are we to complain about it.
[quote][p][bold]themoonraker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcphil[/bold] wrote: I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR. Two absolute facts are still at the fore though. 1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and: 2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true. I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run. Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff. The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.[/p][/quote]The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in. I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives. Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club. Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving. Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past. Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club. Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.? I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour. No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me?[/p][/quote]I think among the true representation of fans Moonraker, many would agree with us. Unfortunately, this forum is not a true representation of fans. Some have very valid views and opinions, but there are many who just use it as a means to vent their own frustration and vitriol rather than be logical or constructive. However, if that is therapeutic for them, who are we to complain about it. stfcphil
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Wed 15 May 13

Cookie43 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it:

"When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken."

There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this.

They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)
Den
I am sitting on the fence with reference to the board etc and what their true intentions are, but what would you suggest as an alternative ?
Their are fans who obviously hate them and want them gone reading some of the posts on here that's obvious.
But what else or who else is there ?
I read all this anti board and yet no one who wants them gone can give an alternative as previous posts have said
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it: "When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken." There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this. They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)[/p][/quote]Den I am sitting on the fence with reference to the board etc and what their true intentions are, but what would you suggest as an alternative ? Their are fans who obviously hate them and want them gone reading some of the posts on here that's obvious. But what else or who else is there ? I read all this anti board and yet no one who wants them gone can give an alternative as previous posts have said Cookie43
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it: "When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken." There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this. They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)
Den,

I see what you are saying but I cannot ascertain from the article who has spoken to whom and who has let Glyn down. Both clubs will have boards and both clubs will have a chairman (or lady). I think the article has been badly worded and could be open to misinterpretation.

I have never suggested (as you say) that the board are not above criticism and I do share concerns. However I do not like accusations being made on hunches and until these hunches are reality I will defend the boards position.

I am not convinced either by the playing budget argument. If someone can find a statement from Jed that says the budget will be kept the same for next season I will gladly accept it. I suspect that the playing budget statement was for the remainder of the season purely and simply because it had to be sustained. The players were lined up in January and would have joined but for the FL having to do the due diligence (this is made clear in the article above).

I would like to know the reasons for the embargo continuing after due diligence but this may well have been down to lack of investment coming Jed's way.

I am aware that, as people so respectfully put it, he hasn't got a pot to p in but why should that be held against him.

IMO we have to give the new board a chance as they may be the only thing preventing us from going out of business.

If people want them gone, organise a posse and drive them out of town. If we then go out of business as a result perhaps this posse would like to admit they made a mistake in front of a packed County Ground.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon, I certainly don't understand the detail but this was the bit that struck me as having a familiar ring to it: "When Robins chairman Jed McCrory’s Seebeck 87 Ltd took over at the County Ground, Evans was made promises about the future of the ladies section including increased integration and support from the main club, but the former ladies manager believes these have already been broken." There is a definite pattern. Banbury fans have spoken of broken promises, we've seen several false assurances already about the transfer embargo, the playing budget, the manager deciding on signings etc - and now this. They "saved" the club - so they can behave in any way they like and be above criticism? (I know you're not suggesting that but plenty of others are.)[/p][/quote]Den, I see what you are saying but I cannot ascertain from the article who has spoken to whom and who has let Glyn down. Both clubs will have boards and both clubs will have a chairman (or lady). I think the article has been badly worded and could be open to misinterpretation. I have never suggested (as you say) that the board are not above criticism and I do share concerns. However I do not like accusations being made on hunches and until these hunches are reality I will defend the boards position. I am not convinced either by the playing budget argument. If someone can find a statement from Jed that says the budget will be kept the same for next season I will gladly accept it. I suspect that the playing budget statement was for the remainder of the season purely and simply because it had to be sustained. The players were lined up in January and would have joined but for the FL having to do the due diligence (this is made clear in the article above). I would like to know the reasons for the embargo continuing after due diligence but this may well have been down to lack of investment coming Jed's way. I am aware that, as people so respectfully put it, he hasn't got a pot to p in but why should that be held against him. IMO we have to give the new board a chance as they may be the only thing preventing us from going out of business. If people want them gone, organise a posse and drive them out of town. If we then go out of business as a result perhaps this posse would like to admit they made a mistake in front of a packed County Ground. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 15 May 13

mustard red says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford.
Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg.
We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne.
But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out.
Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans.
Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :-
"The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken"
What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken.
Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans.
However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken.
How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans,
Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came.
The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point.
The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides.
In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt.

I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :)

I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose.

I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change.

Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again?

Have a good summer, see you in August.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August. mustard red
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Wed 15 May 13

Graham8181 says...

chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Fair shout didn't know it worked like that
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Fair shout didn't know it worked like that Graham8181
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter.

They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed.

It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place.

If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted.
Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter. They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed. It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place. If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Last thought... I think Di Canio was probably one of the first to be strung along by the new owners. Initially he said he was "more than positive" about their arrival. Why would that have been? I suggest it was because they told him the same c0ck and bull story about funding that they told the rest of us. But he was canny enough to try to nail them down on it and they didn't deliver. We can debate the rights and wrongs of his actions but I'm convinced that was the real reason he jumped ship. Maybe a lot of us would have done the same.
Last thought... I think Di Canio was probably one of the first to be strung along by the new owners. Initially he said he was "more than positive" about their arrival. Why would that have been? I suggest it was because they told him the same c0ck and bull story about funding that they told the rest of us. But he was canny enough to try to nail them down on it and they didn't deliver. We can debate the rights and wrongs of his actions but I'm convinced that was the real reason he jumped ship. Maybe a lot of us would have done the same. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
I agree, although if that is why they do it then why not make it a rule so everyone understands what home advantage entails.

The sun was in the goalkeeper's eyes at that end, making it easier to score in theory, and you can argue either way whether that is good or not.

His worst decision that day was the sending off of Byrne. That was a disgrace.
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]I agree, although if that is why they do it then why not make it a rule so everyone understands what home advantage entails. The sun was in the goalkeeper's eyes at that end, making it easier to score in theory, and you can argue either way whether that is good or not. His worst decision that day was the sending off of Byrne. That was a disgrace. madterrier
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Wed 15 May 13

MITTED says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter.

They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed.

It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place.

If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted.
Thanks OiDen!, you saved me from saying exactly the same.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter. They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed. It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place. If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted.[/p][/quote]Thanks OiDen!, you saved me from saying exactly the same. MITTED
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 15 May 13

Swindon1984 says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved.

Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position.

As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had.

Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about.

AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club.

Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore)

I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest!
Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about. AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club. Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore) I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest! Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him.

Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all.

That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base.

While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do. madterrier
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter. They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed. It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place. If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted.
Den,

I did a quick search of the Adver archives for Town, Budget, McCrory etc and the following link maybe what you are refering to:

http://www.thisisswi
ndontownfc.co.uk/new
s/10251753.Calming_t
he_waters/

At the time of writing this article it would appear he had people on board who were prepared to back the club but he also refers to prudence.

Is this reference to Spectre and the huge fees being received. One of our previous chairman hated agents but was not vilified for it. Was Jed not prepared to pay huge fees to a person that added very little value to the club. Is this why someone left ?

If you can find another thread with a reference to budgets please post it.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon & Cookie, for me the issue is not about whether the owners have any money, nor is it about whether there is any alternative. It is simply a matter of whether they are treating people with respect or whether they are driving a coach and horses through their relationship with everybody - and I think it's the latter. They have created bad faith with their false promises. There is absolutely no doubt that McCrory said MacDonald would get the same budget as Di Canio, just as he and his colleagues gave us several bogus assurances on the transfer embargo, or that he said MacDonald would be the one to decide who goes, who stays and who gets signed. It has been obvious from the word go that there was never going to be a playing budget of £4.5m (I did suggest at the time that McCrory would eventually get out of that one by saying potential investors had let him down). If there was going to be that much money available, I can't see that there would ever have been a transfer embargo in the first place. If they want to run a tight ship and we have a team of kids and free transfers, fine. We are a relatively small club (although big for the lower divisions); we can live with that. But I think people who spend a large portion of their emotion, time and money supporting the Town deserve a lot better than being continually bullshiitted.[/p][/quote]Den, I did a quick search of the Adver archives for Town, Budget, McCrory etc and the following link maybe what you are refering to: http://www.thisisswi ndontownfc.co.uk/new s/10251753.Calming_t he_waters/ At the time of writing this article it would appear he had people on board who were prepared to back the club but he also refers to prudence. Is this reference to Spectre and the huge fees being received. One of our previous chairman hated agents but was not vilified for it. Was Jed not prepared to pay huge fees to a person that added very little value to the club. Is this why someone left ? If you can find another thread with a reference to budgets please post it. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about.

AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club.

Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore)

I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest!
What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't.

As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about. AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club. Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore) I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest![/p][/quote]What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't. As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

madterrier wrote:
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way.

The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way. The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about.

AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club.

Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore)

I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest!
What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't.

As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.
Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup.

For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again,
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about. AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club. Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore) I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest![/p][/quote]What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't. As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.[/p][/quote]Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup. For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again, Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

Oxon-Red wrote:
madterrier wrote:
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way.

The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase.

COYMR
Well said
[quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way. The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase. COYMR[/p][/quote]Well said Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

Oxon-Red wrote:
madterrier wrote:
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way.

The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase.

COYMR
Yes, if the person buying the club takes on the debts or other financial commitments. Black said there were no callable debts left, and all we've seen since February is the club's financial commitments slashed.

It's not the gist of my point anyway. It was about engaging with and communicating with supporters (customers).
[quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way. The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase. COYMR[/p][/quote]Yes, if the person buying the club takes on the debts or other financial commitments. Black said there were no callable debts left, and all we've seen since February is the club's financial commitments slashed. It's not the gist of my point anyway. It was about engaging with and communicating with supporters (customers). madterrier
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Wed 15 May 13

wraxall says...

Based on the average of 8400 per game
next season @an average of £16 per
ticket x 23 home games=£2,889.089
so the budget of £2.4m looks very conservative.(our average was 8374
last ) if all other revenues ,Cup,LG,Paint
sponsership, advertising,food and hospitality ,shop,progs TV ect Jed and his mates will have plenty to play with so
will be interesting to see who Kev Mc brings in.
Based on the average of 8400 per game next season @an average of £16 per ticket x 23 home games=£2,889.089 so the budget of £2.4m looks very conservative.(our average was 8374 last ) if all other revenues ,Cup,LG,Paint sponsership, advertising,food and hospitality ,shop,progs TV ect Jed and his mates will have plenty to play with so will be interesting to see who Kev Mc brings in. wraxall
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

madterrier wrote:
Oxon-Red wrote:
madterrier wrote:
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way.

The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase.

COYMR
Yes, if the person buying the club takes on the debts or other financial commitments. Black said there were no callable debts left, and all we've seen since February is the club's financial commitments slashed.

It's not the gist of my point anyway. It was about engaging with and communicating with supporters (customers).
There was no debts left but the club was losing £200K+ a mouth, those bills needed to be paid, it doesn't take long for the debts to accumulate again.

No-one is going to sell a profitable business for £1 otherwise we all would be lining up to buy it!
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]The £1 is meaningless argument and a bug bear for me. When a business is sold it has to be bought and the £1 is a nominal fee to show this. Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 and I suspect other loss making companies have been bought in the same way. The actual real cost is incurred after the purchase. COYMR[/p][/quote]Yes, if the person buying the club takes on the debts or other financial commitments. Black said there were no callable debts left, and all we've seen since February is the club's financial commitments slashed. It's not the gist of my point anyway. It was about engaging with and communicating with supporters (customers).[/p][/quote]There was no debts left but the club was losing £200K+ a mouth, those bills needed to be paid, it doesn't take long for the debts to accumulate again. No-one is going to sell a profitable business for £1 otherwise we all would be lining up to buy it! Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

You have picked up on 1% of my post and ignored the 99% (wish I hadn't mentioned the £1 now). I am talking about the merits of being open and honest in communicating with fans. See how attendances fall next season and then tell me that their approach of ****, evasiveness and contempt is a good way to create harmony and get people through the turnstiles.
You have picked up on 1% of my post and ignored the 99% (wish I hadn't mentioned the £1 now). I am talking about the merits of being open and honest in communicating with fans. See how attendances fall next season and then tell me that their approach of ****, evasiveness and contempt is a good way to create harmony and get people through the turnstiles. madterrier
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Wed 15 May 13

themoonraker says...

madterrier wrote:
I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him.

Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all.

That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base.

While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
....meanwhile in the real world Jed & Co will continue to do like most other football clubs boards do and that is say nothing as is their right.
Lets face it when this board has said anything a lot of people on here simply call them liars!
I wonder if these people have even given any thought to the premise that promises made to Jed & Co have either been broken or never materialised?
I don't really trust Jed and a lot of what he says, but all the vitriol and personal abuse being thrown at him may persuade him to simply walk away leaving us WITH NO CLUB AT ALL.
How would we feel then?
Would we have done the same in his position?
Doubtless a lot of us will then act as 'holier than thou' and lay all the blame Jeds door......funny that, because if he hadn't have stepped in we would already be defunct by now!
You say that without supporters there is no club, well it is equally true that if Jed has not stepped in THERE WOULD BE NO CLUB FOR US TO SUPPORT....and look at the abuse we are constantly hurling at him......
it works both ways!
To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma
nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'.....yes, the last regime did this whilst nearly destroying the club (none so blind as they who will not see)
Some of us with longer memories can remember STFC turning away the sponsorship of a newly arrived International Company in Swindon, simply because they had the audacity to want a seat on the board in return for their sponsorship, so if we want to play the blame game about the lack of a massive sponsor, then I suggest we look back at the actions of our board some 20/25 years ( i think ) ago, if they had acted in the best interests of STFC then who knows where we would be now!
They didn't so we are where we are now, but can we honestly say that those directors were, with hindsight, any better than our current board?
Nobody knows the answer to that, YET.
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]....meanwhile in the real world Jed & Co will continue to do like most other football clubs boards do and that is say nothing as is their right. Lets face it when this board has said anything a lot of people on here simply call them liars! I wonder if these people have even given any thought to the premise that promises made to Jed & Co have either been broken or never materialised? I don't really trust Jed and a lot of what he says, but all the vitriol and personal abuse being thrown at him may persuade him to simply walk away leaving us WITH NO CLUB AT ALL. How would we feel then? Would we have done the same in his position? Doubtless a lot of us will then act as 'holier than thou' and lay all the blame Jeds door......funny that, because if he hadn't have stepped in we would already be defunct by now! You say that without supporters there is no club, well it is equally true that if Jed has not stepped in THERE WOULD BE NO CLUB FOR US TO SUPPORT....and look at the abuse we are constantly hurling at him...... it works both ways! To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'.....yes, the last regime did this whilst nearly destroying the club (none so blind as they who will not see) Some of us with longer memories can remember STFC turning away the sponsorship of a newly arrived International Company in Swindon, simply because they had the audacity to want a seat on the board in return for their sponsorship, so if we want to play the blame game about the lack of a massive sponsor, then I suggest we look back at the actions of our board some 20/25 years ( i think ) ago, if they had acted in the best interests of STFC then who knows where we would be now! They didn't so we are where we are now, but can we honestly say that those directors were, with hindsight, any better than our current board? Nobody knows the answer to that, YET. themoonraker
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma

nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'


No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.
'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child' No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't. madterrier
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about.

AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club.

Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore)

I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest!
What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't.

As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.
Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup.

For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again,
Wrong on 2 counts David. You don't get a club expelled from the League by putting money into it. Black is not a football man; he was funding the club in the background. It was the people at the operational end who ballsed it up, not him. That's why he sacked the chairman.

We are much further forward financially than we were 5 years ago. I haven't checked the exact detail but I believe we had £10m of callable debt then and we were facing a winding-up. McCrory and his pals have been lucky enough to acquire a much healthier club, with no callable debt at all.

It is not Black's money that got us into trouble with the Football League; it's the way it was wasted. That is also the reason he is no longer with us.

For all the excitement of the Di Canio era, I think the club would probably have been better off without him. We could have had a manager who went about his business quietly, using the considerable funding wisely and getting us promoted without all the hostility towards the board. All would very likely have remained harmonious behind the scenes and the 4 directors who really did save the club may well have still been with us.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about. AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club. Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore) I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest![/p][/quote]What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't. As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.[/p][/quote]Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup. For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again,[/p][/quote]Wrong on 2 counts David. You don't get a club expelled from the League by putting money into it. Black is not a football man; he was funding the club in the background. It was the people at the operational end who ballsed it up, not him. That's why he sacked the chairman. We are much further forward financially than we were 5 years ago. I haven't checked the exact detail but I believe we had £10m of callable debt then and we were facing a winding-up. McCrory and his pals have been lucky enough to acquire a much healthier club, with no callable debt at all. It is not Black's money that got us into trouble with the Football League; it's the way it was wasted. That is also the reason he is no longer with us. For all the excitement of the Di Canio era, I think the club would probably have been better off without him. We could have had a manager who went about his business quietly, using the considerable funding wisely and getting us promoted without all the hostility towards the board. All would very likely have remained harmonious behind the scenes and the 4 directors who really did save the club may well have still been with us. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

madterrier wrote:
You have picked up on 1% of my post and ignored the 99% (wish I hadn't mentioned the £1 now). I am talking about the merits of being open and honest in communicating with fans. See how attendances fall next season and then tell me that their approach of ****, evasiveness and contempt is a good way to create harmony and get people through the turnstiles.
attendances next season will depend on how the club are doing on the pitch, in truth not many real fans will boycott the club just because of the board. I agree that 8,400 maybe optimistic if we are not doing to well, but if we are near the top of the table again I'm sure we will be around that mark.

I seem to remember many saying they would boycott PdC when he was first announced as manager, but they still came back.
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: You have picked up on 1% of my post and ignored the 99% (wish I hadn't mentioned the £1 now). I am talking about the merits of being open and honest in communicating with fans. See how attendances fall next season and then tell me that their approach of ****, evasiveness and contempt is a good way to create harmony and get people through the turnstiles.[/p][/quote]attendances next season will depend on how the club are doing on the pitch, in truth not many real fans will boycott the club just because of the board. I agree that 8,400 maybe optimistic if we are not doing to well, but if we are near the top of the table again I'm sure we will be around that mark. I seem to remember many saying they would boycott PdC when he was first announced as manager, but they still came back. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 15 May 13

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about.

AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club.

Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore)

I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest!
What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't.

As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.
Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup.

For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again,
Wrong on 2 counts David. You don't get a club expelled from the League by putting money into it. Black is not a football man; he was funding the club in the background. It was the people at the operational end who ballsed it up, not him. That's why he sacked the chairman.

We are much further forward financially than we were 5 years ago. I haven't checked the exact detail but I believe we had £10m of callable debt then and we were facing a winding-up. McCrory and his pals have been lucky enough to acquire a much healthier club, with no callable debt at all.

It is not Black's money that got us into trouble with the Football League; it's the way it was wasted. That is also the reason he is no longer with us.

For all the excitement of the Di Canio era, I think the club would probably have been better off without him. We could have had a manager who went about his business quietly, using the considerable funding wisely and getting us promoted without all the hostility towards the board. All would very likely have remained harmonious behind the scenes and the 4 directors who really did save the club may well have still been with us.
I fully agree with all those points Den, which is great in hindsight, but the issue is that it happened.

I do wonder if KMC had been appointed instead of PdC what position the club would be in now, not running the debts we have had for sure.

PdC was the problem, but it was the board who appointed him.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Thanks Jed for saving the club, had you not have done I would hate to think where we would be today, possibly in the conference. That then would have given some of these posters something to really moan about. AB sold us down the swanny, only one person was prepared to put their money in and rescue the club. Takeovers never go according to plan, and it's obvious that Jed has not managed to get the financial backing he was either promised or had hoped to. Perhaps this is why some of the statements made did not work out (and probably why they couldn't afford the Ladies team anymore) I'm happy to give them a good crack at the whip to see what they can make of it, after all AB model hardly was the greatest![/p][/quote]What's wrong with a model that gives £10m and 5 good years to the club? Would you turn it down if that was on offer now? I know I wouldn't. As far as I can see the only thing wrong with it is that it gave us an unfair advantage over most of our rivals. We failed to make the best use of it but that's hardly Black's fault. Nobody complained about him while he was pumping his dosh into the club.[/p][/quote]Den, he nearly got the club expelled from the league!!! You think the model ran by AB, Wimbledon & Portsmouth is a sound one? short term success (well one play-off final defeat,) long term debt, at least Pompey & Wimbledon won the FA cup. For all of his 5 years we are no further forward then we were then, we had debts then and debts now, same division, starting over again,[/p][/quote]Wrong on 2 counts David. You don't get a club expelled from the League by putting money into it. Black is not a football man; he was funding the club in the background. It was the people at the operational end who ballsed it up, not him. That's why he sacked the chairman. We are much further forward financially than we were 5 years ago. I haven't checked the exact detail but I believe we had £10m of callable debt then and we were facing a winding-up. McCrory and his pals have been lucky enough to acquire a much healthier club, with no callable debt at all. It is not Black's money that got us into trouble with the Football League; it's the way it was wasted. That is also the reason he is no longer with us. For all the excitement of the Di Canio era, I think the club would probably have been better off without him. We could have had a manager who went about his business quietly, using the considerable funding wisely and getting us promoted without all the hostility towards the board. All would very likely have remained harmonious behind the scenes and the 4 directors who really did save the club may well have still been with us.[/p][/quote]I fully agree with all those points Den, which is great in hindsight, but the issue is that it happened. I do wonder if KMC had been appointed instead of PdC what position the club would be in now, not running the debts we have had for sure. PdC was the problem, but it was the board who appointed him. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

DS, I'm not complaining about PDC's appointment either. I just think history seems to tell us it was a mistake - but one most of us did not appreciate at the time.
DS, I'm not complaining about PDC's appointment either. I just think history seems to tell us it was a mistake - but one most of us did not appreciate at the time. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

Well I hope that you're right. A lot of people are threatening to not go as much next year, and I can't see the team doing anywhere near as well.
Well I hope that you're right. A lot of people are threatening to not go as much next year, and I can't see the team doing anywhere near as well. madterrier
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Wed 15 May 13

Is that you Lovesey says...

themoonraker wrote:
madterrier wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.
....meanwhile in the real world Jed & Co will continue to do like most other football clubs boards do and that is say nothing as is their right. Lets face it when this board has said anything a lot of people on here simply call them liars! I wonder if these people have even given any thought to the premise that promises made to Jed & Co have either been broken or never materialised? I don't really trust Jed and a lot of what he says, but all the vitriol and personal abuse being thrown at him may persuade him to simply walk away leaving us WITH NO CLUB AT ALL. How would we feel then? Would we have done the same in his position? Doubtless a lot of us will then act as 'holier than thou' and lay all the blame Jeds door......funny that, because if he hadn't have stepped in we would already be defunct by now! You say that without supporters there is no club, well it is equally true that if Jed has not stepped in THERE WOULD BE NO CLUB FOR US TO SUPPORT....and look at the abuse we are constantly hurling at him...... it works both ways! To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'.....yes, the last regime did this whilst nearly destroying the club (none so blind as they who will not see) Some of us with longer memories can remember STFC turning away the sponsorship of a newly arrived International Company in Swindon, simply because they had the audacity to want a seat on the board in return for their sponsorship, so if we want to play the blame game about the lack of a massive sponsor, then I suggest we look back at the actions of our board some 20/25 years ( i think ) ago, if they had acted in the best interests of STFC then who knows where we would be now! They didn't so we are where we are now, but can we honestly say that those directors were, with hindsight, any better than our current board? Nobody knows the answer to that, YET.
Your no club to support comments are BS,,,, There were three other buyers (one believed to be AF) who wanted to buy the club but would not do so without the due dilligence and within AB's timeframe.

So we would have had a club, probably not in this league though.
[quote][p][bold]themoonraker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I am with Den totally on this. I don't like Jedda, or his approach, and I don't trust him. Sure, he now owns the club (given away by Black for £1 apparently) and I'm afraid he can do what he likes with it. They do have to file accounts eventually, but there's little the supporters can do, other than watch on with dismay. We are just customers after all. That said, it is never a good idea for any business to treat its customers in this way. Good relations and good communications foster a more loyal customer base. While supporters are just customers we are fairly unusual customers. It's not as if we are anonymous shoppers, buying widgets over the internet from a faceless supplier. WE ARE PART OF THE CLUB. A big part. Without supporters there is no club, and no business. So to me, open and honest communication with supporters (and employees) is about good business sense, not about what a limited company director is or is not legally obliged to do.[/p][/quote]....meanwhile in the real world Jed & Co will continue to do like most other football clubs boards do and that is say nothing as is their right. Lets face it when this board has said anything a lot of people on here simply call them liars! I wonder if these people have even given any thought to the premise that promises made to Jed & Co have either been broken or never materialised? I don't really trust Jed and a lot of what he says, but all the vitriol and personal abuse being thrown at him may persuade him to simply walk away leaving us WITH NO CLUB AT ALL. How would we feel then? Would we have done the same in his position? Doubtless a lot of us will then act as 'holier than thou' and lay all the blame Jeds door......funny that, because if he hadn't have stepped in we would already be defunct by now! You say that without supporters there is no club, well it is equally true that if Jed has not stepped in THERE WOULD BE NO CLUB FOR US TO SUPPORT....and look at the abuse we are constantly hurling at him...... it works both ways! To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'.....yes, the last regime did this whilst nearly destroying the club (none so blind as they who will not see) Some of us with longer memories can remember STFC turning away the sponsorship of a newly arrived International Company in Swindon, simply because they had the audacity to want a seat on the board in return for their sponsorship, so if we want to play the blame game about the lack of a massive sponsor, then I suggest we look back at the actions of our board some 20/25 years ( i think ) ago, if they had acted in the best interests of STFC then who knows where we would be now! They didn't so we are where we are now, but can we honestly say that those directors were, with hindsight, any better than our current board? Nobody knows the answer to that, YET.[/p][/quote]Your no club to support comments are BS,,,, There were three other buyers (one believed to be AF) who wanted to buy the club but would not do so without the due dilligence and within AB's timeframe. So we would have had a club, probably not in this league though. Is that you Lovesey
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Wed 15 May 13

themoonraker says...

madterrier wrote:
'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma


nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'


No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.
so you think that it was 'good relations and good communications' by the previous regime to be 'lovey dovey' , 'aren't we good to you' whilst CHEATING and breaking league rules and over spending.
Hey, let's ignore that though, because at least they spoke to us, declared undying love for the club and its fans AND EVEN BOUGHT SOME OF US PIZZA!
Their LIES, although not spoken openly, have put us in this position.
The stench coming from the previous regime is appaling, but it appears that you have a selective sense of smell!
IMO we are extremely lucky that the Football League did not take stronger action against us and that Jed & Co still have a club to try and save.
You on the other hand would presumably rather that Jed had stayed away and the club folded?, or did he out bid you/and/or others to buy the club? and it's a case of sour grapes on your part?
Give him a chance, at the moment the previous regime are culpable and were just a big a bunch of 'cowboys' and 'porkie tellers',as we assume Jed & Co to be.
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: 'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child' No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.[/p][/quote]so you think that it was 'good relations and good communications' by the previous regime to be 'lovey dovey' , 'aren't we good to you' whilst CHEATING and breaking league rules and over spending. Hey, let's ignore that though, because at least they spoke to us, declared undying love for the club and its fans AND EVEN BOUGHT SOME OF US PIZZA! Their LIES, although not spoken openly, have put us in this position. The stench coming from the previous regime is appaling, but it appears that you have a selective sense of smell! IMO we are extremely lucky that the Football League did not take stronger action against us and that Jed & Co still have a club to try and save. You on the other hand would presumably rather that Jed had stayed away and the club folded?, or did he out bid you/and/or others to buy the club? and it's a case of sour grapes on your part? Give him a chance, at the moment the previous regime are culpable and were just a big a bunch of 'cowboys' and 'porkie tellers',as we assume Jed & Co to be. themoonraker
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

madterrier wrote:
'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma


nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child'


No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.
terrier, as I see it there are three camps:

i) those who think we are being fed a lot of bullshiit and believe it is unacceptable.

ii) those who think there is no bullshiit but that McCrory and co have simply been victims of circumstance ("investors" pulling out etc)

and

iii) those who recognise the bullshiit but think there's nothing wrong with it.

I don't suppose any of us is going to change his/her view.
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: 'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child' No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.[/p][/quote]terrier, as I see it there are three camps: i) those who think we are being fed a lot of bullshiit and believe it is unacceptable. ii) those who think there is no bullshiit but that McCrory and co have simply been victims of circumstance ("investors" pulling out etc) and iii) those who recognise the bullshiit but think there's nothing wrong with it. I don't suppose any of us is going to change his/her view. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

madterrier wrote:
'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child' No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.
Terrier,

I posted a link to a thread that references the playing budget. In it Jed says he has backers that would keep the budget at similar levels to the current budget but that it would be managed better. This statement was made immediately after the FL accepted the board as fit and proper. It would appear that since that time the backers backed off but at that time the statement could well have been 100% true.

Not sure about the calling Paolo claim but not to bothered now to be honest. Could we have afforded Wright-Philips, Pack and Green without Spectre ? Possibly !!! I do wonder how much influence he will have in getting players to move to the North-East !!!

Embargo lifted statements, maybe said in good faith but nit picking FL may have caused delays. The 1957 debt may have been a debenture which was being cashed in. The club were skint in 1957 so a debenture loan is totally feasible. Would like to know more but not desparate.

How do we know that KMac is not keeping the players he wants ? This statement when it appears tends to suggest that it is more Kmac to keep the players I like.

You call it ess aitch one tee, that is your choice. I personnaly see it more as the disappointment of the problems caused by Black's withdrawal and all it brought being targetted, a scapegoat for frustration.

Kmac has been targetted by some, the board by others. Both or either fair ?

I targetted the £1 in your previous post because it means nothing but has been highlighted by a number of people as a real fault in Jed and the board. i.e They haven't invested because they only spent one pound.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: 'To all of you posters who continually bleat on about 'good relations and good communications', I assume that you measure this by directors/players/ma nager 'being really nice and friendly with me and/or my child' No. It means not lying and bullshitting about things like the playing budget being maintained at the same level, calling Paolo as claimed, embargo lifted tomorrow, blaming the Football League embargo on a 1957 debt, KMac being able to keep whichever players he likes. It's **** like that that gets up people's noses. If you like that up your nostrils then good for you, but I certainly don't.[/p][/quote]Terrier, I posted a link to a thread that references the playing budget. In it Jed says he has backers that would keep the budget at similar levels to the current budget but that it would be managed better. This statement was made immediately after the FL accepted the board as fit and proper. It would appear that since that time the backers backed off but at that time the statement could well have been 100% true. Not sure about the calling Paolo claim but not to bothered now to be honest. Could we have afforded Wright-Philips, Pack and Green without Spectre ? Possibly !!! I do wonder how much influence he will have in getting players to move to the North-East !!! Embargo lifted statements, maybe said in good faith but nit picking FL may have caused delays. The 1957 debt may have been a debenture which was being cashed in. The club were skint in 1957 so a debenture loan is totally feasible. Would like to know more but not desparate. How do we know that KMac is not keeping the players he wants ? This statement when it appears tends to suggest that it is more Kmac to keep the players I like. You call it ess aitch one tee, that is your choice. I personnaly see it more as the disappointment of the problems caused by Black's withdrawal and all it brought being targetted, a scapegoat for frustration. Kmac has been targetted by some, the board by others. Both or either fair ? I targetted the £1 in your previous post because it means nothing but has been highlighted by a number of people as a real fault in Jed and the board. i.e They haven't invested because they only spent one pound. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

I think most of us are old enough and ugly enough to handle things if they are told to us straight. If there's no money there's no money. If we can't afford Paolo, we can't afford Paolo. If investors pulled out then investors pulled out. If we need to release out of contract players first then so be it. A bit of honesty would actually be more likely to get supporters on their side.

For example, the 1957 debt. This would have been wiped out by two previous administrations. Yet people are still inventing fantasy explanations for it.

I'm also in favour of sustainable clubs and budgets. Just wish the football authorities were strong enough to apply strict regulations to all clubs and maintain a level playing field.

As Den says, there are at least three camps on the BS/acceptability issue, and people aren't likely to change their camp based on what is posted here.
I think most of us are old enough and ugly enough to handle things if they are told to us straight. If there's no money there's no money. If we can't afford Paolo, we can't afford Paolo. If investors pulled out then investors pulled out. If we need to release out of contract players first then so be it. A bit of honesty would actually be more likely to get supporters on their side. For example, the 1957 debt. This would have been wiped out by two previous administrations. Yet people are still inventing fantasy explanations for it. I'm also in favour of sustainable clubs and budgets. Just wish the football authorities were strong enough to apply strict regulations to all clubs and maintain a level playing field. As Den says, there are at least three camps on the BS/acceptability issue, and people aren't likely to change their camp based on what is posted here. madterrier
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 15 May 13

Afc bournemouth says...

I like January the most were matt Ritchie moved to a bigger club
I like January the most were matt Ritchie moved to a bigger club Afc bournemouth
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 15 May 13

Bassett Hound says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved.

Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position.

As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had.

Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.
Don't you think tossing a coin would have been the right thing to do ?
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.[/p][/quote]Don't you think tossing a coin would have been the right thing to do ? Bassett Hound
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

mustard red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford.
Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg.
We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne.
But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out.
Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans.
Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :-
"The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken"
What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken.
Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans.
However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken.
How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans,
Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came.
The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point.
The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides.
In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt.

I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :)

I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose.

I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change.

Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again?

Have a good summer, see you in August.
mustard red...
I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course.
Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics.
Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team.
Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.
[quote][p][bold]mustard red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.[/p][/quote]mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
The laws do not state that the penalties should be taken at the end of the Home Side.
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]The laws do not state that the penalties should be taken at the end of the Home Side. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 15 May 13

alchafreds says...

eight thousand plus crowds, think that will dwindle down very quickly the money spent on three season tickets is gone but it wont make me turn up every game if there is evidence of no ambition
eight thousand plus crowds, think that will dwindle down very quickly the money spent on three season tickets is gone but it wont make me turn up every game if there is evidence of no ambition alchafreds
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 15 May 13

madterrier says...

here we go....

http://www.yorkshire
eveningpost.co.uk/sp
ort/leeds-united/lat
est-whites-news/leed
s-united-track-swind
on-town-star-in-case
-byram-leaves-1-5672
851
here we go.... http://www.yorkshire eveningpost.co.uk/sp ort/leeds-united/lat est-whites-news/leed s-united-track-swind on-town-star-in-case -byram-leaves-1-5672 851 madterrier
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Oi Den! wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do.

I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.
Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post.
I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule.
Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable.
After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do. I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.[/p][/quote]Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post. I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule. Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable. After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 15 May 13

Is that you Lovesey says...

Who cares what end the pens were due to be taken.... it doesn't matter..... it would have made no difference..the ref was dodgy, but so were 80% of the refs this season, they are third tier refs for a reason....
Who cares what end the pens were due to be taken.... it doesn't matter..... it would have made no difference..the ref was dodgy, but so were 80% of the refs this season, they are third tier refs for a reason.... Is that you Lovesey
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Wed 15 May 13

fraser digby's washbag says...

If £10 million is the amount pumped in by Andrew Black, I think it's a crying shame that it wasn't pumped into ground redevelopment whilst chasing a sustainable business model at the same time.

His legacy would have been so much more tangible and forever regarded as a heroe.

If I was to have that kind of spare money, I'd certainly consider investing in Swindon, but not pumping up wage costs for short term gain.

We need to get people on board that may be prepared to invest between £10million and £20million to make us more sustainable.
If £10 million is the amount pumped in by Andrew Black, I think it's a crying shame that it wasn't pumped into ground redevelopment whilst chasing a sustainable business model at the same time. His legacy would have been so much more tangible and forever regarded as a heroe. If I was to have that kind of spare money, I'd certainly consider investing in Swindon, but not pumping up wage costs for short term gain. We need to get people on board that may be prepared to invest between £10million and £20million to make us more sustainable. fraser digby's washbag
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

madterrier wrote:
I think most of us are old enough and ugly enough to handle things if they are told to us straight. If there's no money there's no money. If we can't afford Paolo, we can't afford Paolo. If investors pulled out then investors pulled out. If we need to release out of contract players first then so be it. A bit of honesty would actually be more likely to get supporters on their side. For example, the 1957 debt. This would have been wiped out by two previous administrations. Yet people are still inventing fantasy explanations for it. I'm also in favour of sustainable clubs and budgets. Just wish the football authorities were strong enough to apply strict regulations to all clubs and maintain a level playing field. As Den says, there are at least three camps on the BS/acceptability issue, and people aren't likely to change their camp based on what is posted here.
Terrier,

The 1957 debt may not have been called in during the previous administration. If a debenture, as seems likely but no-one knows, then it could remain indefinitely or until the owner wishes to cash it in.

I agree there are questions to be answered but the hatred being generated because they are not being answered immediately is unhealthy.

Den how about a fourth option:

iv. those that are prepared to wait and see if they are being fed bullshiit before jumping to conclusions.

You seem to have turned from a moderate poster to a very angry one who will no longer believe anything Jed says. If this is the case it is pointless Jed saying anything because it will be Bullshiit.

Suppose the board come out tomorrow and make the a statement along the following line:

"When we took over we had people willing to invest in the club to sustain the levels of the previous board. The Football League then imposed the embargo to enable the fit and proper investigation to be completed. The threat of legal action by the former manager and his staff was not welcomed by the investors and they withdrew their offers of funding. The withdrawal of these funds left the remaining board with a shortage of investment which was requested by the Football League as a guarantee against future expenditure. Further backing was sought and despite promises this took longer than anticipated to materialise, banking issues and sale of assets were continually stalled. The threat of legal action and the continued investigation of new board members by the football league has prevented the board from disclosing certain facts regarding the take over."

All bullshiit of course because i just made it up but...

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: I think most of us are old enough and ugly enough to handle things if they are told to us straight. If there's no money there's no money. If we can't afford Paolo, we can't afford Paolo. If investors pulled out then investors pulled out. If we need to release out of contract players first then so be it. A bit of honesty would actually be more likely to get supporters on their side. For example, the 1957 debt. This would have been wiped out by two previous administrations. Yet people are still inventing fantasy explanations for it. I'm also in favour of sustainable clubs and budgets. Just wish the football authorities were strong enough to apply strict regulations to all clubs and maintain a level playing field. As Den says, there are at least three camps on the BS/acceptability issue, and people aren't likely to change their camp based on what is posted here.[/p][/quote]Terrier, The 1957 debt may not have been called in during the previous administration. If a debenture, as seems likely but no-one knows, then it could remain indefinitely or until the owner wishes to cash it in. I agree there are questions to be answered but the hatred being generated because they are not being answered immediately is unhealthy. Den how about a fourth option: iv. those that are prepared to wait and see if they are being fed bullshiit before jumping to conclusions. You seem to have turned from a moderate poster to a very angry one who will no longer believe anything Jed says. If this is the case it is pointless Jed saying anything because it will be Bullshiit. Suppose the board come out tomorrow and make the a statement along the following line: "When we took over we had people willing to invest in the club to sustain the levels of the previous board. The Football League then imposed the embargo to enable the fit and proper investigation to be completed. The threat of legal action by the former manager and his staff was not welcomed by the investors and they withdrew their offers of funding. The withdrawal of these funds left the remaining board with a shortage of investment which was requested by the Football League as a guarantee against future expenditure. Further backing was sought and despite promises this took longer than anticipated to materialise, banking issues and sale of assets were continually stalled. The threat of legal action and the continued investigation of new board members by the football league has prevented the board from disclosing certain facts regarding the take over." All bullshiit of course because i just made it up but... COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Wed 15 May 13

stfcdod says...

Graham8181 wrote:
Thank god this horrible horrible season is over. My memories from mid season of us being unbeatable and the best team in the league by a country mile then all gone so suddenly. Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long. It has left such a bitter taste in my mouth about this club, the board, the management. I am trying to banish all thoughts around this season as it makes me so angry and upset at what we through away.
'Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long'

Did the Millwall playoff final less than three years ago pass you by then ?
[quote][p][bold]Graham8181[/bold] wrote: Thank god this horrible horrible season is over. My memories from mid season of us being unbeatable and the best team in the league by a country mile then all gone so suddenly. Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long. It has left such a bitter taste in my mouth about this club, the board, the management. I am trying to banish all thoughts around this season as it makes me so angry and upset at what we through away.[/p][/quote]'Our best chance to get into the championship for I don't know how long' Did the Millwall playoff final less than three years ago pass you by then ? stfcdod
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do.

I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.
Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post.
I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule.
Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable.
After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.
Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do. I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.[/p][/quote]Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post. I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule. Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable. After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.[/p][/quote]Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Wed 15 May 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved.

Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position.

As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had.

Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.
Of course the Brentford fans would have been equally agrieved if the penalties were taken at the Swindon end, that's why I am trying to get you to understand that a toss of the coin should be the fair way to decide this important issue.
I have already stated that the referee was technically correct in making the decision of ends under the conditions of the current laws.
But what criteria did the referee consider in giving Brentford the advantage ?
You dont know and I dont know, but what I do know is that a toss of the coin would have been the fair way to decide the matter.
I am not suggesting that Mr Miller is involved in any corruption in this particular case, but surely there is the potential for this.
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.[/p][/quote]Of course the Brentford fans would have been equally agrieved if the penalties were taken at the Swindon end, that's why I am trying to get you to understand that a toss of the coin should be the fair way to decide this important issue. I have already stated that the referee was technically correct in making the decision of ends under the conditions of the current laws. But what criteria did the referee consider in giving Brentford the advantage ? You dont know and I dont know, but what I do know is that a toss of the coin would have been the fair way to decide the matter. I am not suggesting that Mr Miller is involved in any corruption in this particular case, but surely there is the potential for this. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
mustard red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.
mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.
Old Stager,

Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ?

1913-1914 season :-)

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mustard red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.[/p][/quote]mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.[/p][/quote]Old Stager, Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ? 1913-1914 season :-) COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Oxon, as I said, I believe the owners have created a lot of bad faith - and therefore, yes, I do now find it hard to believe anything they say.

I don't think I am a generally angry poster but I get angry when I think we are being taken for fools, which was also how I felt about Patey by the way.

I accept that there is a fourth camp, made up of people who want to wait and see. That's fair enough. But don't you think all that's been said so far has painted a pretty poor picture?
Oxon, as I said, I believe the owners have created a lot of bad faith - and therefore, yes, I do now find it hard to believe anything they say. I don't think I am a generally angry poster but I get angry when I think we are being taken for fools, which was also how I felt about Patey by the way. I accept that there is a fourth camp, made up of people who want to wait and see. That's fair enough. But don't you think all that's been said so far has painted a pretty poor picture? Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Wed 15 May 13

ciclosporindorset says...

So I am going to articulate the unanswered question that is clearly in the minds of some stfc supporters. Jed, some fans believe that you are only here so that you can sell the experienced players for cash, maximise the income from season ticket sales and a summer of concerts, then do a runner with the clubs money. now come on Jed, own up, that's the only reason you are here is it not. So tell me Jed, how will you exactly manage that. where is the plan. how much can you get each before someone notices or the new season begins. Now I realise you will be lying in your answers Jed but come on, give us a clue. YES, I AM BEING SARCASTIC FFS.
So I am going to articulate the unanswered question that is clearly in the minds of some stfc supporters. Jed, some fans believe that you are only here so that you can sell the experienced players for cash, maximise the income from season ticket sales and a summer of concerts, then do a runner with the clubs money. now come on Jed, own up, that's the only reason you are here is it not. So tell me Jed, how will you exactly manage that. where is the plan. how much can you get each before someone notices or the new season begins. Now I realise you will be lying in your answers Jed but come on, give us a clue. YES, I AM BEING SARCASTIC FFS. ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

ciclosporindorset wrote:
So I am going to articulate the unanswered question that is clearly in the minds of some stfc supporters. Jed, some fans believe that you are only here so that you can sell the experienced players for cash, maximise the income from season ticket sales and a summer of concerts, then do a runner with the clubs money. now come on Jed, own up, that's the only reason you are here is it not. So tell me Jed, how will you exactly manage that. where is the plan. how much can you get each before someone notices or the new season begins. Now I realise you will be lying in your answers Jed but come on, give us a clue. YES, I AM BEING SARCASTIC FFS.
Some of us don't accuse him of any such thing.
[quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: So I am going to articulate the unanswered question that is clearly in the minds of some stfc supporters. Jed, some fans believe that you are only here so that you can sell the experienced players for cash, maximise the income from season ticket sales and a summer of concerts, then do a runner with the clubs money. now come on Jed, own up, that's the only reason you are here is it not. So tell me Jed, how will you exactly manage that. where is the plan. how much can you get each before someone notices or the new season begins. Now I realise you will be lying in your answers Jed but come on, give us a clue. YES, I AM BEING SARCASTIC FFS.[/p][/quote]Some of us don't accuse him of any such thing. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 15 May 13

Swindon1984 says...

Bassett Hound wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.
Don't you think tossing a coin would have been the right thing to do ?
Maybe, but it is what it is, don't see the point in complaining about it, and as far as I was concerned out opportunity to win the tie was over before the shootout commenced. We didn't deserve it overall. Great fightback but don't think we can feel agrieved - this argument over the coin toss is irrelevant a) because that's not how the end is decided and b) it's being used as an excuse for why we didn't get through.
[quote][p][bold]Bassett Hound[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.[/p][/quote]Don't you think tossing a coin would have been the right thing to do ?[/p][/quote]Maybe, but it is what it is, don't see the point in complaining about it, and as far as I was concerned out opportunity to win the tie was over before the shootout commenced. We didn't deserve it overall. Great fightback but don't think we can feel agrieved - this argument over the coin toss is irrelevant a) because that's not how the end is decided and b) it's being used as an excuse for why we didn't get through. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 15 May 13

Swindon1984 says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.
Of course the Brentford fans would have been equally agrieved if the penalties were taken at the Swindon end, that's why I am trying to get you to understand that a toss of the coin should be the fair way to decide this important issue. I have already stated that the referee was technically correct in making the decision of ends under the conditions of the current laws. But what criteria did the referee consider in giving Brentford the advantage ? You dont know and I dont know, but what I do know is that a toss of the coin would have been the fair way to decide the matter. I am not suggesting that Mr Miller is involved in any corruption in this particular case, but surely there is the potential for this.
Again, maybe it would've been fairer with a coin toss but if you've got an issue with that the issue is with the rules of the game, not the ref. Just seems like a bit of a moot point. If we were good enough to go through we would have gone through. Going into the two games I wasn't confident because Brentford had already done the double over us in the season, were the best team in the play offs and had finished above us in the league.

Just seems dwelling on that one issue is like clutching at straws for why didn't go through. Also smacks of hypocrisy because no-one would be concerned if the shoe was on the other foot and we were the ones going to Wembley at the weekend. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's the same thing whenever a dodgy goal is allowed - the team on the sharp end start howling for goal line technology and the team that've scored generally keep pretty schtum. You can't have it both ways. Who's to say taking the penalties in front of our own fans might have added even more pressure and expectation and we'd missed every penalty? You see the point - the game is what it is, sometimes the funny little rules go in your favour, sometimes they don't.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Don't see how that's bias from the ref - if he had have chosen the other end the Brentford fans could have felt equally agrieved. Bottom line is no-one was that up for the shooutout, the fact that our centre halves were taking kicks surely shows that it came down to who felt confident enough to have a pop, and confidence was thin on the ground. Fair play to Storey for standing up, some of his team mates clearly didn't want to hence putting him in that position. As for the decisions during the course of the two games, well the referees were poor, but I'd argue for both teams. One of the linesmen in the home leg was particularly blind as a bat to a few decisions. Second leg it was a travesty that Byrne got sent off, as for the first booking I'm convinced it was him who got fouled, but it was so late in the day I'm not sure what effect it really had. Brentford edged it for me, just, and we only have ourselves to blame for missing gilt edged chances and giving away some poor goals. Think that had far more to do with the final outcome than which end the ref allowed the penalties to be taken from, which, at the end of the day, was perfectly acceptable under the rules of the game. Maybe the end penalties are taken from should be decided by a coin toss but by your own admission that's not for the ref to decide, so not sure how you can blame him for that.[/p][/quote]Of course the Brentford fans would have been equally agrieved if the penalties were taken at the Swindon end, that's why I am trying to get you to understand that a toss of the coin should be the fair way to decide this important issue. I have already stated that the referee was technically correct in making the decision of ends under the conditions of the current laws. But what criteria did the referee consider in giving Brentford the advantage ? You dont know and I dont know, but what I do know is that a toss of the coin would have been the fair way to decide the matter. I am not suggesting that Mr Miller is involved in any corruption in this particular case, but surely there is the potential for this.[/p][/quote]Again, maybe it would've been fairer with a coin toss but if you've got an issue with that the issue is with the rules of the game, not the ref. Just seems like a bit of a moot point. If we were good enough to go through we would have gone through. Going into the two games I wasn't confident because Brentford had already done the double over us in the season, were the best team in the play offs and had finished above us in the league. Just seems dwelling on that one issue is like clutching at straws for why didn't go through. Also smacks of hypocrisy because no-one would be concerned if the shoe was on the other foot and we were the ones going to Wembley at the weekend. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's the same thing whenever a dodgy goal is allowed - the team on the sharp end start howling for goal line technology and the team that've scored generally keep pretty schtum. You can't have it both ways. Who's to say taking the penalties in front of our own fans might have added even more pressure and expectation and we'd missed every penalty? You see the point - the game is what it is, sometimes the funny little rules go in your favour, sometimes they don't. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon, as I said, I believe the owners have created a lot of bad faith - and therefore, yes, I do now find it hard to believe anything they say. I don't think I am a generally angry poster but I get angry when I think we are being taken for fools, which was also how I felt about Patey by the way. I accept that there is a fourth camp, made up of people who want to wait and see. That's fair enough. But don't you think all that's been said so far has painted a pretty poor picture?
Den,

I know you are not an angry poster and you usually have a very good argument when responding to post you disagree with.

I am not so sure the picture is as bad as some seem to think and I also don't believe the hostility towards Jed since he came on board has helped. They have to be very careful what they say and some will not believe them anyway (see first post on the Town respond to Glyn Evans thread).

Time will tell if they are good or bad apples but what their intervention did buy was time. I don't go along with Lovesay's belief that we should have waited for the supposed Fitton bid and I am quite surprised he even consider this a viable option (Admin, Fire Sale, points deductions or demotion !!!).

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Oxon, as I said, I believe the owners have created a lot of bad faith - and therefore, yes, I do now find it hard to believe anything they say. I don't think I am a generally angry poster but I get angry when I think we are being taken for fools, which was also how I felt about Patey by the way. I accept that there is a fourth camp, made up of people who want to wait and see. That's fair enough. But don't you think all that's been said so far has painted a pretty poor picture?[/p][/quote]Den, I know you are not an angry poster and you usually have a very good argument when responding to post you disagree with. I am not so sure the picture is as bad as some seem to think and I also don't believe the hostility towards Jed since he came on board has helped. They have to be very careful what they say and some will not believe them anyway (see first post on the Town respond to Glyn Evans thread). Time will tell if they are good or bad apples but what their intervention did buy was time. I don't go along with Lovesay's belief that we should have waited for the supposed Fitton bid and I am quite surprised he even consider this a viable option (Admin, Fire Sale, points deductions or demotion !!!). COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Wed 15 May 13

Oi Den! says...

Oxon-Red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
mustard red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.
mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.
Old Stager,

Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ?

1913-1914 season :-)

COYMR
They'll be taking part in that match against the Germans in no man's land on Christmas Day.
[quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mustard red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.[/p][/quote]mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.[/p][/quote]Old Stager, Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ? 1913-1914 season :-) COYMR[/p][/quote]They'll be taking part in that match against the Germans in no man's land on Christmas Day. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 15 May 13

Red1681 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do.

I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.
Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post.
I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule.
Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable.
After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.
Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be.
The penalty shoot vs Wimbledon in season before last was at the empty Stratton Bank end.
But the majority at the CG seem to have been at the Town End.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do. I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.[/p][/quote]Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post. I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule. Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable. After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.[/p][/quote]Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be.[/p][/quote]The penalty shoot vs Wimbledon in season before last was at the empty Stratton Bank end. But the majority at the CG seem to have been at the Town End. Red1681
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Wed 15 May 13

Wessex Warrior says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Oxon-Red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
mustard red wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.
Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.
mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.
Old Stager,

Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ?

1913-1914 season :-)

COYMR
They'll be taking part in that match against the Germans in no man's land on Christmas Day.
more likely mustard gas
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mustard red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: I am still very angry about our loss in the second Play-Off Semi-Final played at Brentford. Having endured a biased referee in the home tie, we were then subjected to an even worse referee in the second leg. We then dramatically forced an exciting fightback to bring the tie into extra time, and then witnessed another shocking decision with the red card for Nathan Byrne. But my real grumble begins with the penalty shoot-out. Far worse than the ill advised choice to let Miles Storey take the fourth penalty, was the referee's decision to take the penalties towards the Brentford Fans. Technically the Referee was correct because the Penalty Procedure according to the laws of the Football Association is as follows :- "The team to take the first kick is decided by a coin toss, and the referee chooses the goal at which the kicks are taken" What on earth sort of administation is that I ask ? - Surely it would be completely fair to toss again for which end the penalties are taken. Because there is no doubt in my mind that it would have greatly favoured Swindon Town had the kicks been taken towards the massed Town Fans. However it transpires that Mr Miller from County Durham had decided beforehand as to which end the Penalties would have been taken. How damned unfair is that ?....The Referee that had shown massive bias towards Brentford during the whole game and extra time, then gives Brentford the huge advantage of taking the kicks towards the baying Brentford Fans, Is it any wonder that Miles Storey was overcome and distracted before his turn came. The laws of Football should be totally fair to both teams and a toss of the coin for ends would have achieved this important point. The game isn't worth a light unless it is administrated fairly, and provides a level playing field for both sides. In my opinion Swindon Town were definitely denied justice as usual in this most important Play-Off Final, which may also have cost the club an enormous amount of money, taking into account the loss of Wembley Revenue.[/p][/quote]Hello OS. I look forward to another season of us ranting together at the unfairness dished out by referees at our home games. Although, we did get one ref in the last few games that wore red under his black shirt. I wasn't aware that selecting the end that penalties were to be taken was a decision made by the referee. I thought that the winner of the coin toss chose either which end they wanted to have the penalties or whether to go first of second. I will bow to your better knowledge :) I didn't have a ticket for the away leg, but on TV it was obvious McCormack didn't have a clue what he had to do at the coin toss, He even asked the other players which side of the coin he should choose. I'm not as angry as you, but I am glad its all over and can now concentrate on some cricket for a change. Do you know if SAP has posted any results for the predictions league? Maybe he has lost his laptop again? Have a good summer, see you in August.[/p][/quote]mustard red... I certainly had no previous better knowledge than you on the Penalty Procedure; I simply looked at the laws of the game as stated by the Football Association, because I also assumed that the ends would be decided by a coin toss, which would have been fair to both sides of course. Yes, I do remember that we did have one "Homer" towards the end of the season against Stevenage, which prompted the Town End Choir to sing "We always get good refs", which was a variation on the usual lyrics. Unfortunately I seem to have lost interest in Cricket in recent years, and it probably stems from the fact that Wiltshire doesn't have a County Cricket Team. Anyway, keep calm throughout the summer and see you at the start of Season 1913-1914.[/p][/quote]Old Stager, Have you and Mustard got Time Machines ? 1913-1914 season :-) COYMR[/p][/quote]They'll be taking part in that match against the Germans in no man's land on Christmas Day.[/p][/quote]more likely mustard gas Wessex Warrior
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Wed 15 May 13

mancrobin says...

Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less.

Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over!

For my money, the critical failure factors were:
Wray was far too soft on DiCanio,
DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child,
Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale,
There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference,
The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion,
KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances,
The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages.

Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'.

We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14.

Can't wait.
Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait. mancrobin
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Wed 15 May 13

DarrenSTFCRomain says...

stfcphil wrote:
themoonraker wrote:
stfcphil wrote:
I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR.
Two absolute facts are still at the fore though.
1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and:
2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true.
I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run.
Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff.
The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.
The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in.
I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives.
Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club.
Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving.
Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past.
Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club.
Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.?
I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour.
No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me?
I think among the true representation of fans Moonraker, many would agree with us. Unfortunately, this forum is not a true representation of fans. Some have very valid views and opinions, but there are many who just use it as a means to vent their own frustration and vitriol rather than be logical or constructive. However, if that is therapeutic for them, who are we to complain about it.
What many Swindon fans dont understand is that we are a very small club with a fan base of around 7500..

We had a mega rich chairman in Black and some how J Wray frucked it up big time..
AND THE REST IS HISTORY
[quote][p][bold]stfcphil[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]themoonraker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcphil[/bold] wrote: I think it is absolutely right that fans are cautious with the new board, however, many unsubstantiated accusations are being thrown at them. I think that the investment they expected to get from other sources has not materialised, and I do agree that they need to be a bit more savvy with their PR. Two absolute facts are still at the fore though. 1) If they hadn't have stepped in, we would not now be a football league club in all likeliness, and: 2) If they are hounded out, as some on here are trying to achieve, then the same will probably be true. I am not saying that we should accept them without question, but, NO business would expect to be interrogated by it's customers about how it is run. Time will tell who is right and what their true intentions are, but they will find it nigh on impossible to make "big" money out of a club, whose only assets are it's staff. The other thing that is blatantly obvious, is that NONE of the detractors on here, who constantly moan and abuse the board, can come up with a viable alternative.[/p][/quote]The voice of sanity at last, others have said similar but this is a very timely reminder of the situation we find ourselfs in. I'm afraid too many posters on here just want to 'have a go' and play the blame game without outlining any sensible, viable alternatives. Like many I have grave misgivings about our new board, but for the moment we are still a league 1 club. Time will tell and Jed & Co may or may not sell the majority of our better players/fans favourites to raise money, we may have a team next season of youngsters and rejects, but then again all the players that we purchased from other clubs in the past were in effect 'rejects' from clubs who didn't value them highly enough to keep them!", who is to say that future purchases (of other clubs rejects) may not turn out to be as good (or better for us) that those that will be leaving. Who is to say that our current manager will not mould a sucessful team without recruting and dicarding players on a whim with the help of an open cheque book and naive chairman as in the past. Even if the worst happens next season and we struggle and get relegated, we would still remain a league club. Which would we prefer to have to support? a league club or a club starting in the very minor non leagues a la AFC Wimbledon or Aldershot before them.? I am not for one moment saying that people do not have the right to their own views and opinions, but like stfcphil and a few others I do wish that critisiscm would be constructive and that accusations made are based on fact and not just hearsay/rumour. No doubt I will now be vilfied by various posters who seem to love the sound of their own voice, but without offering any constructive suggestions, but surely some of you out there must agree with me?[/p][/quote]I think among the true representation of fans Moonraker, many would agree with us. Unfortunately, this forum is not a true representation of fans. Some have very valid views and opinions, but there are many who just use it as a means to vent their own frustration and vitriol rather than be logical or constructive. However, if that is therapeutic for them, who are we to complain about it.[/p][/quote]What many Swindon fans dont understand is that we are a very small club with a fan base of around 7500.. We had a mega rich chairman in Black and some how J Wray frucked it up big time.. AND THE REST IS HISTORY DarrenSTFCRomain
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Wed 15 May 13

MilkyM says...

i thought the winner of the toss for a penalty shootout could decide either to go first or second OR which end they wanted , with the loser of the toss having second choice ,
i thought the winner of the toss for a penalty shootout could decide either to go first or second OR which end they wanted , with the loser of the toss having second choice , MilkyM
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Wed 15 May 13

Di kanny oh says...

I see Leeds are in for Thompson, can they sign him on a free as I thought we could invoke the year extension so would get a fee if the case. I think by the time Jed the Red gets back we could be quite a few players light. I bet some foreign country has been accepting our season ticket money in large doses hey Jed while you've been away sunning yourself. Expect K Mac to be looking at hair transplants very soon, working for this bunch of Hill Billies.
I see Leeds are in for Thompson, can they sign him on a free as I thought we could invoke the year extension so would get a fee if the case. I think by the time Jed the Red gets back we could be quite a few players light. I bet some foreign country has been accepting our season ticket money in large doses hey Jed while you've been away sunning yourself. Expect K Mac to be looking at hair transplants very soon, working for this bunch of Hill Billies. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Wed 15 May 13

Di kanny oh says...

mancrobin wrote:
Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less.

Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over!

For my money, the critical failure factors were:
Wray was far too soft on DiCanio,
DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child,
Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale,
There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference,
The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion,
KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances,
The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages.

Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'.

We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14.

Can't wait.
Excellent Post and echo's my views entirely. We all blame Di Canio for the spending but Wray was just as bad allowing him to do it and fleecing Black in the process. Spencer was the main benefactor from the spend spend spend with nearly half a million quid in the bank. Not bad wages over 25 grand a month and much much more than what the players were earning.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.[/p][/quote]Excellent Post and echo's my views entirely. We all blame Di Canio for the spending but Wray was just as bad allowing him to do it and fleecing Black in the process. Spencer was the main benefactor from the spend spend spend with nearly half a million quid in the bank. Not bad wages over 25 grand a month and much much more than what the players were earning. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Wed 15 May 13

Okus Road says...

Red1681 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.
Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do.

I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.
Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post.
I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule.
Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable.
After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.
Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be.
The penalty shoot vs Wimbledon in season before last was at the empty Stratton Bank end.
But the majority at the CG seem to have been at the Town End.
It shouldn't have been decided on a penalty shoot out if the away goals rule was in force, as happens in most 2 leg games.

Still trust the FL to be different and not give the team that scores more goals away from home if it finishes all level.

Never mind soon be August and back to watching the town with a very different team
[quote][p][bold]Red1681[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Brentford finished higher then us and as a result had home advantage in the 2nd leg and also the end that the penalties were taken at...no issues there in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Tend to agree. We finished 5 points behind them, lost twice to them in the season proper and couldn't get the better of them over 2 extra games. They deserve promotion far more than we do. I'm not sure that there's a great advantage in taking the penalties in front of your own fans anyway (we won the shootout at Charlton at the opposite end to us), but I do share OS's view that the toss of a coin would seem to be a better method than the ref choosing where the pens will be taken. Not that bothered about it though.[/p][/quote]Whether Brentford finished higher than us or not, or whether they actually deserved to get to Wembley has no relevance whatsoever to my post. I happen to think that if the penalties are taken in front of your own fans, it is a huge advantage, but of course there will always be some exceptions to the rule. Once the four Play-off teams are established, the only advantages given are quite rightly that the teams that finish 3rd or 4th get to play the second leg at home, and therefore extra time if applicable. After that, the rules should provide a fair competition, which it obviously doesn't if the referee decides the end arbitrarily.[/p][/quote]Hang on! I agreed with you that the toss of a coin would be better. But they've got to be taken at one end or the other, so you're never going to please everyone. I suppose it could be changed so that each team takes its penalties at its chosen end but then it would be impractical to have alternate penalties. But does the ref decide arbitrarily or is he instructed that they have to be taken at the "home end"? - as that's where they always seem to be.[/p][/quote]The penalty shoot vs Wimbledon in season before last was at the empty Stratton Bank end. But the majority at the CG seem to have been at the Town End.[/p][/quote]It shouldn't have been decided on a penalty shoot out if the away goals rule was in force, as happens in most 2 leg games. Still trust the FL to be different and not give the team that scores more goals away from home if it finishes all level. Never mind soon be August and back to watching the town with a very different team Okus Road
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Wed 15 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

mancrobin wrote:
Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.
Mancrobin,

I have to say that this to me is a pretty good way to sum up the season.

What happens next season, well i guess at the moment it depends on whether your glass is half full or half empty but I suspect there will be a few twists.

Mine glass is half full and I am looking forward to seeing a few younger players hopefully put the older journeymen to shame.

If this happens we could be in for a good season or three :-)

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.[/p][/quote]Mancrobin, I have to say that this to me is a pretty good way to sum up the season. What happens next season, well i guess at the moment it depends on whether your glass is half full or half empty but I suspect there will be a few twists. Mine glass is half full and I am looking forward to seeing a few younger players hopefully put the older journeymen to shame. If this happens we could be in for a good season or three :-) COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

12:10am Thu 16 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

Di kanny oh wrote:
I see Leeds are in for Thompson, can they sign him on a free as I thought we could invoke the year extension so would get a fee if the case. I think by the time Jed the Red gets back we could be quite a few players light. I bet some foreign country has been accepting our season ticket money in large doses hey Jed while you've been away sunning yourself. Expect K Mac to be looking at hair transplants very soon, working for this bunch of Hill Billies.
DKO,

While you may not believe in the board IMO they have done little wrong other than fail to communicate as well as some might hope. Assuming that they are pocketing money and spending it abroad is a bit like me telling your employers (if you are not self-employed) that I think you may steal from them because I don't like you for some reason.

To set your mind at ease regarding Nathan. He has been offered a contract at Swindon therefore, due to his age, Leeds must pay a fee for him. If he refuses our offer and accepts a contract with Leeds the fee will be set by Tribunal (this is how we acquired Collins and Troy). If he accepts Town's offer of a contract then Leeds will have to make an offer that is acceptable to Town to buy him (this is what happened with Bodin going to Torquay).

The above also applies to Flint and Louis Thompson. Other members of the Town squad that currently are within contract could only leave if an offer is made to buy them that is accepted by us or Town agree to let them go on a free.


There is speculation as to who might stay and who might go but every player, including Ritchie when he was here, has a price. We did let Ritchie go cheaply having rejected £900,000 but it is explained in this article why that happened and if Jed had not come in there could have been a few more departing at a bargain price.

Football finance is very unstable and with the uncertain financial climate we could see other clubs that are being supported by a rich backer, including Bournemouth, in a similar position to ours next season. If this happens we may see Matt or another teams star move for much less than their true value. Imagine Chelsea or Man City losing their backing, Aguerro or Oscar for £5M anyone !!!!

For this reason I see a move to a more sustainable, living within your means approach, to be better in the long run. Jed might not be the right person to give us that but then again, given a chance, he might. Keep saying it but, time will tell.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: I see Leeds are in for Thompson, can they sign him on a free as I thought we could invoke the year extension so would get a fee if the case. I think by the time Jed the Red gets back we could be quite a few players light. I bet some foreign country has been accepting our season ticket money in large doses hey Jed while you've been away sunning yourself. Expect K Mac to be looking at hair transplants very soon, working for this bunch of Hill Billies.[/p][/quote]DKO, While you may not believe in the board IMO they have done little wrong other than fail to communicate as well as some might hope. Assuming that they are pocketing money and spending it abroad is a bit like me telling your employers (if you are not self-employed) that I think you may steal from them because I don't like you for some reason. To set your mind at ease regarding Nathan. He has been offered a contract at Swindon therefore, due to his age, Leeds must pay a fee for him. If he refuses our offer and accepts a contract with Leeds the fee will be set by Tribunal (this is how we acquired Collins and Troy). If he accepts Town's offer of a contract then Leeds will have to make an offer that is acceptable to Town to buy him (this is what happened with Bodin going to Torquay). The above also applies to Flint and Louis Thompson. Other members of the Town squad that currently are within contract could only leave if an offer is made to buy them that is accepted by us or Town agree to let them go on a free. There is speculation as to who might stay and who might go but every player, including Ritchie when he was here, has a price. We did let Ritchie go cheaply having rejected £900,000 but it is explained in this article why that happened and if Jed had not come in there could have been a few more departing at a bargain price. Football finance is very unstable and with the uncertain financial climate we could see other clubs that are being supported by a rich backer, including Bournemouth, in a similar position to ours next season. If this happens we may see Matt or another teams star move for much less than their true value. Imagine Chelsea or Man City losing their backing, Aguerro or Oscar for £5M anyone !!!! For this reason I see a move to a more sustainable, living within your means approach, to be better in the long run. Jed might not be the right person to give us that but then again, given a chance, he might. Keep saying it but, time will tell. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

8:20am Thu 16 May 13

chrystovski says...

unrelated but I found an interesting article via the Washbag on our friend Phil Spencer and his player recruitment skills at STFC.

Interesting read if you haven't seen it.

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/sport/football/n
ews/sunderland-tell-
paolo-di-canio-18697
98
unrelated but I found an interesting article via the Washbag on our friend Phil Spencer and his player recruitment skills at STFC. Interesting read if you haven't seen it. http://www.mirror.co .uk/sport/football/n ews/sunderland-tell- paolo-di-canio-18697 98 chrystovski
  • Score: 0

8:49am Thu 16 May 13

Oxon-Red says...

chrystovski wrote:
unrelated but I found an interesting article via the Washbag on our friend Phil Spencer and his player recruitment skills at STFC. Interesting read if you haven't seen it. http://www.mirror.co .uk/sport/football/n ews/sunderland-tell- paolo-di-canio-18697 98
Very interesting, I wonder how this has gone down at chez Paolo !

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: unrelated but I found an interesting article via the Washbag on our friend Phil Spencer and his player recruitment skills at STFC. Interesting read if you haven't seen it. http://www.mirror.co .uk/sport/football/n ews/sunderland-tell- paolo-di-canio-18697 98[/p][/quote]Very interesting, I wonder how this has gone down at chez Paolo ! COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

9:42am Thu 16 May 13

hertz says...

News breaking Tweet just in , it states next on the casualty list to be shipped out might be our own Rockin Robin , while checking finances the new board discovered RR has been on Hire Perches .
Boom Booom COYR
News breaking Tweet just in , it states next on the casualty list to be shipped out might be our own Rockin Robin , while checking finances the new board discovered RR has been on Hire Perches . Boom Booom COYR hertz
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 16 May 13

stutest says...

I saw that as well.
It seems RR has been feathering his own nestt!!
I saw that as well. It seems RR has been feathering his own nestt!! stutest
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 16 May 13

Swindon1984 says...

mancrobin wrote:
Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.
Top post, brief, to the point, couldn't agree more.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.[/p][/quote]Top post, brief, to the point, couldn't agree more. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Thu 16 May 13

pog702 says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
mancrobin wrote:
Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.
Top post, brief, to the point, couldn't agree more.
Concise, to the point and spot on thanks Swindon1984
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Interesting to look back with the aid of such a good succinct review of the season. A 'hot' debrief no less. Already, the article has been used to prop us positions held already and yet again managed to spark chat room disputes. Never a dull moment even when the season's over! For my money, the critical failure factors were: Wray was far too soft on DiCanio, DiCanio did face broken promises but reacted like a child, Black finally ran out of patience and put the club at huge risk with a fire sale, There were no alternatives to Jed's offer except administration and life in the Conference, The sale of Ritchie saw goodbye to automatic promotion, KMac has come in and done a very credible job in the circumstances, The Board seem unable to come out with clear, consistent messages. Failure was not due to Storey missing a penalty or that some feel the ref was a 'homer'. We live to see another day and probably due for another abnormal season in 13/14. Can't wait.[/p][/quote]Top post, brief, to the point, couldn't agree more.[/p][/quote]Concise, to the point and spot on thanks Swindon1984 pog702
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Thu 16 May 13

pog702 says...

Sorry thanks mancrobin
Sorry thanks mancrobin pog702
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree